Lords Sitting of 16 May 1876

MINUTES.
Public Bills—First Reading—Industrial and Provident Societies* (90).
Second Reading—Chelsea Hospital Accounts* (81).
Second Reading—Referred to Select Committee—Union of Benefices (64).
Report—Supreme Court of Judicature (Ireland) (74).
Third Reading—Tramways Order Confirmation (Wantage)* (61); Gas and Water Orders Confirmation* (55), and passed.

UNION Of BENEFICES BILL—(No. 64.)
(The Lord Bishop of Exeter.)
UNION Of BENEFICES BILL—(No. 64.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  THE BISHOP OF EXETER, in moving that the Bill be now read the second time, said, that last Session he introduced a Bill having a similar purpose, but its operation was confined to the diocese of Exeter alone. Objection was taken that whereas the subject was one of an extremely grave character, the measure proposed was merely local, instead of extending to the country at large; and, after a short debate, he (the Bishop of Exeter) withdrew the Bill. The Bill which had now been introduced had a wider application, and extended to certain cities and boroughs to be scheduled in the Bill. The evil it was intended to meet was this—that in many of our cities and boroughs there were a number of very small parishes with very small and inconvenient churches, and very small incomes for the clergy. These three things made it exceedingly difficult to carry out the work of the Church in those parishes. Taking the city of Exeter, for example—there were in that city, which had a population of about 12,000 souls within the walls, as many as 17 parishes. Of these, three only were of sufficient importance to supply adequate religious provision; the other 14 were very small, the churches were small and out of repair, the incomes of the clergy very insufficient, and owing to the smallness of the population it was impracticable to raise sufficient funds to carry out the ordinary parochial work. And what was true of Exeter was true also of other cities and
  756
  boroughs in the Kingdom. The remedy evidently was to unite together the smaller and poorer parishes, so that the church administration might be better maintained, and the clergy better paid, with more work to do. The Bill therefore proposed to make better provision for the union of contiguous benefices within certain cities and boroughs, the names of which he proposed to specify in a Schedule. For this purpose the Bill provided that two or more contiguous parishes in these places might be united, without regard to aggregate population, or aggregate yearly value. Such unions were already provided for by statutes previously passed, but were limited to parishes where the aggregate population would not exceed 1,500 persons, and hampered with other provisions which made the union difficult to carry out. When the Bishop of the diocese was of opinion that such union was desirable in the interests of religion, he might prepare a scheme, notice of which was to be given to patrons, incumbents, and churchwardens of the parishes affected, and to certain authorities of the city or borough; and it was provided by whom and how objections might be taken to the scheme. If no objections were taken, the scheme was to be transmitted to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. If objections were raised, the Bishop might abandon the scheme, or refer it to certain Commissioners. Having passed this examination, with or without alteration, it would be transmitted to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, who would thereon prepare a scheme and certify the same to the Queen in Council; and when approved by Her Majesty would become operative. Power was given to include part only of benefices in the proposed union, and provision was made for exchange of patronage, for the erection of new church or parsonage, for the removal of the old church, and for the sale of site; but no site of an old church was to be sold or demolished without certain consents, and it was first to be offered to the Town Council. The scheme might provide for the abolition of "dominicals," which were small legal payments on inhabited houses, very difficult to collect, and the cause of much disquiet; yet the clergyman could not abandon them without surrendering ancient rights of the church, and power was therefore given by the 21st clause

  757
  for the abolition, commutation, or redemption of these ancient payments. Having explained some further details of the Bill, the right rev. Prelate said that as he was aware that the noble Marquess the Secretary for India had given Notice of an Amendment for the rejection of the Bill, he presumed that he was now engaged in a hopeless task, but he nevertheless felt it his duty to move the second reading.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Lord Bishop of Exeter.)
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYthought that every one must sympathize in the motives of the right rev. Prelate, and nobody could look around the country without seeing how much the requirements of the times pressed upon the energies of every Bishop. Therefore, it was with much regret that Her Majesty's Government had come to the determination that it was their duty to oppose this Bill. But Her Majesty's Government were of opinion that the Bill transgressed the limits of private rights and parochial rights. The Bill proposed to pull down churches and sell the sites, and to use whatever money might be obtained for certain useful purposes; and it carefully respected the rights of the Bishop and the patron. But neither the Bishop nor the patron was the person most interested in the parish church. The parishioner was the person most interested in it. What voice was given to the parishioners by the Bill in respect of a proposed destruction of their parish church and the desecration of their parish churchyard? The scheme began with and was framed by the Bishop; the patron had a veto; but the parishioners had no power whatever. True, a Commission was to be appointed to consider objections to schemes; but how was that Commission to be nominated? One Commissioner was to be nominated by the Bishop, two were to be named by ecclesiastics in the neighbourhood, one was to be named by the Mayor of the town, and one by the churchwardens and the incumbent. Even in London, where, if anywhere, there would have been some show of excuse for overlooking the rights of parishioners in the proposal for the removal of City churches, much more respect was paid to those rights than was paid to them
  758
  in this Bill. The proposals of the Bill were a violation of the respect due to high and long-cherished feelings and to the most elementary rights, and was not to be compensated by any amount of money that could be obtained by carrying out the schemes. But he believed that if this Bill were passed it would not produce the money that was anticipated from it. It was a Bill for money, but it would not afford funds for the removal of the remains of parishioners from churchyards which would be sold. He believed the right rev. Prelate had been misled by the precedent of the City of London. But even there the money obtained was very much less than had been expected; and although the Metropolis was a peculiar case, the parishioners were not disregarded. In that case it was provided also that due notice should be given to the relations of persons whose remains were interred in these churches, and they were to have liberty of undertaking the pious task of removing those remains to another resting place. That had, however, been found to be an expensive privilege. But these various rights this Bill treated with scant ceremony; and as the Government regarded the rights of the parishioners as rights which the Legislature ought not to tamper with, they had no choice but to ask their Lordships to reject the Bill.
  An Amendment moved to leave out ("now") and insert ("this day six months."—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
  THE EARL OF DEVONsaid, the object of the Bill was to promote the efficiency of the Church of England in certain localities; but while he agreed in the principle of the measure, he admitted that it was susceptible of improvement in its machinery. He looked upon the city of Exeter as a sample of a state of things similar to that which was known to exist in several parts of England. He thought that, with due regard to the feelings of the inhabitants, some provision might be made in reference to small and contiguous benefices, which would prove of great advantage; but, certainly, greater security must be given than this Bill afforded, that the rights of the parishioners would be respected. Believing that the Bill would effect beneficial changes, he should, if their Lordships divided, give his vote in support of the

  759
  second reading, believing that whatever defects might be in the Bill might be so remedied in Committee as to render it a valuable measure.
  THE BISHOP OF LONDONthought that the Bill had been rather hardly dealt with by the Government; for it was one which conscientiously attempted to deal with a real evil, and he regretted it should have been smitten by so formidable a hand as that of the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Salisbury). The objections urged against it by the noble Marquess were for Committee rather than such as ought to induce their Lordships to reject the Bill on the Motion for the second, reading. He remembered that the first time he had the honour of addressing their Lordships' House was on an occasion when he endeavoured to induce them to include several large towns in the Bill for the transfer of churches in London. When parishes were so small as to afford a sum insufficient for the payment of a clergyman, it could not be expected they could be worked efficiently, and it was a fact that congregations did not like attending very small churches. The noble Marquess was mistaken in thinking that the sites of the old London churches had not fetched so much as had been anticipated; they had fetched more.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I spoke of the net financial result.
  THE BISHOP OF LONDON: The reason of that was that very great difficulty had been experienced in obtaining consents, and, consequently, the Act had been applied in only a few cases. As to the veto of the parishioners, in many instances that had been exercised, not to prevent the removal of the church, but to get as much money as possible out of the site. He trusted the Government would re-consider their decision and consent to the Bill being read a second time.
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, that in the discussion on the Law of Burial last night several Members of the Episcopal Bench urged that these were subjects which should be taken up by the Government; but if Bills of this kind, dealing with acknowledged grievances, were to be opposed by the Government in summary manner announced by the Government through the noble Marquess with reference to this Bill, that course would not afford much encou-
  760
  ragement to those who looked to them in these matters. Did not the noble Marquess believe that the remedies called for could be provided by an Act of Parliament? No doubt there ought to be important checks placed on operations of this sort; but the Committee was the place to introduce and strengthen them. Therefore, he hoped the Government would pause before they divided the House in opposition to so reasonable a proposition as that contained in the Bill.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, it was desirable their Lordships should understand how this Bill differed from any other Bill of the kind they had been asked to pass. No doubt there were, or had been, many cases in which the interests of the Church would be promoted by the union of benefices, and certain Acts of Parliament cited in the Bill provided, to a certain extent, remedies for grievances of the kind by the union of contiguous benefices. All would agree that these Acts proceeded on a wise principle, and that, if inconvenience was still felt, there ought to be further legislation. Not one of the Acts previously passed, having reference to this subject, affected the title to tangible property; whereas this Bill embodied a principle that was entirely without precedent. It dealt like a private Bill with the property of the particular parishes. It provided for the pulling down of churches, for the removal of remains from the cemeteries, and for the sale of cemeteries, entirely alienating them and making them secular property. He did not say that the course presented was not in itself a proper one; but he knew of no Bill that had ever passed through either House of Parliament that proceeded in the vague and general terms of this Bill. They always specified the places intended to be dealt with, and in view of the places so specified Parliament proceeded to legislate. On the other hand, this Bill contained no specific application. It proposed to give certain powers "to the Bishop of the diocese within which any city or borough specified in the Schedule hereto is situated," but as yet there was no Schedule; and it was not according to past legislation to assent, without some very distinct understanding, to the second reading of a Bill which dealt with actual tangible property by reference to

  761
  a Schedule which was not appended to the Bill. In the absence of such a Schedule there could be no expression of public opinion in the parishes proposed to be affected, and he must respectfully protest against legislation in blank when the filling up of the blanks was of vital interest to particular localities.
  THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURYexplained that the Schedule intended to be appended to the Bill had been omitted by mere accident. It was intended that the Schedule should have been printed as part of the Bill; but the right rev. Prelate the author of the Bill, anxious to secure the consent of the various Prelates in whose dioceses were situated the towns which he wished to mention in the Schedule, kept it back, until the Bill was printed without it; and to his surprise the Schedule was necessarily printed in the form of an Amendment to be moved in Committee. All the towns to be dealt with had been arranged, and would have been included in the Schedule. Under these circumstances it would, perhaps, be well to adopt the suggestion that the Bill should be referred to a Select Committee. Any other course would be hard upon his right rev. Brother, who last year introduced a Bill confined to the diocese of Exeter, and withdrew it on the advice, which he had now acted upon, that he should introduce a Bill of more extended scope. There could be no doubt there was the necessity of some legislation, for the evils referred to were not confined to the Metropolis. The Act he (the Archbishop of Canterbury) had carried had not been adopted in as many cases as it might have been, for there was great difficulty in getting the consent of parishioners; particularly in small parishes where a predominant influence was sometimes exerted by a self-interested vestry clerk. It would be wise to refer the Bill to a Select Committee for the purpose of introducing such provisions as the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Salisbury) intimated ought to be there with the view of getting the real consent of parishioners and avoiding the rock which had proved fatal in the City of London, that of requiring too many consents.
  VISCOUNT CARDWELLthought when the Government took measures to check the progress of legislation their Lord ships had a right to expect that they
  762
  would give them some proof that they had taken pains to consider the subject. What were the facts in the present instance? The right rev. Prelate last year introduced a Bill similar to the present, but applicable only to his own diocese; and what course did the Government then take? They said it was a Bill which ought not to be confined to Exeter, but should embrace other cities, and perhaps the whole country; and now, when the operation of the Bill had been at their instance extended, the second reading was objected to. He had never heard a more feeble case against the second reading of a Bill, brought in by a responsible authority, and calculated to effect great and excellent objects. The noble Marquess had opposed it on grounds subversive of its principle. The noble Lord on the Woolsack had changed the line of attack, and said that its principle could better be carried into effect under the Union of Benefices Acts; and then, with a singular inconsistency, had assailed it because it dealt with subjects which were not within the purview of these Acts. He hoped the Bill would be read a second time. The Bill was strongly supported by the ecclesiastical Bench, and therefore ought not to be rejected on the second reading. If it were sent to a Select Committee they would probably find out what sufficient safeguards might be adopted to obviate the objections raised.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYdesired to explain that he had not demurred to the object of the Bill, but to the mode by which that object was to be attained. He was, however, ignorant of the great sanction under which the Bill had been introduced; but after hearing the statement of the most rev. Prelate he thought it would be desirable that the Bill should be considered in Committee.
  EARL BEAUCHAMPthought that as this Bill was the same as that of last year, but on an enlarged scale, the provisions of it should have been explained by the right rev. Prelate when he introduced it. He was afraid that those persons who would be affected by the Bill would not know anything about it.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, that the title of the Bill was as plain as it could be, and that it was unusual in that House to explain the provisions of the Bill when laying it on the Table.
  THE EARL.OF LIMERICKconsidered that the people of those cities and towns which would be affected by the Bill should have had an opportunity of stating whether they approved of it or not, but the Schedule containing their names had only appeared that morning.
  Amendment (by leave of the House) withdrawn.
  Then the original Motion was agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and referred to a Select Committee.

SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE (IRELAND) BILL.—(Nos. 31–74.)
(The Lord Chancellor.)
SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE (IRELAND) BILL.—(Nos. 31–74.)

  REPORT OF AMENDMENTS.
  Amendments reported (according to Order).
  Clause 18 (Salaries of future Judges). An Amendment moved, page 11, line 4, after "assizes" insert—
  "Provided always that nothing herein contained shall affect such rights to remuneration in respect of any adjourned assizes as the existing Lord Chief Justice, Chief Justice of the Common Pleas, and Lord Chief Baron possessed before the passing of this Act."—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 78 (Transfer of existing staff of officers to Court of Judicature).
  Amendment moved, page 45, line 34, after "to" insert—
  "Provided also that if any such officer appointed before the passing of this Act shall be so released without his consent he shall continue to receive his full salary."—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  LORD O'HAGANsaid, that he had given Notice of some Amendments in this and the next clause, but as it had been intimated to him by his noble and learned Friend that they would not be accepted, he would refrain from moving them. He admitted that the Bill had been improved by the Amendments already accepted. The paragraphs which had been introduced, and the last concession of the Lord Chancellor, appeared to secure the vested rights of existing officers, which certainly would have been put in serious peril by the Bill as it originally stood; and other valuable changes were secured, although not all
  764
  that he had desired to obtain. Still, he had thought that he ought to bring forward again on Report some Amendments which he had before proposed, but which had been rejected, in the hope that even at that stage of the Bill the Government might have been induced to re-consider and adopt them. They were aimed to prevent the intervention of the Treasury in matters which he (Lord O'Hagan) thought it should not be permitted to meddle; to assimilate more closely the Bill with the English Act, and to secure more perfectly the rights, not only of existing, but of future officers. He regretted to say that he had had an intimation of the resolution of the Government to concede no more. It would be utterly idle to attempt in that House again to press his Amendments, which, no doubt, did to some extent affect the Treasury and Treasury affairs. He must, then, content himself with repeating his sense of the importance of these additional proposals, notwithstanding the improvements the Bill had already undergone, and expressing a hope that when the Bill went to the other House, where the whole financial bearings of the measure could be discussed, they would receive consideration and acceptance.
  THE EARL OF BELMOREsaid, he was glad that these Amendments had been made by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack to the Bill, for as it previously stood it had created some angry feelings in Ireland.
  Further Amendments made, and Bill to be read 3a on Thursday next.

WEST COAST OF AFRICA—THE KING OF DAHOMEY.—QUESTION.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  LORD COTTESLOErose to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether he can communicate to the House any information received by Her Majesty's Government respecting the measures recently taken by the naval and civil authorities of the Gold Coast against the King of Dahomey, and the fine demanded of him for outrages committed on British subjects at Whydah? The noble Lord said, that a short time ago he called attention to the expedition undertaken against the King of Dahomey, and his noble Friend was at that time unable to give any information on the

  765
  subject; but, as several transactions had since occurred, he hoped he would be pardoned if he ventured to repeat his Question. What had since occurred, as far as we knew, was that, without any previous application to that Sovereign, the Commodore on the Gold Coast and the Governor of Lagos had proceeded to Whydah and held an inquiry there, the result of which was that the King of Dahomey was fined 500 barrels of palm oil worth about £6,000, and if he did not pay by the 1st of June his coast was to be blockaded. The fine was a large one for a monarch in the position of the King of Dahomey to be called upon to pay. That, however, might be the best way of dealing with such a Chief; but it might lead to very serious results. Suppose the King refused to pay? He had no doubt dealt with us in an overbearing and unscrupulous way. We were informed that his answer to the Commodore's communications was that he would not open the letters, as he was a King, but that if the Commodore liked to come and get the fine he would pay him in powder and bullets. Yet if we resorted to extremities it might lead to inconvenient consequences. The result seemed to be that ulterior measures would have to be taken; and the question was what those measures should be. The first thing that suggested itself was a blockade of the coast. But that would not be very injurious to the King himself; the sufferers would be the English, French, and Portuguese who had property there, and whose business would be entirely stopped. If the blockade failed of effect, we should demand that more energetic measures should be taken, and if we did not get our money something more would have to be done. What was that something more? We might go the King's capital, as a few years back we went to that of the King of Ashantee; but Her Majesty's Government would be slow to undertake a similar campaign, which, though full of glory, led to a large expenditure of money and great loss of life. Another alternative was to take Whydah as a material guarantee—it was a very convenient place, and the possession of which, politically and commercially, might be advantageous to this country. He wished to know whether communications had been made to the Home Government by the officers concerned
  766
  before they set out on this expedition? He was quite aware that the naval and military officers of this country should always be prepared whenever it was necessary to assume responsibility, and if they did so the Government at home would always support them if they acted with prudence. The Government would, of course, proceed with much more effect than any individual could do, and representations might have been made, in conjunction with the Portuguese Government. But if the officer on the spot chose to demand compensation, he was, of course, treated with contempt. He trusted, therefore, Her Majesty's Government would take the matter into their own hands;—and also that they would give the House any information they might be able to afford.
  THE EARL OF CARNARVON:said, he did not think he could add much to his noble Friend's information on this subject, but what information he had was at the disposal of his noble Friend and the House. The facts of the case were briefly these:—In the latter part of January Mr. Turnbull, an agent or member of one of the commercial firms at Whydah, made a protest against the illegal seizure of his goods by an agent of the King of Dahomey. That protest caused a great deal of ill-feeling on the part of the King; Mr. Turnbull was seized, stripped, and subjected to great indignities; but was released on the following day. The whole transaction appeared to have created much excitement, and complaints were made by the merchants in Whydah to the Admiral on the station, Sir William Hewitt. In the following month the Admiral found himself and his squadron on the coast, and he invited the headmen of Whydah to a palaver or conference. The palaver took place; but the headman, the representative of the King, did not appear. On the contrary, he sent a wholly subordinate agent, and he omitted some of those formalities the omission of which was considered a great disrespect to the person entitled to receive them. Sir William Hewitt, in his despatch, stated that he was satisfied that Mr. Turnbull's case was a sound and valid one, and that his conduct throughout the transaction would bear the closest examination. Under these circumstances, the non-attendance of the proper officer and the refusal of the proper formalities, the

  767
  Commodore of his own authority imposed a fine on the King of Dahomey, and in default of payment threatened that he would blockade the coast on the 1st of June. Subsequently, by a communication from the Admiralty, Sir William Hewett had been cautioned not to enforce the blockade until the 1st of July, so that one full month in addition might be given the King for consideration. Some further communications seem to have passed; for about the middle of March the headman of the King returned an answer, which subsequent inquiry proved to be false, and designedly false, to the effect that the King had refused to receive the Commodore's letters. It appeared that the King did not refuse to receive the letters; but that he sent a message saying that he would make the payment in bullets and powder should the Commodore come. These were the whole circumstances of the case so far as the Government knew. With regard to the King of Dahomey himself, he occupied on that Coast very much the same position towards the surrounding tribes as the King of Ashantee did towards his neighbours; and, as far as the character of the King and the institutions of his country were concerned, there was nothing to choose between them and the character of the King of Ashantee and the institutions of that country:—or perhaps it would be more true to say that the utter cruelty and barbarism of the King of Dahomey were greatly in excess of the cruelty and barbarism of his compeer—the country was in a state of utter barbarism, and the human sacrifices were horrible. While, he might add, he concurred with the noble Lord in the opinion that our officers abroad would do well to take every opportunity of consulting the Home Government before they acted; yet they were sometimes obliged to act on their own responsibility, and it behoved the Home Government not only to accord to them the most favourable consideration, but as far as possible to support their action. He might go further, and say that Her Majesty's Government, looking at the whole facts of the case, and seeing that a gross outrage had been committed—besides which there were others of a similar nature—and considering the manner in which Sir William Hewett's message had been received, felt it would be impossible to shut their eyes to the
  768
  transactions which had occurred, and do nothing at all. The only doubt was whether the institution of a blockade was the best and most effective course to adopt; and he might point out that on several occasions the particular line of Coast in question, or that immediately adjoining it, had been blockaded. It had been blockaded in 1852, and again in 1859 and in 1863, and apparently with admirable effect. On the last occasion it had proved effectual within a month. As the effect had been beneficial before it was to be hoped it would prove so again. It was impossible, of course, to say what the result of the present blockade would be; but he hoped, for his own part, it would be sufficient to make the King of Dahomey reflect very seriously on the course which he pursued. Taking all the circumstances into consideration, it had been determined to postpone the blockade till the 1st of July. His sincere hope was that no further steps would be rendered necessary; but if the blockade were resorted to, it was likely to prove effectual, for it would take away from the revenue of the King, deprive him of supplies, and place the Coast at our mercy.
  THE DUKE OF SOMERSETsaid that, however desirable it might be to keep out of little wars, when we had a Naval Officer on the Coast, the best thing was to render him strong support, otherwise these petty Princes might be encouraged to acts of violence against British subjects, which might produce a lengthened and bloody war. Although no honour was perhaps to be gained by a war with such a Monarch as the King of Dahomey, he trusted the Government would act with firmness in the present instance, for to pursue a different course would only lead to the commission of further aggressions.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYconcurred in the main with his noble Friend who had just spoken. He was not acquainted with the full details of what had taken place, but if the King of Dahomey had committed the outrage attributed to him, and had refused reparation, he did not see that the Government could have done otherwise than take steps to enforce redress, and he hoped with his noble Friend opposite that the proposed blockade would be effectual, for the principal supplies of powder and arms, and everything on

  769
  which he set a high value, were procured by the King through the port of Whydah. Our position on the Gold Coast was not to be treated with indifference. England was practically the only European Power on the Coast, and though the French had some small ports on the Coast, on us depended the promotion of civilization in that district of country. In case of the blockade not fulfilling expectation, we might find the people of Abbeokuta useful allies; and the King of Dahomey had been twice or thrice foiled in his attempts against that country—so that he would be likely to think twice before giving fresh provocation.
  VISCOUNT CARDWELLexpressed his cordial agreement in the remarks which had just been made, and pointed out that any observations which might be made in their Lordships' House which should show the slightest want of approval of the course taken by the Government might occasion mischief in cases where difficulties arose with a barbarous potentate like the King of Dahomey. It was of great importance that the King of Dahomey should understand that we were in earnest in this matter. The King was reported to have said that he should treat a message from the Commodore with contempt, but that one from the Queen of England would be treated very differently. It was desirable that this potentate should be taught that the Commodore was the representative of Her Majesty. It was important to prevent such mischievous notions getting abroad, and if the blow which we felt bound to strike in such cases was to be effective it must not always be deferred until after a long correspondence with home, because sometimes the effect of the blow lay in its being promptly given.

INDIA—PETITION OF SIRDAR NARAIN SINGH.

  PETITION PRESENTED.
  LORD SELBORNE, in presenting a Petition from Sirdar Narain Singh, praying for inquiry into his case, and for liberation, said, that the Petitioner was formerly in the service of the Government of Mooltan, and was now a State prisoner residing at Moulmein, in British Burmah. The Sirdar was taken prisoner at the close of the second Sikh war, sharing the fate of his master; and being considered a dangerous person, it was
  770
  thought necessary to treat him as a State prisoner, and he was sent to Moulmein, and had been detained from 1849 to the present time. He had at different times made three applications to the Indian Government requesting that, in consideration of the lapse of time and other circumstances, he might be permitted to return to his native country. The first of these applications was made in 1863, and was refused because the Government of the Punjab then thought it would be unsafe to permit his return. When the second application was made in 1872 the Governor General caused the Petitioner to be informed that his prayer might possibly be taken into consideration at some future time. He renewed the application in 1874; but he was again disappointed by the answer, which was to the effect that he would not be allowed to return to Punjab, and that he must regard that answer as final. In his present Petition he expressed his desire to forget the past and to spend the remainder of his life in his native land. He prayed, first, that an investigation should be made into the facts of his case; and, secondly, that he might be allowed to return to the Punjab, or, if this were not deemed practicable, that he might at least be permitted to reside at Benares. He could not ask the House to investigate a case of this kind in a way which would remove its consideration from the Indian Government, but he hoped the presentation of this Petition might lead to the case being re-considered, at a time when an act of grace would come with peculiar grace from Her Majesty. Independently of this Petition, he had received sufficient information to satisfy him as to the Petitioner's good conduct since his original fault, and during the time of his punishment. He had copies of seven testimonials of the Petitioner dated in different years between 1856 and 1865, and signed by Commissioners, Assistant Commissioners, and other British officers who had been in charge of the Province and district in which Sirdar Narain Singh was a prisoner. He likewise found that the imprisonment of the Petitioner, which originally was strict, had been relaxed, that he had been put on parole, and that his conduct had been in all respects proper and meritorious. At one time, indeed, the Indian Government thought of making him a grant of

  771
  land in British Burmah. It ought also to be remembered in his favour, that, when he was first brought, as a prisoner, down the Ganges, his conduct had been favourably distinguished from that of others in the same circumstances, upon an important occasion. Since the Notice was given, for the presentation of the present Petition, he (Lord Selborne) had received from Mr. Lushington, who was for many years a distinguished member of the British Civil Service in India, and who had had nothing to do with the suggestion or preparation of the Petition, a letter, which he would the more readily read to the House, because it attributed to the Petitioner an active, and even prominent, concurrence in the attempt then made by the prisoners to escape, which, he believed, the Petitioner himself did not acknowledge.
  "Treasurer's House,
  "Guy's Hospital,
  "May 15.
  "My Lord,—I have seen in the public papers that you purpose presenting a Petition on behalf of Narain Singh, at present a prisoner in British Burmah, praying for inquiry into his case and for liberation. I have no knowledge of the cases in which the prisoner was sentenced to transportation for life many years ago, nor do I know what particular reasons have been set forth by him in his Petition for release. I venture, however, to address your Lordship on the subject, because when I was magistrate of Patna in 1849–50, Narain Singh, who was then under sentence of transportation, saved the honour and the life of a European woman on board the steamer which was conveying Narain Singh and other prisoners to Calcutta. All the prisoners, headed by Narain Singh, made a desperate attempt to escape; they shot down their guards, and got possession of the vessel, and several of the prisoners would then have attacked the woman had not Narain Singh protected her. It was in consequence of his good conduct on this occasion that he was not hanged for the murders on board the steamer. Some little time after this Narain Singh was sent to British Burmah, where he has been undergoing his sentence in a very exemplary manner. This part of my statement could be confirmed by Lord Napier of Magdala, who saw him a few years ago when visiting the convict prisons in the Straits and British Burmah. After the lapse of so many years there can be no fear now of Narain Singh (if allowed to return to his own country) getting up any political disturbance, and I venture to think, with reference to the facts I have stated and his long incarceration, now nearly 30 years ago, he might be considered as deserving release.
  "I have the honour to be, my Lord,
  "Your obedient Servant,
  "Ed. H. LUSHINGTON,
  "Late Bengal Civil Service."
  772
  This appeared to be a case in which there were exceptionally favourable circumstances, and if the facts as he had stated them were found to be correct, he should hear with great pleasure that the Indian Government considered the time had come when the Petitioner might be safely allowed to return to his native land.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYsupported the prayer of the Petitioner, believing that his long absence must have destroyed the political influence which he might formerly have possessed in his native country. After the lapse of nearly 30 years all the soldiers he had formerly commanded must have left the standards. The petitioner was now a very old man, and was very anxious to end his life near the holy waters of the Ganges, and he asked to be allowed to reside at Benares, if objections were still made to his return to his native province.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid the case had been frequently under the consideration of the Indian Government; but it had not been deemed advisable that the Petitioner should be permitted to return to that part of India where he possessed influence; but the House would hardly expect him to give in detail the reasons which influenced the Indian Government in the course they had taken. He did not believe that the prisoner's life had been altogether unhappy, for his imprisonment had been softened as far as practicable—indeed, the latter period of his detention might be correctly expressed by the word "internment." Undoubtedly he had been secluded from that part of the country where his influence might have had a pernicious effect on the public peace. The mere fact of efforts having been made to provide land for him in Burmah showed his detention was not of a severe character. As to whether the Petitioner could be allowed to return to the Punjab, he should not like to give an opinion without being afforded an opportunity of fully consulting the Indian Government. This was a matter in regard to which the Indian Government were eminently qualified to form a correct judgment, as they would have means of judging which were not accessible to any person in this country. He would immediately bring the Petition under the notice of the Governor General of India, who he felt assured would be glad to

  773
  have an opportunity of doing an act of grace at the present time. He would defer further observations on the subject until he had had an opportunity of consulting the Governor General.
  House adjourned at half-past seven o'clock, to Thursday next, half past Ten o'clock.