Lords Sitting of 19 May 1874

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—Second Beading—Court of Judicature (Ireland) (57); Courts (Straits Settlements) * (60).
Committee—Report—Oyster and Mussel Fisheries Orders Confirmation * (36); East India Annuity Funds (51).
Third Reading—Boundaries of Archdeaconries and Rural Deaneries* (28), and passed.

COURT OF JUDICATURE (IRELAND) BILL. (No. 57.)
(The Lord Chancellor)
COURT OF JUDICATURE (IRELAND) BILL. (No. 57.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the day for the Second Reading, read.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a"—(The, Lord Chancellor.)
  LORD REDESDALEsaid, he would remind their Lordships that he had placed on the Paper, Notice of a Resolution, the effect of which would be to continue their Lordships' House as the Final Court of Appeal for England, Ireland, and Scotland. The Resolution necessarily applied to the Judicature Act, which had been passed last Session, in regard to England, but he hoped their Lordships would permit him to take advantage of the present Bill to indicate the course he proposed to ask their Lordships to adopt in order to remove all objections to the continuance of the Appellate Jurisdiction in their Lordships' House; for it would be wrong in him to make any proposal adverse to the Court of Appeal constituted by this Bill, unless he could suggest some better tribunal, and that he believed he could do. The course which he should recommend, was, in short, that they should revert to the practice of ancient times. In those days it was not the practice for the whole House to exercise its jurisdiction in private cases. The Journals of the proceedings of the House commenced with the first year of the reign of Henry VIII. So far back as that time it was recorded in those Journals that at the commencement of a new Parliament certain Peers were appointed "Triers of Petitions," and among the reasons for appointing them was this one—"that justice may be more quickly, commodiously, and diligently performed." The custom prevailed even before the House

  457
  began to keep Journals, as might be seen in the Rolls of Parliament. It would appear that Bishops and Abbots were the persons chiefly appointed, probably because in olden times they were, from the education they had received, best qualified to exercise the legal jurisdiction of their Lordships' House. With these were associated the Judges, the Serjeants-at-Law, and others. The appointment of Triers of Petitions at the opening of every Parliament was continued at the present day; but their functions had been absorbed into the jurisdiction of the whole House; and now-a-days no Spiritual Lords were ever appointed Triers. In the lapse of time—he doubted whether it was very much earlier than the reign of Charles H.—the whole House claimed to exorcise that jurisdiction; but for a very long period the practice was abandoned, and the hearing of appeals was left to the Law Lords exclusively. Though in practice he believed no injury had arisen to any one from the lay Lords taking part in the judicial business, the House, when abandoning that practice, was only returning to what was the ancient practice of naming particular Peers to perform those functions. As he had stated, at the commencement of each Parliament, there was a regular appointment in Norman French of Receivers and Triers of Petitions; and they were appointed to try Petitions not only from all parts of the United Kingdom, but also from Gascony and the Islands beyond the seas—the Channel Islands. Now, what he would propose was a strict return to the old practice by actually appointing Triers, who should be Law Lords, to hear the appeals brought to their Lordships' House. Three objections were urged against the House of Lords as the Supreme Court of Appeal. The first was, that Peers not in any way qualified, either by intellect or legal training, might, if they chose to do so, sit to hear and determine appeals, which required the utmost legal learning and experience; the second, that the Court was one which did not sit throughout the whole of the legal year; and the third, that there might be a time when there would not be in their Lordships' House a sufficient number of qualified Peers to administer the law in appeal cases. He thought that the first of those objections could be
  458
  met conclusively by the plan he had just indicated—the appointment of Triers—which would be no more than the revival of an ancient constitutional precedent. The Triers to hear appeals would be specially nominated, and no other Member of the House would be allowed to interfere with them in the discharge of that duty. The second objection in volved a constitutional point, as a proposal that one House of Parliament should be allowed to sit when the other was not, had met with strong opposition—but the same objection would not be felt to permitting the Triers of Petitions to sit throughout the legal year as the persons delegated by the House to ad minister law. No political or legislative business could be transacted by them, for the Triers would only sit for the discharge of judicial functions, a duty to which the Commons made no claim. As to the third objection—the insufficient number of qualified Peers—last Session he proposed, with the view of meeting it, the bringing in of certain judicial person ages to represent the Law in their Lord ships' House as the Bishops did the Church. This would entail no additional expense whatever. He knew that his noble Friend on the Woolsack had been very unwilling to see the House part with its legal jurisdiction, and in order to prevent that from being done, had pro posed an alternative plan on a Select Committee upstairs. When the noble and learned Lord who introduced the Bill of last year (Lord Selborne) was practising barrister, he had a very extensive practice at the bar of their Lordships' House, and therefore his experience enabled him to judge of the manner in which justice was administered by that House. Well, when it was proposed to appoint two Deputy Speakers to act under the Lord Chancellor, the noble and learned Lord, who was at that time a Member of the House of Commons, asked whether it would not be better, if possible, to establish a good Court of Appeal in the House of Lords for the Three Kingdoms, than to constitute for the purpose a new tribunal, the success of which no one could foretell.
  THE EARL OF BELMOREwished to make a few remarks upon this Bill. There were many things in it which could not be discussed with advantage by a lay Peer; but still it was a measure which was attracting a great deal

  459
  of attention in Ireland, and he therefore wished to make a few observations. In the first place, he desired to congratulate the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack on the approval his measure had received from the general public, and he understood that since the Bill had been printed, the objections which had been at first felt to it in some quarters had been a good deal modified. At the same time he wished his noble and learned Friend had preserved their Lordships' House as the Final Court of Appeal. He would remind their Lordships that even when introducing the English Judicature Bill the noble and learned Lord (Lord Selborne) said there was no evidence that in Ireland there was a desire for any other Court of Final Appeal than the House of Lords, and that he proposed to leave things as they were till Irish opinion demanded a change. He quite agreed, however, with the decision to which the noble and learned Lord had come with regard to placing Irish and Scotch Judges on the Court of Appeal. Had he Yielded to the demand that a proportion of the Court should necessarily consist of Irish and Scotch Judges, the result would have been the introduction into the Judicature of a system similar to that which had heretofore prevailed in Ireland, and which was so very unsatisfactory, of appointing persons to important offices, whether magisterial or executive, or that of a juror, because they belonged to a particular religious denomination. He was glad that the jurisdiction of the Court for Land Cases Reserved was to be transferred to the new Court of Intermediate Appeal, and that the jurisdiction of the Landed Estates Court was to be enlarged. The delays in the Landed Estate Court had been considerable. He had been a petitioner in one case in which there was only a single creditor. He filed his petition in 1862, but did not succeed in getting a sale till 1865. He did not receive his money till a year after that; and owing to a fall in the Funds, which occurred in the interval, he lost several hundred pounds. He was petitioner in another case, and although the proceedings were commenced in 1862, they were not concluded yet. He saw that it was proposed they should still retain at the head of the Exchequer Division of the Court a Judge bearing
  460
  the title of Lord Chief Baron. Now, it was proposed to abolish the Barons of the Exchequer, and they would therefore have a Chief Baron who would be Chief over nobody. It was a verbal criticism, no doubt, but he could not see the force of retaining the title of Chief Baron for a Judge who would have no Barons sitting with him. He was no advocate of unnecessary offices; but there was an opinion in Ireland that the proposed reduction in the number of Judges was not wise. He knew that there was an opinion abroad which was not fair to the Irish Bench—it was said that they were over-manned, and that some of the Irish Judges had not enough to do. But that was a mistake. He could speak of all the Common Law Judges; but he was informed that there was one Judge in Ireland who sat from 10 in the morning till 5 in the evening during ten months of the year. It might be that a better distribution of the judicial business was called for. It was intended to reduce the number of the circuits to five, and he was further informed that all the Judges would be on circuit at the same time. He thought it would have been better to transfer the existing Court of Bankruptcy to that Division of the Court of Judicature which was to be composed of the present Court of Exchequer rather than, as was proposed, to the Chancery Division. The six circuits could then be maintained, and one Judge could remain in town whilst the circuits were out. There was another point, and that not the least important, which also required consideration. He referred to the salaries and position of the future Judges of Appeal in Ireland. Attention had been called to-day by a very eminent Judge to the Court of Intermediate Appeal—and information had reached him to the same effect—that none of the Puisne Judges in Ireland would take the office of Lord Justice of Appeal, because the pay would be only the same as that of Puisne Judge, while the Registrar of the Puisne Judge who took the office would lose £200 a-year. He thought it would be well if his noble and learned Friend raised the salary of the Lords Justices of Appeal to £4,500 a-year—to make the position of Lord Justice so far preferable to that of ordinary Judges, that the best men on the Irish Bench and Bar would seek

  461
  the office. He did not know that he need say any more. He observed that by the 35th clause power was given to the Lord Lieutenant in Council to abolish any of the Divisions of the High Court. This was, he was aware, copied from the English Act, and was a power not likely at present to be exercised; but still he was of opinion that in a matter of so much importance, it would have been better for Parliament to have kept the power in its own hands.
  LORD O'HAGANthought that this was not the time for going into the details of the Bill—but he would repeat his approval of the general principle of the measure. It appeared to him impossible to avoid establishing a High Court of Judicature in Ireland, as one had been established for England by the Act of last year. An Intermediate Court of Appeal was an absolute necessity, and without it justice could not be effectually done in Ireland. The majority of cases which came before the existing Courts were so small that they would not bear the expense of an appeal to England; the majority were disposed of finally on the first appeal, and so they would continue to be. The question as to the constitution of the High Court of Ultimate Appeal for the United Kingdom was not yet before their Lordships—It would be raised on the Resolution of which the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees had given Notice, urging such a new constitution of their Lordships' House for the discharge of judicial business as might make it a complete and satisfactory Appellate tribunal for the whole Empire. He thought the noble Lord's proposition was worthy of great consideration. He did not know that it had ever been thoroughly discussed as the case of England; but certainly it never had been as the case of Ireland or of Scotland. He entertained a very strong opinion on the subject; and in Ireland the feeling was decided, and he believed universal, for the maintenance of the ancient Appellate Jurisdiction of their Lordships' House. He would ask his noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack to postpone the Committee on the Bill as long as possible Its details would have to be carefully examined, and both branches of the legal profession in Ireland were taking steps to have it considered accordingly. He did not think it at all
  462
  so clear as his noble and learned Friend supposed, that there was an excess of judicial strength in Ireland. It was his opinion, and that of others, that this Bill would very much increase the business of the Superior Courts in that country and he hoped that his noble and learned Friend would pause before he pressed the reduction of the number of Irish Judges, without adequate inquiry or careful preparation for the future.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, my noble Friend the Chairman of Committees, who is invariable on the view he takes of the Appellate Jurisdiction of this House, has adopted a very legitimate course on this occasion, his object being not so much to invite discussion as to indicate the proposal he will submit to your Lordships when the Bill to amend the Judicature Act of last year comes to be discussed by this House. That being so, I will not detain your Lordships at any length on this point. I may, however, observe in relation to my noble Friend's reference to the antiquated practice of appointing Triers, which it appears is still kept up at the commencement of each Parliament, that if your Lordships will look to the proceedings which were taken three years ago before a Select Committee, you will find that we then went into the whole question, and considered the plan of appointing Triers. I do not seek to disguise that it was always my wish to find means to preserve the Appellate Jurisdiction of this House, and with that view I made some proposals to the Committee; but those proposals were not received with much approbation either in this House or out of it. I am sure, however, that the proposition of my noble Friend will be considered with great interest and attention by your Lordships when he brings it before the House. My Lords, as something has been said about the opinion of Scotland and Ireland on the subject of the Appellate Jurisdiction of this House, I wish that there should be no mistake on this point. I have seen the statement made—and I think it has been repeated to-night—that it was the unanimous opinion of the Scotch Judges that the ultimate appeal to this House should be retained for Scotland. Now, the Lord Justice General has been good enough

  463
  to forward me the resolution or resolutions, for there are two, of the Scotch Judges on this subject. In the first of these they state that while they value very highly the Appellate Jurisdiction of this House, and think that the way in which justice has been administered here has been of great benefit to Scotland, yet as, by the Act of last Session that jurisdiction was abolished in the case of England, and if it were now to cease in respect of Ireland, that might afford a practical objection to its being retained for Scotland. The resolution then goes on to say that the Judges are unanimously of opinion that the retention of the Appellate Jurisdiction of this House for England, Ireland, and Scotland would be preferable to the plan proposed by the other Bill of a Supreme Court of Ultimate Appeal. As I understand it, the Judges express themselves to this effect—"We should like Scotch appeals to go to the House of Lords, but not Scotch appeals alone. We would have you undo the Act of last Session, and retain the House of Lords as the Ultimate Court of Appeal for England, Ireland, and Scotland." And, my Lords, though the opinion expressed in Ireland is not before me, I believe I am correct in stating it to be this—that the Appellate Jurisdiction of your Lordships' House ought not to be retained for Irish appeals alone, but that it ought to be retained in the full manner proposed by my noble Friend the Chairman of Committees. With respect to what my noble and learned Friend the late Lord Chancellor of Ireland (Lord O'Hagan) has said on this subject, I cannot help feeling some regret that last Session, when we were engaged in considering the question of abolishing this Ultimate Jurisdiction in the case of England, we had not the advantage of hearing from him that it was a mistake which we ought not to have fallen into, and that we ought not to have consented to abandon our function of giving final judgment on appeals. As to the objections made to the details of the Bill now before the House by my noble Friend (the Earl of Belmore), nothing is more agreeable to me than criticism coming from one connected with Ireland, and who brings such intelligence to bear upon all subjects to which he addresses himself. As to our retaining the title of Lord Chief Baron, this is only follow-
  464
  ing the precedent in the English Act. The titles of the Chiefs of the Courts do not suggest that there are other Judges of inferior rank with somewhat similar titles, but will suggest that the persons who bear these titles are Judges of high Judicial rank. We are now fusing all the Courts into one, and we retain these titles with the view of having a certain number of the greatest judicial officers in the Supreme Court. Now, as to the business to be discharged by the Irish Puisne Judges after the passing of the Bill, the Court of Exchequer Chamber in which the Puisne Judges now sit for a considerable portion of their time, will be swept away. In the next place one Judge will preside over the Court for the criminal business of the city and the county of Dublin, instead of two. Again, the Court for Crown Cases Reserved will be abolished; and in the Divisions of the High Court two or three Judges may sit instead of the present number of four for each of the Common Law Courts. Then there will be only five circuits instead of six. What is proposed to be done in Ireland with respect to reducing the number of the Judges is only a following of what Parliament did last year when it dispensed with three of the English Judges. If, as my noble and learned Friend (Lord O'Hagan) anticipates, there should be a considerable increase of litigation in the Irish Courts under this Bill—though I do not know that such a result is to be desired—Parliament will be always ready to hear a representation as to additional judicial strength being required. My noble Friend (the Earl of Belmore) suggests that the Bankruptcy Court should be transferred to the Court of Exchequer instead of, as he says, to the Court of Chancery. But my noble Friend is under a misapprehension in supposing that the Court of Bankruptcy is to be abolished under the Bill. The question of Bankruptcy jurisdiction is different in Ireland from what it is in England. In England bankruptcy is scattered throughout the whole country, and is administered by the County Court Judges. In Ireland it is not so—there, bankruptcy is administered in Dublin alone, and by two Judges who sit in that city. Those two Judges are preserved—and for the simple reason that they cannot be dispensed with. It is the appeals in bankruptcy that are dealt with by this

  465
  Bill and they are transferred to the Chancery Division of the Supreme Court for decision. Then we come to the Court of Appeal, and the noble Earl repeats observations which we have seen elsewhere not long ago. All I can say, my Lords, is that I am not afraid of not being able to obtain competent Judges for the Court of Appeal in Ireland. At the same time I am not going to unsay what I said when the question of the English Court of Appeal was before Parliament last year. I regret that the salary of the Judges of the Court of Appeal in this country was settled by the other House of Parliament at £5,000 instead of at £6,000—the sum which I think was fixed by your Lordships' House. But taking into account the difference of things in the two countries I think a Judicial salary of £4,000 a-year in Ireland may be very fairly regarded as equivalent to one of £5,000 in England; and, therefore, having regard to what was done by Parliament last year, I am of opinion that you could not propose a higher salary than £4,000 for the Judges of Appeal in Ireland. Parliament ought not to be niggardly in these matters; but you must open up the whole question as regards both countries if you go into the objection as to the salaries in Ireland. My noble Friend said he understood that on the terms offered, no Puisne Judge in Ireland would accept a Justiceship of Appeal. I think it would be better to defer that till the time comes for appointing to the office. The offer would probably then be answered in a more satisfactory manner. As to the Committee on the Bill, I propose to take it either on the Tuesday or on the Thursday in the week after the Whitsuntide Recess.
  LORD SELBORNE: In reference to a quotation made by the noble Lord the Chairman of the Committees from a speech made by me in the House of Commons some years ago, I think my opinion last year is at least an answer to any opinion I may have expressed on the same subject in former years. I do not claim any authority for my opinion, but if it had any authority I think my present opinion is better than my opinion some years ago, and my present opinion is most deliberately my opinion of last year. I should view with regret any disposition on your Lordships' part to undo what you did last year. The
  466
  opinions of the profession in Scotland and Ireland ought, of course, to be received with respectful consideration. I must, however, remark that the opinion expressed by the Lord Chief Justice of England was known a year before my Bill was introduced; the Bill itself was in the hands of the English Judges the moment it was introduced. I heard no objection from any of the Judges to the constitution of the new Court of Ultimate Appeal, and several of the Judges expressed their concurrence in the views of the Lord Chief Justice. From Scotland or Ireland no objection whatever was offered; and afterwards, as everybody knew, they asked, not that English appeals should still go to the House of Lords, but that Scotch and Irish appeals should go, under proper arrangements, to the new Court of Appeal.
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Tuesday the 2nd of June next.

EAST INDIA ANNUITY FUNDS BILL.
(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
EAST INDIA ANNUITY FUNDS BILL.

  (NO. 51.) COMMITTEE.
  House in Committee (according to Order.)
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I trust I may be allowed to make an explanation in reference to a statement I made to the House a short time since. At an earlier period of the Session I quoted a despatch from the Viceroy of India which spoke of the neglect of some of the local officers in making the requisite preparations for the transport of grain in the districts afflicted by famine. As I did so, I think it only right to quote the words of a despatch which I received by the last mail, and in which the Viceroy modifies in some respect the terms of the despatch from which I had quoted, and expresses a high opinion of the efforts made by the local officers in the various stages of the famine. I should observe also that the former remarks appear to have applied only to a portion of one district—Tirhoot—and his observations were not to be applied to any other district so afflicted. But what I particularly desire to do is to quote the high opinion of the Viceroy as to the exertions of those officers. The opinion of the Viceroy is that after the

  467
  date formerly mentioned, the officers had exerted themselves greatly to mitigate the horrors of the famine. The Viceroy there says—
  "In respect to Sir George Campbell's personal services, we have already acknowledged the zeal and ability with which from the first he devoted himself to the arduous task of conducting the operations for the relief of distress, and we have particularly recorded our high appreciation of the manner in which he personally directed and supervised, the relief operations on the occasion of his visit to North Behar. As regards the officers who acted under Sir George Campbell's orders, in spite of a temporary failure in one portion of the Tirhoot district, we cannot speak too highly of the zeal, energy, and devotion which they have from the first displayed. These officers deserve our warmest thanks; they deserve and they will obtain our cordial support in the performance of their arduous duties."
  I think it is but right that I should quote this despatch to your Lordships.
  VISCOUNT HALIFAXexpressed the pleasure which it gave him to hear the noble Marquess make that statement to the House, as the former statement had caused a great deal of soreness amongst some of the officers in India. It would tend very much to soothe the feelings of those officers who before thought themselves unjustly censured.
  Bill reported without Amendment; and to be read 3a on Thursday next.

MALAY PENINSULA.

  ADDRESS FOR CORRESPONDENCE.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYrose to call the attention of the House to the proceedings of the Straits Government in the Malay Peninsula, and to move that an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty for Copy of the Correspondence. His Lordship (who was very imperfectly heard) was understood to say that, while disclaiming any hostility to the noble Earl the Secretary of State for the Colonies, to the late Secretary of State, or to Sir Andrew Clarke, who had done good service in the posts he had previously filled, and against whom the only reproach that could be made was, that he had not been long enough in the East to have learned to avoid the evils of precipitation, and that he had not taken sufficient time to ascertain the value of the counsel that might be offered to him, he felt it to be his duty to warn Her Majesty's Government against giving its sanction to the plans of the Straits Go-
  468
  vernment, by which it would not only be entering into equivocal and entangling engagements, but would be embarking in a course which must inevitably lead to the invasion and conquest of the whole of the Malay Peninsula. The Straits Government were projecting an encroachment upon two independent Malay States—Perak and Salangore. He would take first the case of Perak, a statement of which was published in The Times on the 5th of May, and The Times' Correspondent, though apparently advocating the action of the local Government, had the honesty to point out that this interference might probably drag us into another Ashantee business. There had been for some time a state of anarchy in Laroot, a district of Perak, caused by fights between different parties of Chinese miners from Penang. This anarchy had been increased by a Mantri, or Minister of the Sultan of Perak, setting up as ruler of Laroot. Captain Speedy went to that country some time ago and recruited Sepoys from India for the service of the Mantri. That recruiting was stopped by the Indian Government; but he believed Captain Speedy was still at Laroot, and he asked for information on that point. The Straits Government appeared to have taken advantage of this anarchy—for not preventing, at least, a part of which it was responsible since the Chinese disturbers of the peace came from Penang—to arbitrate between the different parties in opposition at Perak, as described in the statement published in The Times. But the object was in reality to impose upon the Sultan of Perak two British officials, to be called Resident and Assistant Resident, to be paid out of the Perak revenues, and with powers which would make them the virtual rulers of the country, since nothing was to be done without asking their advice. The Straits Government had also exacted the cession of two strips of territory, one along the frontier of Province Wellesley, not of much importance, but the other 25 miles long by five broad, near Pulo Binding, was exacted under a Treaty drawn up in. 1826, but never ratified or accepted by the East India Company, and now brought out from the oblivion in which it had remained till lately. The report in The Times showed that this had been

  469
  yielded under pressure only; and he asked Her Majesty's Government if this Treaty of 1826 was still valid, why that of 1819 with Achin was not equally valid and binding. He entreated Her Majesty's Government not to allow the officials to whom he had referred to be called Residents—a title which in Java was equivalent to that of Governor, and which in British India was associated with annexation—and, above all, to appoint respectable persons, responsible to the Home Government and independent of Singapore local interests and influences. An article in The Penang Gazette, of January 8th, 1874, contained the following words—
  "We hear that it has been determined by the British Government to proclaim a Protectorate over the territories of Salangore. No well-wisher to the Straits, or man of common sense, can gainsay the wisdom of this measure as far as it goes; but it is, to say the most of it, only a half one. The time has arrived when, on the broad grounds of humanity, as the paramount power in these waters, and in discharge of a sacred duty, the British should put a stop to the atrocities which the weak rule of the Malayan Chiefs, and the consequent anarchy existing in their territories, have made so common of late. …. The only cure for this state of things lies in, either directly annexing the whole of the Peninsula from the River Kreean to Johore, or the establishment of a Protectorate over the same area."
  Now, a letter from Singapore, of March 26th, in The Morning Post of May 11th, reporting a speech of the Governor, Sir Andrew Clarke, to the Council, and the address or reply of the Council, stated—
  "It is no exaggeration to say, in the language of the Governor's address, that the protraction of the war in Achin has seriously prejudiced our trade with the ports in the north of Sumatra. But beyond this dissatisfaction with the disturbance of commercial operations that has been thus caused, the feeling of the colony is decidedly with the Achinese, and against the attacking Power, and intervention on the part of the British Government to bring about a settlement of the quarrel would be hailed with the greatest satisfaction by the whole of our community. The Sultan of Achin is an ancient and faithful ally of England, for which country both he and his brave people have a strong attachment (their principal fault in the eyes of the Dutch). Yet, we are allowing this independent State to be ruined and crushed by a powerful enemy. It is not yet too late for Great Britain to step in and mediate between the belligerents."
  He maintained that it was odious for a nation, or its governors, or its Press, thus to blow hot and cold with the same mouth, and to advocate for ourselves
  470
  what we condemned on the part of the Dutch; and he implored Her Majesty's Government to consider the bad effect which any annexation in the Malay Peninsula would have in India, and elsewhere. It was with the utmost amazement that he heard the noble Earl the Secretary for the Colonies, when speaking of the Gold Coast, describe with complacency his arrangements for the government of the Straits Settlements after their transfer to the Colonial Office, as though he had found there a tabula rasa without any institutions, whereas whatever he did, judging by the results, had been the reverse of improvement. The noble Earl had neglected to renew or enforce the salutary rule of the East India Company, forbidding their officials to accept presents. The consequence was, the acceptance of presents by the Governor and other officials became so general as to be commented upon by the Singapore Press, and he would read extracts from two letters which had appeared in The Overland Straits Times—
  "It may be well to move to have a Commission—not a jobbed one—to inquire into the practice of H. E., the Governor, of receiving presents from different persons-Native Chiefs and others—and the time and occasion when these presents wore received. … It is known that even subordinates accompanying the Government to neighbouring States take valuable presents from Native authorities, and thus are brought up to perpetuate the evil." …..
  "The subject of present-taking by the Governor is notorious, and that high official in no way conceals the fact. Can the public, however, believe that when a public man publicly takes presents, he will be very particular as to their nature and extent, or be very communicative as to all the good things he may receive. The bold admission that he does receive presents may be but a blind as to their importance and influence. … Are we to have another seven years of present taking?"—(Overland Straits Times, August 23, 1873.)
  The noble Earl (the Earl of Carnarvon) had the ill luck to appoint this Governor, who disorganized the public service, squandered the revenues of the colony on building a house for himself—and for that purpose seized the bricks which the municipality had provided for waterworks and drainage, and on their remonstrating threatened to suppress them—a Governor who had left behind him a reputation which could only be compared to that of a Roman Proconsul of the time of Cicero. It was however, only justice to remind the

  471
  House that the noble Earl had ceased to hold the office of Secretary of State very shortly after he had appointed this Governor, and was, consequently, not responsible for his acts. Under the auspices of the noble Earl, an Attorney General was appointed who had no knowledge of law, and who had been specially passed through Gray's Inn within one year, as he was only to practise in a colony. The noble Earl's successor the Duke of Buckingham was equally unfortunate in the Straits; for when the inhabitants of Singapore petitioned for the maintenance of the independence of the Judges, which they had till then enjoyed, he refused their petition, and his reasons were worse than the refusal itself. Under these circumstances, the purity of administration of the Straits Settlements was not such as to commend itself to the House, or to others, for extension to the Malay Peninsula. He had just met with an anecdote which was applicable to these circumstances: Shortly after the conquest of Persia by Sultan Mahmud of Gazni, a caravan was intercepted by robbers, and some of the merchants killed; the mother of one of these came to complain to Sultan Mahmud, who replied that he could not provide for so remote a portion of his dominions. The woman then boldly asked the Sultan—"Why, then, do you conquer countries which you cannot administer, and for the protection of which you will have to answer at the Day of Judgment." He now came to the case of Salangore. The Sultan of Salangore had three sons, and a daughter married to Tunku Dhya Udin, a brother of the Sultan of Keddah. The Sultan had given extensive powers to his son-in-law Tunku Dhya Udin, but about 1870 he found it necessary to revoke them. Tunku Dhya Udin obtained the support of some of the merchants of Singapore, and money advances from a lawyer, to be repaid, it was said, by a share in the revenue which Tunku Dhya Udin collected. In June, 1871, a Chinese junk sailed from Penang, some Chinese on board seized on the vessel, killed the rest of the crow and passengers, and took the junk into Salangore. Colonel Anson, who was then administering the Straits Government, sent the Pluto in search of this junk. This gave rise to the proceedings and bombardment of Salangore, related in the Papers laid before Parliament in
  472
  1872, from which it appeared that Colonel Anson having given the impression to the Colonial Office that the Salangore Malays were pirates, the late Secretary of State for the Colonies, in his despatch dated September 6, 1871, blamed Colonel Anson for sending the Pluto to Salangore instead of a ship of war. Colonel Anson replied on the 19th October, backing out of the allegation that Salangore was a piratical stronghold, and he wrote—
  "Your Lordship appears to be under the impression that I sent the colonial steamer Pluto with a party of armed police to attack a stronghold of pirates known to exist at Salangore, and, under that impression, very justly blames me for having done so."
  "There had been from time to time complaints of petty piracies along the Malay coast, but it was always supposed that they were committed by small gangs of Malays of bad character, and there was no knowledge of any organized gang of pirates."
  "Merchants of Penang and Singapore traded with Salangore, but they appear to have had no suspicion that the fort there was occupied with any view to piratical purposes, as they made no communication to this Government concerning it."
  On the 26th of September, 1871, the Earl of Kimberley wrote to Acting Governor Anson—
  "In ordinary circumstances, the proper course would have been to make formal application in the first instance to the Sultan for the outrage committed at Salangore, and not to have resorted to force unless the Sultan failed to execute the Treaty, and to make due reparation. But, as it appears from the papers before me, that the chiefs in possession of the government at Salangore were in rebellion against the Sultan's authority, and that the Sultan has expressed his satisfaction at your proceedings, I am not disposed to question the course you pursued need scarcely, however, observe that in dealing with native States, care should always be taken that all means of obtaining redress by peaceful means are exhausted before measures of coercion are employed." ….
  "I observe that Mr. Birch, in the concluding paragraph of his letter to the Sultan, speaks of assistance to be given to the Sultan's Vakeel (Tunku Dhya Udin) in case his authority is disputed. I conclude that this referred to general countenance and support, and that no promise of material assistance was given by Mr. Birch."
  He would further refer to Nos. 21 and 22 of the Parliamentary Papers, from which it appeared that Vice Admiral Sir Henry Kellett gave directions that no such expeditions as that of H.M.S Rinaldo, to Salangore, should be undertaken in future without reference to him; and that these instructions were approved of by Her Majesty's Government; and

  473
  he would observe that similar instructions had been given by the Chief of the Naval Station after the bombardment of Tringgann, and that they appeared to have been forgotten. Tunku Dhya Udin had been supported by the Straits Government against the Sultan of the country and the opinion of the inhabitants. The Straits Government proposed to support him still further by the appointment of a British official with the title of Resident—probably to be paid out of the revenues of Salangore, as in the case of Perak—and who would virtually be the ruler of the country. Should he meet with any difficulties, British forces would be probably required for his support, and they would be committed to hostile operations in a country abounding in forests, and on a coast lined by mangrove thickets. If it were merely desired to assist the States of Salangore and Perak to maintain order and improve their Government, it would have been as easy to do so without committing this country to the possibility of war and annexation, by sending to those States a British official of some experience to act under their authority. An intermediate course between that and the one proposed by the Straits Government would even be better than the plan proposed by the Straits Government—namely, to appoint officials with the title of Consuls taken from the Consular Service and responsible to the Home Government.
  Moved that an humble Address he presented to Her Majesty for, Copy of the correspondence on the proceedings of the Straits Government in the Malay Peninsula.—(The Lord Stanley of Alderley.)
  THE EARL OF CARNARVONsaid, the noble Lord began his remarks by stating that he had no wish whatever to censure either himself (the Earl of Carnarvon) or the noble Earl the late Secretary of State for the Colonies, or the Governor of the Straits Settlements. He quite accepted the expression of the noble Lord's wish with regard to himself; but he was bound to say that, if anything could convey censure upon all the three persons mentioned by the noble Lord, what the noble Lord had just said did so. The noble Lord was not justified by the facts in what he had said. The Act by which the administration of the affairs of the Straits Settlements was trans-
  474
  ferred from the India Office to the Colonial Office, was passed about seven years ago. That Act was the result of an application of the inhabitants of the Straits Settlements to be emancipated from the control of the India Office. The difficulties had arisen from the conduct of the Chinese who had settled in the Peninsula for the purpose of working the mines. Every one was aware how difficult the Chinese were to manage; and the consequence was that factions and feuds between them and the native Rajahs were constantly occurring. The Chinese carried away the wealth of the country—the Rajahs sought to raise their revenues, by levying taxes on the Chinese, who were carrying away their mineral wealth; quarrels arose, and the weaker party driven down to the sea coasts, took to piracy. The consequence was that the Natives desired to be released from the Government of the Indian Empire and placed directly under the control of the Colonial Office. At one time, an appeal was contemplated to the Chinese Government. Under such a complicated state of affairs he thought no Governor ought to be judged severely if he made some mistakes. He believed both the Government and the Administration of the Straits Settlements had been perfectly successful, and this was the first time he had heard they were dissatisfied with the authority of the Colonial Office. The noble Lord had traversed a very wide field of history, of anecdotes, and of Eastern politics, but he (the Earl of Carnarvon) was of opinion that the House did not think it was necessary for him to enter into an apology with regard to all the matters referred to by the noble Lord. The noble Lord had specially referred to two places, Salangore and Perak. Sir Andrew Clarke, the Governor of the Straits Settlements, had sought to apply a remedy by striking at the root of the evil. He had succeeded in putting an end to the impunity which had been practically accorded to the pirates of Salangore. And as to the pirates of Perak, who had been worse than those of Salangore, so far as he (the Earl of Carnarvon) had been able to judge, Sir Andrew Clarke showed remarkable energy in dealing with them. Sir Andrew Clarke seeing that the interests of trade were being ruined by the depredations of these pirates, had con-

  475
  certed measures with the Admiral on the station for putting an end to their proceedings, and with the aid of a naval force had suppressed their piratical pursuits by capturing and burning their boats, and capturing and punishing pirates who had been guilty of most atrocious outrages, and, lastly, by sending an expedition into the interior of Perack to extinguish the sources of piracy. Instead of punishing the captured pirates by his own power and authority he had handed them over to the Chiefs whose subjects they were. He was bound also to say that Sir Andrew Clarke, besides showing the utmost activity in pursuing and capturing the pirates, had organized an expedition of which their Lordships could not but appove—namely, to rescue from the pirates men and women who had been carried off and detained in captivity, and that he had actually recovered upwards of 50 of these unhappy persons. Not only that, he had opened communications with the hostile rulers, had conciliated them by his personal influence, and had bound over some of them under penalties amounting to $50,000 to keep the peace. Besides that, he sent a commission into the interior to adjust differences with regard to mines. Treaties were entered into under which two English officers had been appointed Residents at the native Courts. He (the Earl of Carnarvon) did not see what objection there could be to the appointment of these Residents. The noble Lord objected to the title of these "Residents" and thought they would more appropriately be entitled "Consuls." He (the Earl of Carnarvon) did not object to the former title, and thought that if the Residents confined themselves to their proper and legitimate duties they would be of the highest service both to the country and to the Rajahs. In order to avoid all misapprehension, he wished to add that the Residents had been appointed at the distinct request and entreaty of the Rajahs to whose courts they had been sent. In regard to the question whether the Home Government would approve the proceedings which had been taken, he might state that they were awaiting a further and, as he believed, final report from Sir Andrew Clarke. Till that report came to hand it would, of course, be improper to express any final opinion on the subject,
  476
  but he felt no hesitation in saying that, in so far as he had become acquainted with the proceedings, the conduct of Sir Andrew Clarke seemed to him to deserve approval. A real necessity for intervention had existed. The country had been in a state of terrible misrule, trade had been perilous, and even in our own territory riots had seemed imminent. Under such circumstances, it was but the common duty of an English Governor to do all that was necessary to repress lawlessness and to protect British subjects; and if Sir Andrew Clarke used his personal influence, which undoubtedly was great, in order to discourage animosities and restore peace and order in neighbouring territories—in a region which was one of the fairest under the sun, and which, under wise government, might become as happy and as prosperous as any country—it certainly could not be said, at the worst, that he very far exceeded his duty. It was too early to speak of results, but he might mention that only the other day he received a telegram which implied that trade had already revived, and that the state of the country, in regard to public order, was more satisfactory than it had been for a long time past. As to the Motion for Papers, it was impossible for Government to assent to it. When the Correspondence was complete he would have no desire to withhold it from the public.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, he would not have troubled the House with any remarks, after the satisfactory statement which had just been made, if it had not been that the noble Lord who introduced the subject (Lord Stanley of Alderley) had included in his censures the late as well as the present administration of Colonial Affairs. He sincerely thanked the noble Earl for the defence he had made of the action of the Colonial Office. It must have been seen from the observations of the noble Earl that the administration of the Straits Settlements since the time when they were transferred from the India Office to the Colonial Office had not been quite so bad as had been represented. In regard to the matter of the Salangore pirates, there was some reason for surprise that the noble Lord had allowed three years to elapse before calling attention to it. The proceedings of the Government of the Straits Settlements were not at the

  477
  time challenged in Parliament, and to discuss them now was like dealing with a matter which belonged to past history. It was desirable, however, in fairness to the officers serving in the Straits Settlements, to bear in mind that these pirates had been guilty of the murder of between 30 and 40 peaceful persons who had left Penang on board a junk. He conceived it to be one of the first duties of the British Government towards civilization to take care that piracy did not resume its former condition in those seas. The information which reached the Colonial Office when he was at the head of it in regard to the proceedings of Sir Andrew Clarke was meagre, but the opinion he formed on the materials then before him was favourable to that Governor. Laroot bad for a long time been in a state of extreme disorder, and this disorder had been caused for the most part by Chinese who had left our own territory at Penang. In regard to the details of the intervention and of the Treaty engagements, he wished to reserve his judgment, as he had no information on the subject beyond what he had derived from the Press. He was inclined, however, to think it would be found that Sir Andrew Clarke, in whom he had great confidence, had exercised a wise dircretion in the proceedings he had taken.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYdenied having attacked the new Governor, Sir Andrew Clarke; and repeated that the Salangore Malays could not be called pirates, because part of the Chinese crew of a Chinese junk, shortly after sailing from Penang, had murdered the rest of the crew, as was clearly shown by the Parliamentary Papers.
  On Question, Resolved in the negative.
  House adjourned at a quarter past Seven o'clock to Thursday next, half past Ten o'clock.