Sitting of 13 August 1839

MINUTES.
Bills. Read a second time:—Consolidated Fund; Exchequer Bills (12,056,050 l.); Corporate Property (Ireland).—Read a third time:—Excise Licenses (Sale of Spirits); Real Estates Liability; Sheriff's Exemption; Joint Stock Banking Companies; and Tithe Commutation Acts Amendment.
Petitions presented. By Lord G. Somerset, from Manchester, against the Manchester Police Bill.—By Mr. Boiling, from Bolton, against the Bolton Police Bill.

BIRMINGHAM POLICE.
Lord J. Russell Lord J. Russell moved the third reading of the Birmingham Police Bill (No. 2.)
Mr. Scholefield, agreeablyto the wishes of a majority of the inhabitants, and of the whole of the town-council of Birmingham, felt it his painful duty to oppose the motion of the noble Lord, ant4 moved, as an amendment, that is to be read a third time that day three months,
The House divided on the original question.—Ayes 38; Noes 8: Majority 30.

List of the Ayes.

Acland, Sir T. D.

Kemble, H.

A'Court, Captain

Macaulay, T. B.

Bernal, R.

Mildmay, P. St. J.

Blackburne, I.

Palmer, C. F.

Boldero, H. G.

Parker, J.

Bridgeman, H.

Parnell,rt.hon. Sir H.

Briscoe, J. I.

Philips, M.

Cochrane, Sir T. J.

Pryme, G.

Dalmeny, Lord

Rich, H.

Darby, G.

Russell, Lord J.

Donkin, Sir R. S.

Somerset, Lord G.

Douglas, Sir C. E.

Surrey, Earl of

Eliot, Lord

Talfourd, Mr. Serjt.

Freshfield, J. W.

Thomson, rt. hn.C. P.

Grey, rt. hon. Sir G.

Vere, Sir C. B.

Hinde, J. H.

Wood, G. W.

Hodges, T. L.

Yates, J. A.

Holmes, W.

Hoskins, K.

TELLERS.

Howick, Lord Visct.

Baring, F. T.

Hutton, R.

Steuart, R.

List of the NOES.

Aglionby, H. A.

Vigors, N. A.

Ewart, W.

Wakley, T.

Finch,F.

Hindley, C.

TELLERS.

Salwey, Colonel

Scholefield, J.

Thorneley, T.

Duncombe,T,

Bill read a third time, and passed.

MANCHESTER POLICE.
Lord John Russell Lord John Russell moved that the Manchester Police Bill be committed.
Lord G. Somerset, in consequence of the statement of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Manchester, had been induced to give his support to the second reading of this bill, believing, from what was then stated, that unless some such measure were passed, there would in a short time be no police force in Manchester. Since that discussion, he had been at some pains to ascertain how the facts stood, and the result was, he had come to the conclusion that this bill was not called for by the necessities of the case. The noble Lord founded the present measure on the propriety of having a large and efficient police force in the town of Manchester, in consequence of the disturbed state of that district; but he maintained, there had been no such overt acts in Manchester as justified the House in passing such a stringent bill as the present. He was quite aware that yesterday there had been some windows broken, but he was also aware that that violence had been put

249
down by the police force now in existence, without any necessity for employing the military force. There were now 220 persons well organized, and trained to their duty; they had been organized for a number of years; and the system of watch, as he had been informed, could not be improved. The situations of the towns of Manchester and Birmingham were totally different. In Manchester they had a good disciplined police force, fully equal to anything that might be required of them, acting under the directions of legally constituted authorities. No such occurrence as the riots in Birmingham had occurred in Manchester, nor had the interference of the military been required to put down riots in Manchester. In Birmingham, the case was otherwise, because there they had no properly organized police force, and no local authorities to direct them, such as existed in Manchester. In Birmingham, where the Government interfered, and proposed to pay the police by public money, he acknowledged their right to pass such a measure; but in the case of Manchester, the funds were to be furnished exclusively by the local authorities; and, therefore, he could not acknowledge the passing of the Birmingham bill was an argument in favour of the present measure. So far as he understood, whatever might have been done or said by the town council of Birmingham, there had been no demonstration there of public feeling against the bill for establishing a police in that town; but the case was very different in Manchester. A very large meeting had been held since the introduction of the bill was announced, and it was attended by persons professing all shades of politics—every one, Conservative, Whig, and Radical, all unanimously said the present measure was wholly unnecessary. It was only on the Saturday that it was known at Manchester the bill had passed a second stage, and on the Monday following, the petition had received the signatures of 7,000 inhabitants of Manchester, of all shades of political opinion, representing the property and respectability of the town, strongly deprecating the measure; and yet those were the persons for the protection of whose lives and property the noble Lord said the measure was absolutely necessary. Those persons differed with the noble Lord in toto, and said the measure was uncalled for. They were of opinion that the ordinary police were perfectly efficient.
250
What could be the reason of that expression of opinion, except a strong conviction on the part of these petitioners that the measure was not necessary for the preservation of the public peace, and for the protection of life and property? The commissioners had a legislative right to levy a rate for the police, and if that was refused, they had power to apply to the Court of Queen's Bench for a mandamus; and, therefore, there was no chance of Manchester being left without a police force up to July 1840. As far as he could understand the opposition of the inhabitants to the measure had not a tincture of party spirit about it; on the contrary, Radicals, Conservatives, and Whigs, all joined in saying the bill was totally unnecessary. So far from tending to establish peace and tranquillity, and tending to the good government of the town of Manchester during the discussion, as regards the validity of the charter granted to that town, he believed that this bill would be attended with a directly different effect. So far from producing unanimity, he believed it would increase the prevailing difference of opinion. Considering that the passing of a coercion bill was not a likely way to heal discord, or promote the tranquillity of the town, he moved, as an amendment, that the bill be committed that day three months.
Mr. M. Philipssaid, the noble Lord had been pleased to refer to the statement which he had made upon the previous discussion of this measure. The statement he then made was perfectly candid and correct. He felt himself in a very unpleasant situation in coming forward to support a bill, which he believed was necessary for the tranquillity of the town which he represented, but which he admitted did partake somewhat of an unconstitutional character. It had been represented that a considerable amount had been collected by the police commissioners. But the point which it was important to bear in mind was, whether their power of collecting the rates could be relied on. And he begged to direct attention to the 124th clause of the 11th Geo. 4th, the Act under which the commissioners were empowered, and it would be seen, that by this clause, any parties depositing the amount of a disputed rate with the collector, and giving notice to the commissioners, might appeal against such rate to the Quarter Sessions, within four months.

251
Now, there was a great distinction between paying and depositing, Money deposited, be considered could not be appropriated. The collector dare not apply the money so deposited with him to the usual purposes—till the vexata question was settled: till then, the money was as though paid into court. But there was nothing to prevent parties objecting to the rate, from suffering distress, and putting in a replevin, thus postponing the decision for nine or twelve months. He thought the present measure wisely and judiciously framed, and calculated to prevent those heartburnings which would otherwise prevail. It should be borne in mind that there were, in fact, two bodies of police in the town, one that of the corporation, the other that of the commissioners. And he thought, that instead of co-operating together, which it was scarcely possible to expect, seeing that they were directed by opposite parties, instead of co-operating to preserve the peace, they would themselves be found the disturbers of the peace. The selection of the force, he considered, would be best committed to persons unconnected with the party feeling so prevalent in the town. As to Salford, it had its own local Act, similar in effect to the Manchester Act; and there being no disputes in Salford on the subject of contesting jurisdictions, if the police were inefficient (and he was not aware that they were), they could be increased to any extent under that Act. He had no wish to make any remarks on the manner that signatures had been procured to the petition presented by the noble Lord; but he must say that, according to the accounts he had received, the parties who had been most active in getting up that petition, and who were so conscientious that they would not permit the Zoological-gardens of the town to be visited on Sundays, on the ground that it would be a desecration of the Sabbath, had been zealously employed, nevertheless, in canvassing for signatures to that petition during Sunday.
Mr. Grimsditchbelieved the bill to be unnecessary; and he asked, why not introduce a short bill to settle the disputed point? The commissioners and the corporators were many of them the same parties. There was no evidence offered to the House to prove that they ought to pass such a bill as this. He thought there must be some pressure upon the noble
252
Lord, to induce him to bring in such a coercive measure as this. He wished the House to pause before they sanctioned it. He was sure it would be received with dissatisfaction. The manufacturing towns were not in a position to bear the imposition of additional burdens. He hoped the noble Lord would show the necessity which existed for this measure. The situation of Manchester was entirely different from that of Birmingham. As regarded the town of Bolton, too, the burden would be intolerable.
Mr. P. Thomson: It had been stated, that no reason had been brought forward for passing the bill. Why, the fact was, that the reasons adduced were so strong that the noble Lord, who now proposed the amendment, had been induced by them to vote for the second reading of the bill. It had been contended, that the case was not parallel with that of Birmingham; he contended that it was so, as far as the necessity of providing some police force went. The very circumstance, that in the threatened disturbance of yesterday the existing police at Manchester had been able to preserve the peace of the town, formed the strongest reason in favour of this bill. The fact was, that neither the town-council nor the commissioners possessed the means of continuing that police force, and unless this measure was passed, the town would be exposed to repetitions of the scenes of yesterday. He would not enter into details, as they had been already fully argued by his hon. Friend and colleague. He should give the bill his most sincere and cordial support.
Mr. Brothertonhad always been a supporter of every liberal measure, but he never would oppose any bill that he deemed essential for the preservation of the public peace. The hon. Gentleman opposite said there had been no riots, no burnings in Manchester, and therefore they would not support the passing of this bill. Was he, then, to suppose, that these hon. Members thought the House ought to wait till such outrages actually occurred, and only then adopt proper measures to restore tranquillity? Manchester consisted of six townships, and the commissioners of police had no jurisdiction in fire of them. They had no power to extend their jurisdiction beyond the principal township of Manchester, and the other five were thus left without a police. He was

253
sorry to see that persons of great weight and authority had in this case associated themselves with improper parties to gratify a factious feeling, regardless of the real peace and welfare of the town. A public meeting had been got up, in a population of 280,000, which, by great exertions, had been attended by about 2,000 persons. He understood great exertions had also been made to get the books completed, and several of the leading men, large ratepayers, had set an example by paying their rates; but the great bulk of the people would not pay the rates. He did not like the bill; he admitted that, and would not vote for it if he could get anything else that he thought likely to preserve the peace of the town; but he should support it from what he considered to be the necessity of the case.
Mr. Bollinghad supported the second reading of the bill, but, from the communications he had received from his constituents, he was now prepared to oppose all those bills, as he thought the peace of the district would be best preserved by their withdrawal.
Lord J. Russellsaid, the clause of the bill most opposed by hon. Gentlemen was that one which the right hon. Gentleman, the Member for Tamworth, said it was his duty to propose, as conservator of the peace of the country; why it should be good for Birmingham, and should not be applied to Manchester, he did not know. His duty was to take steps for the preservation of the peace in every place wherein it could not be done by the local authorities. According to the opinions he had taken, if the charter of incorporation was good, the whole power of raising rates for the support of the police was vested in the corporation; and, therefore, immediately there was a decision in a court of law that the charter was good, that decision would carry this consequence, that all rates for the purpose of police should be ordered by the council, and that all other rates levied by others would be bad rates. In that case, it was evident that many parties would hesitate to pay at present, because they might have to pay all rates due over again from a certain day. That was not merely a legal view taken by those who had given that opinion, but it was supported by the conduct of the police commissioners themselves; because a protest had been signed by 92 commissioners out of 240, declaring the rate to be illegal,
254
and advising the rate-payers, for their own sake, not to pay it. He did not think the police in Manchester was in a satisfactory state, when, on the one hand, there were parties refusing to pay the rate to the corporation, and, on the other hand, parties denying that the police commissioners had any power to levy the rate. He had very recently received accounts, both from the civil and military authorities of that town, stating that mobs had collected at different places, for the purpose of inducing men to leave their work, and to produce a general strike by means of terror and intimidation. The police were immediately sent to disperse the mob, two of whom had threatened to set fire to the mills. The military were called out in support of the police, and the police were then able to act; they were successful in taking several into custody, and dispersing the remainder. Now, what would have been the case if there had been no local police in the town, and the commissioners had been unable to maintain an efficient police? Why, the military would have been called out, and, instead of standing by, and enabling the police to take those men into custody without injury, they would have charged the rioters, and there might have been loss of life. Would the House be justified in not adopting measures to preserve the public peace? And would they say that the loss of life was a matter of indifference to Parliament? He was, at least, bound to urge this bill on the House; and if those lamentable consequences should arise, owing to the want of an efficient police, in consequence of the rejection of the bill, it would not be because the Government had failed to urge this subject on the House, but because Parliament had refused to interfere. That was the short statement he wished to make in support of the bill. He knew that there were parties at Manchester who opposed the bill, and he was sorry that those parties did not confine themselves to their own means, and to their own respectable parties; but they had sought the aid of a great many of those who were the enemies of the law, who certainly acted most consistently, because, if they prevented any efficient police being established, their lawless objects would be aided, and their means of intimidating the loyal subjects of the Crown would be promoted. He would ask that House, however, whether they would countenance such views, or sup-

255
port a bill which was essential for the maintenance of peace, and the protection of life and properly?
Colonel Salweyadmitted the necessity of a police in all large towns, but then that police ought to be a constitutional force, and he did not think the police sought to be established by this bill would be constitutional. The military would be glad to be relieved from a most painful duty, and which was repugnant to their feelings; but any police force that was established ought to be established under the entire control of the parties who required it,
Mr. C. Bullerhad never heard more unfounded imputations than those which had been thrown out against the opponents of this bill. It had been argued by the noble Lord and the other supporters of this bill, that its opponents were adverse to the establishment of an efficient police—that they were the friends of riot and disturbance—and that they wished to see the people killed by the soldiers. Even the hon. Member for Salford had joined in those imputations, and said that the opponents of the bill were actuated by factious motives. Now, he certainly did not generally agree with hon. Gentlemen opposite, but in this case he certainly did, because he agreed with them in their desire to see the public peace preserved by the old constitutional forms. Hon. Gentlemen opposite thought, no doubt, that that object could be accomplished by means of the old police commissioners. He did not acquiesce in that course, because he thought the police of Manchester and Birmingham should be under the control of their respective town-councils, freely chosen by the inhabitants. But then he joined hon. Gentlemen opposite in resisting this bill, which placed the police of those towns in the hands of persons to be appointed by a central government. The noble Lord had said, that the course proposed to be adopted by this bill was suggested by the right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth. All that the right hon. Baronet had said was, that under the particular circumstances of the case, he should wish that principle to be applied to Birmingham, and he had not said when he gave that inch he wished the noble Lord to take an ell, and go on applying this centralized sytem of police to the whole country. If the right hon. Baronet did not think it worth while to be
256
present and support the bill, he would not allow him to be run down in his absence, by an insinuation that he was for supporting arbitrary and unconstitutional power. He had opposed these bills from the very outset. He thought the Government were treading on dangerous ground. That opinion might be erroneous; but nothing could be more unfair than for the supporters of the bill to attribute factious motives to its opponents; and should it happen that by a kind of miraculous interference, and aid from hon. Gentlemen opposite, he should be exceedingly glad if they should by their united efforts succeed in throwing out this measure. He asked the House, and he asked the Government if it were decent, at this period of the Session, when so many Gentlemen of opposite political feeling joined in eprecating this bill as hostile to the best interests and liberties of the country, to persist in pressing this measure without a more deliberate appeal to the opinion of Parliament.
Mr. Briscoesaid, that the bill was not of a permanent nature. The noble Lord had distinctly stated that it was to continue only till the disputes relative to the validity of the charter was settled by the Court of Queen's Bench. He had no intention of attributing motives to hon. Members, but certainly their conduct wore the appearance of faction, and seemed to proceed from a desire to embarrass the Government. But he believed that the good sense of the people of England would induce them to view the matter differently, and that the result would tend much to strengthen the position of the Government. He trusted that the bill would be carried by a considerable majority. The Government were entitled to the gratitude and confidence of the country, for having introduced it solely from a desire to promote the peace and prosperity of Manchester.
Mr. Kemblefelt considerable difficulty in making up his mind as to the course he should adopt in regard to this bill. He should object to a bill of this nature, if he did not conceive it was required by the necessity of the case. But he could not agree in thinking that, because there had been no such riots and outrages committed in Manchester as had taken place in Birmingham, they should, therefore, wait till they had actually happened, instead of taking means to prevent their oc-

257
currence. It appeared to him that if the House did not pass this bill, it would incur an immense hazard, and he should vote for it.
Mr. Hume, before the House divided, wished to state very shortly the grounds on which he should give his vote. He had opposed the Birmingham Police Bill, because it was against the wishes of the town-council of Birmingham. He should now state the reasons why, on this occasion, he should take a different course. The magistrates and corporation of Manchester were a popular body. The bill is supported by the whole of that corporation. While the whole town-council of Birmingham were against the Police Bill for that town, the whole town-council of Manchester were to a man in favour of this bill. As regarded the petition which had been presented by the noble Lord opposite, the fact was, that out of a population of 280,000, that petition had been got up almost entirely by Conservatives; and as the mayor and every one of his colleagues, freely chosen by a large majority of the inhabitants, were in favour of this bill, he could not refuse to give them his vote and sanction. He certainly wished to see the police in every town in the hands of its corporation; but when he found every one of the Manchester town-council saying they wished for this bill, as a temporary means of preserving the peace of the community—and particularly when he referred to what had so lately taken place, with a view of inducing the people to leave their work at the factories — he thought the House was called upon to support the measure, because, by supporting the bill, they were, in fact, supporting the corporation.
Mr. T. Duncombesaid, the House was placed in a situation of difficulty between the speeches of the hon. Members for Westbury and Kilkenny. But he looked to the petition as emanating from men of all parties, signed by 7,200 rate-payers, composed of men of all shades of politics, Tories, and Radicals, and Whigs, if such things could be found in Manchester. The noble Lord laboured under a most extravagant delusion in supposing that the opponents of this bill were indifferent to the loss of human life. He never heard any one in that House say that the loss of life was unimportant. He declared freely that it was the duty of the Ministry and of the House, to preserve the peace and
258
protect properly, but that might be done without violating the dearly-cherished rights of the people. These bills violated the sacred principle of local and self-government, and he asked hon. Members to reject it on principle, without any reference to party politics. The people ought to have the control of their money, whether it was expended for the relief of the poor, or for the preservation of the peace. If a contrary principle should once be adopted, it would not stop either at Birmingham or Manchester, but would be extended throughout the country, whenever the miserable fears of the ministry of the day should induce them to make such a proposition.
Sir R. Pricewas surprised at the speech of the hon. Member for Liskeard. A few days since he exclaimed against the Government for having the support of hon. Gentlemen opposite, and now he very readily votes with them himself. He thought the House would assume a fearful resposibility in rejecting the measure, which he believed to be both necessary and constitutional, and which he earnestly entreated the House not to be so foolish as to throw out.
Sir C. Grey: According to the old constitutional law of the country, the police were held to be appointed by the Crown. Everybody knew that the old constabulary force was appointed by the magistrates, and the magistrates held their commissions from the Crown. That was the general principle; but there were exceptions, as in the case of town councils having charters with a ne intromittant clause. Those gentlemen who argued that this bill was unconstitutional, were bound to show that the town of Manchester came under that class of exception. The validity of the charter was disputed, and it seemed doubtful if there were any elective body in those towns to choose or manage a police. What course, then, could the Government adopt more in accordance with the ancient theory and practice of the constitution, than that of appointing a police force, pending those disputes, under the direct authority of the Crown? He should cordially vote for the bill.
Mr. Fieldenconsidered the bill entirely a party measure, brought forward for the purpose of giving strength to the charter. The passing of it would only kindle dissatisfaction into a flame. If the

259
House would only let the people alone, there would be no fear of the peace of the town. If he had property in Manchester, he should have much more apprehension for its safety after the passing of this bill, than without it. He should, therefore, oppose it.
The House divided on the original question;—Ayes 63; Noes 17; Majority 46.

List of the Ayes.

Adam, Admiral

Morpeth, Viscount

Aglionby, H. A.

Muskett, G. A.

Baring, F. T.

O'Connell, M. J.

Barry, G. S.

O'Ferrall, R. M.

Bernal, R.

Oswald, J.

Bridgeman, H.

Parnell, rt, hn. sir H.

Briscoe, J. I.

Pechell, Captain

Broadley, H.

Philips, M.

Brotherton, J.

Pigot, D. R.

Chetwynd, Major

Price, Sir R.

Chichester, J. P, B.

Pryme,G.

Dalmeny, Lord

Redington, T. N.

Divett,E.

Rice, rt. hon. T. S.

Donkin, Sir R. S.

Rich, H.

Ellis, W.

Rolfe, Sir R. M.

Ewart, W.

Russell, Lord J.

Freshfield, J. W.

Rutherfurd. rt. hn. A.

Gaskell, J. M.

Smith, R. V.

Grey, rt. hon. Sir C.

Steuart, R.

Grey, rt. hon. Sir G.

Stock, Dr.

Hinde. J.H.

Surrey, Earl of

Hindley, C.

Talfourd, Serjeant

Hobhouse, rt. hn. sir J.

Thomson, rt. hn. C.P.

Hobhouse, T. B.

Thornely, T.

Hodges, T. L.

Troubridge, Sir E. T.

Hoskins, K.

Vere, Sir C. B.

Howick, Viscount

Vigors, N. A.

Hume, J.

Warburton, H.

Hutton, R.

Wood, G. W.

Kemble, H.

Yates, J. A.

Labouchere,rt. hn. H.

TELLERS.

Macauley, T. B.

Stanley, hon. E. J.

Mildmay, P. St. John

Parker, J.

List of the NOES.

Attwood, T.

Hector, C. J.

Blackburne, I.

Holmes, W.

Bolling, W.

Lincoln, Earl of

Buller, C.

Lowther, J. H.

Cochrane, Sir T. J.

Polhill, F.

Darby, G.

Salwey, Colonel

Duncombe, T.

Williams, W.

Ellis. J.

TELLERS.

Fielden, J.

Somerset, Lord G

Finch, F.

Gtimsditch,T.

House in Committee.
On clause 1,
Mr. Hindley Mr. Hindley moved that the words "her Majesty" be omitted, and the words "town-council" inserted in their place.
The Committee divided on the clause as it stood:—Ayes 65; Noes 10: Majority 55.

List of the Ayes.

Adam, Admiral

Lincoln, Earl of

Blackburne, I.

Lowther, J. H.

Boldero, H. G.

Macaulay.T. B.

Bolling, W.

Morpeth, Lord

Bridgeman, H.

Muskett, G. A.

Briscoe, J. I.

O'Connell, M. J.

Broadley, H.

O'Ferrall, R. M.

Chetwynd, Major

Oswald, J.

Chichester, J. P. B.

Philips, M.

Cochrane, Sir T. J.

Pigot, D. R.

Crawford, W.

Polhill, F.

Dalmeny, Lord

Price, Sir R.

Darby, G.

Pryme, G.

Divett, E.

Rice, rt. hon. T. S.

Donkin, Sir R. S.

Rich, H.

Douglas, Sir C. E.

Rolfe, Sir R. M.

Ellis, J.

Russell, Lord J.

Ellis, W.

Rutherfurd, rt. hon. A.

Freshfield, J. W.

Smith, R.V.

Gaskell, J. M.

Somerset, Lord G.

Gordon, R.

Stanley, hon. E. J.

Grey, rt. hon. Sir C.

Steuart, R.

Grey, rt. hon. Sir G.

Stock, Dr.

Grimsditch, T.

Surrey, Earl of

Hinde, J. H.

Talfourd, Serjeant

Hobhouse, rt hn. sir J.

Thomson, rt. hon. C P.

Hobhouse, T. B.

Troubridge, Sir E. T.

Hodges, T. L.

Vere, Sir C. B.

Hoskins, K.

Warburton, H.

Hume, J.

Wood, G. W.

Hutton, R.

Yates, J. A.

Inglis, Sir R. H.

TELLERS.

Kemble, H.

Baring, F.T.

Labouchere, rt. hon. H.

Parker, J.

List of the NOES.

Aglionby, A. H.

Thornely, T.

Attwood, T.

Vigors, N. A.

Brotherton, J,

Williams, W.

Ewart, W.

Fielden, J.

TELLERS.

Hector, C. J.

Hindley, C.

Salwey, Colonel

Duncombe, T.

Clause agreed to.
Bill went through the Committee.
House resumed.
THE BOLTON POLICE BILL went through Committee.

LIGHTING THE HOUSE.
Sir F. Trenchrose to bring forward his motion:
To call the attention of the House to the experiments submitted to the Bude Light Committee, and to move, that the lustres be furnished with candles, short threes to the pound, instead of long threes, which give no more light than six to the pound, and which, therefore, defeat the intention of making a fair comparison between the power of the wax light and Bude light."
The hon. and gallant Officer said, he was aware of the ridicule which attached

261
to the subject, but his object was to add to the comfort of the House, and to obtain fair play for the wax lights, in competition with the Bude light. He wished fair play for the gentleman's light, against the philosopher's light. Nothing could be more unfair than the proceedings of the committee. He admitted that the Bude light was magnificent, but it was utterly unfit to be used in that House, It might answer in a new House, but it could not be adopted in the present House without great danger, and he was astonished that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should have lent himself to the wild proceedings of the committee. Among other suggestions, it had been proposed that the House should be furnished with calico curtains— calico covers for the seating—and it was recommended, as the means of adding still more to the effect, that the Members should be attired in calico garments. The additional sixty candles added to the lustres, were of an inferior quality, so that they gave no more light than formerly. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman in the chair, would recollect a letter which he had the honour to address to him on this subject, in which he proposed that the lustres should be furnished with short threes instead of long threes. He wished to have the comparison tested fairly, and although he was aware of the contempt with which such a matter must be viewed, yet, as it had been originally put into his hands, he felt called upon to go through with it, and only asked for a fair comparison between the power of the wax light, and the Bude light.
Sir R. Inglisthought the House greatly indebted to his hon. and gallant Friend for the trouble he had taken in the matter, and for the improvements he had introduced in the lighting of the House.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersuggested that the hon. Member should leave the matter in the hands of those who was responsible for lighting the House.
Motion withdrawn.

MINUTES.
Bills. Read a first time:—Poor-Rates Collection; Birmingham Police; Slave-Trade Suppression; Rogue Money (Scotland); Excise Licenses (Sale of Spirits); Militia Pay; Joint Stock Banking Companies.—Read a second time;—Soap Duties Regulation; Poor-law Commission Continuance; New South Wales.—Read a third time:—Highway Rates; Unlawful Oaths (Ireland); Shannon Navigation.
Petitions presented. By Lord Lyndhurst, from Individuals, claiming Compensation under the Copyholds and Metropolitan Police Courts Bills.—By Lord Brougham, from Licensed Victuallers of Lancashire, against the Excise Licenses (Sate of Spirits) Bill; and from the Chairman of the General Convention, for an Address to her Majesty to Pardon certain Birmingham Rioters.—By Lord Ellenborough, from St. Luke's, Chelsea, against the Poor-law Commission Continuance, and Collection of Rates Bills. —By Earl Stanhope, from several places, to the same effect; and for the Repeal of the Poor-law.

METROPOLITAN POLICE COURTS.
The Metropolitan Police Courts Bill was reported.
Lord Brougham Lord Brougham moved, that the third clause be struck out, not because he objected to an increase in the salaries of the police magistrates, or to their being allowed retiring pensions, but because he wished those pensions to be introduced in a proper bill, which should be introduced at a period when it might receive due deliberation and proper attention.
Viscount Duncannoncould not agree to the proposition of the noble and learned Lord.
Lord Lyndhurstbelieved, that the noble Viscount opposite (Viscount Duncannon), had last night given only two reasons for the introduction of these provisions — one was, that additional duties were imposed upon the magistrates by the present bill; and the other was the possibility of their labours being still further increased by a bill to be introduced in another Session of Parliament. Now, the clause of the present bill, imposing additional duties, had been negatived by the House, and it would be time enough to make provisions respecting the prospective jurisdiction when the bill was introduced by which it was to be conferred.
Their Lordships divided on the question that the clause stand:—Contents 30; Not-Contents 43:—Majority 13.

List of the CONTENTS.

DUKES.

Lansdowne

Somerset

Normanby.

Argyle

EARLS.

Richmond.

Ilchester

MARQUESSES.

Minto

Conyngham

Gosford

Westminster

Devon

218

Leitrim

LORDS.

Clarendon

Holland

Uxbridge,

Colborne

De Freyne

VISCOUNTS.

Foley

Melbourne

Stafford

Duncannon

Seaford

Falkland

Barham

Lismore.

Cottenham

Sudely

BISHOP.

Stanley (Alderley)

Peterborough

Methuen.

List of the NOT-CONTENTS.

ARCHBISHOP.

VISCOUNTS

Armagh.

Gage

DUKE.

Hawarden

Wellington.

Canterbury.

MARQUESS.

BISHOPS.

Ormonde.

London

EARLS.

Rochester.

Abingdon

LORDS.

Galloway

Colville

Tankerville

Sondes

Stanhope

Boston

Beverley

Calthorpe

Liverpool

Redesdale

Wicklow

Ellenborough

Rosslyn

Prudhoe

Charleville

Rayleigh

Harrowby

Bexley

Verulam

Wharncliffe

Beauchamp

Fitzgerald

Glengall

Lyndhurst

Sheffield

Tenterden

Eldon

Cowley

Falmouth

Wynford

Munster

Brougham

Ripon.

De L'Isle.

Paired off.

CONTENTS.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Norfolk

Thomond

De Mauley

Stuart de Rothsay

Carlisle

Hertford

Albermarle.

Winchester.

Clause struck out.
Remaining clauses agreed to.

SHEEP-STEALERS, (IRELAND).
House in Committee on the Sheep-steaers (Ireland) Bill.
The Lord Chancellorreminded their Lordships that this bill considerably altered the existing law, for it sought to punish a party guilty of sheep-stealing by a penalty of 5l.
Lord Broughamwas at a loss to know why a felony committed in Ireland should be punished by a penalty, when in this country the punishment for a similar felony used to be hanging, and was now transportation for life?
The Earl of Wicklowsaid, it seemed to him that the only case in which the penalty of 5l. was provided, was not where an individual had been proved to steal the sheep, but where a sheep was found in his possession, and he was unable to account for it. Possession was no proof of stealing. Would a man, on proof of possession, be liable to be hung or transported for life?
Lord Brougham: Most certainly. If the mutton or skin was found in his possession, and he was unable to account for it, on proof that it was the property of another person, he would be supposed to have stolen it. He (Lord Brougham) never knew a case of sheep-stealing in which there was any evidence of the taking.
House resumed.
On the question that the report be received,
Lord Brougham moved, that it be received this day three months.
Agreed to.
Bill put off for three months.

DOLATROUS WORSHIP, (INDIA).
The Bishop of London, on rising to move, pursuant to notice, for the production of certain papers relating to Idolatrous Worship in India, said, the question which he felt it his duty to bring under the attention and consideration of their Lordships was one of vital importance to this country, as affecting the Christian character of this country, and, as he firmly believed, of vital importance as regarded the permanency of British dominion in that vast country to which his motion had reference. He was aware that in this country there were persons who thought this question might affect the permanency of British dominion in India, but who did not entertain the same opinions as himself, because those persons thought, that the raising or mooting this question at all, was likely to bring the empire of Great Britain in the East into jeopardy. From that opinion, he entirely dissented, and, on the contrary, he thought, that nothing was so likely to shake the stability of our empire in India as the continuance of the existing most unsatisfactory state of things as to religion in that country; and, he could not believe, that a Government which not only tolerated, but sanctioned, the continuance of idolatry:—which not only sanctioned and encouraged it among the natives, but compelled a Christian people to
220
give an unwilling sanction to it—could look for the blessing of Providence on acts which were so strongly opposed to the dictates of religion. It might be said, that the question of idolatry was one in respect to which the Government ought to observe a strict neutrality, and he admitted that the most effectual way of impeding the progress of Christianity was to offer violence to the prejudices and feelings of those amongst whom it was sought and desired to plant it. But, he believed it was the clear and incontrovertible duty of this Government, as Christians, and members of a Christian state, to do nothing, that should encourage the continuance of idolatry and superstition, still less, to sanction by acts, those proceedings which they knew to be inconsistent with Christianity. He believed the country at large, and he might include many of their Lordships in the category, were but little aware of these idolatrous proceedings in India. About the year 1831, the subject began to occupy a considerable portion of public attention; and in consequence of the representations made by religious people and by some societies, the Court of Directors, in 1833, sent a despatch, which did them the highest honour, and which embodied directions that would, if carried out in practice, have spared him (the Bishop of London) the necessity of now addressing their Lordships. That despatch, it was now well known, was the production of a nobleman eminent for his benevolence and piety— he meant the noble Lord lately at the head of the Colonial department—who stated, in direct and distinct terms, the duty of the Government in India; and he could not understand why that Government had deviated from the principles there recommended. The despatch was signed by the chairman, and by 13 members of the Court of Directors, and he could not conceive that those individuals had not a bonâ fide intention that the instructions contained in it should be carried out. If, however, they had merely signed it in their official characters, and with their hearts in an opposite direction, he could only say, that they had trifled with their consciences, and deluded the Christian public. He, however, gave the directors full credit for entering into the spirit of the directions which emanated from the noble Lord to whom he had alluded. The despatch, so signed, went out: three

221
years elapsed, and it did not appear that any steps were taken during that time to carry the directions it contained into effect; and, in consequence, the attention of the proprietors of the East India Company had been called to the subject, and a motion was brought forward by a proprietor, to the effect, that the directors be instructed to carry out effectually the directions set forth in the despatch of the year 1833. That motion was, he believed, carried unanimously. After a further time, inquiries were again made as to what had been done in the matter, when it appeared that the directors had sent out to India for information as to the connexion which the government there had with the superstitions of the natives, in relation to the pilgrim-tax, as to the employing troops in religious processions and festivals, and as to the financial interests of the country, the political measures of the government, and on their public character. Now, these certainly were very proper inquiries to be made, but if the Court of Directors had been determined to carry into effect the directions of the despatch of 1833, they ought not to have suffered three years to elapse without requiring this important information. Their course of proceeding since the period to which be adverted, had been of a retrograde character, and he had, consequently, taken the liberty of calling the attention of their Lordships on two former occasions to the subject. On the last occasion, he had received from the noble Viscount at the head of the Government, the satisfactory assurance that a despatch, which should satisfy the public mind on this important subject, should go out to India. A despatch, it was true, had gone out, but, so far as he could understand, it was anything but satisfactory, and, in point of fact, it contradicted and contravened the despatch of Lord Glenelg, so far as it related to the compulsory attendance of troops in processions and at festivals. He thought it due to himself, after having spoken so strongly on these practices, to put their Lordships in possession of one or two features of the connexion of the Government with idolatrous practices, to which he objected. But, first, he would observe, that there could not be a greater mistake than to suppose, that, amongst the experienced public in India, there did not prevail anything like unanimity on the subject; he was quite sure, that,' even if the public voice in this
222
country had been silent, the opinions of people in India would have made themselves heard. The people of India were not aware of any such dangers as those held out by the Court of Directors and their friends, as likely to arise from carrying out the Christian directions of the despatch of the year 1833. One of the objections was, as to the connexion of the Government with the pagoda funds. There had been a misunderstanding between some priests, who had been thought heterodox by other orthodox Brahmins, and the Government had directly interfered, and had given a direct sanction to the idolatrous proceedings. Why not leave these pagoda priests to themselves? for it had not been even attempted to be shown that the slightest danger would arise from the Government divesting itself of the entire management of such matters. That had been done in one or two instances to the entire contentment of the parties concerned, leaving them to the civil courts of the country, if their rights were invaded. But why should he confine himself to the instances of one or two pagodas? for it had been done generally in the presidency of Bengal; there, things were as they should be; the connexion of the Government with idolatry had been got rid of without danger in that great province, which comprised a population of 50,000,000; and why could not the same thing be managed among 20,000,000 of people in Madras and Bombay? The next evil complained of was the sanction which the Government gave to religious processions and festivals, by the compulsory attendance upon them of Christian troops. He knew he might be told that this was done out of compliment to the native prince, when going to offer sacrifice in his temple. That was not the case. If a guard of honour was sent to accompany the Rajah in his progress, and to pause at the entrance to the temple, there would be not so much reason to complain; but it was not the Rajah atone that passed in procession; the idol came with him, and the idol was saluted by the troops. So far from the compliment being alone paid to the Rajah, he was sure, if a native was asked to whom the salute was offered, he would reply, "To the idol," and not to the Rajah. Such was the answer given by the Brahmins on these occasions. Was the course of proceeding consistent with the desire to bring the millions of be-

223
nighted people of that country to the pure faith? Was it consistent to make professions of that desire, while, in practice, the Government was ready to assist in paying homage to stock and stone? But why should Christian troops be compelled to assist in these ceremonies, so revolting to their consciences, when Mahomedan soldiers were not liable? That this was the case had been proved lately in the instance of a Subahdar of a Mahomedan regiment in the British service, who refused to join in the processions, and had been brought to a court-martial. He urged reasons which would not have availed a Christian officer, and had suffered no inconvenience from his refusal. And yet at that time, the officer whose name appeared in the papers for which he (the Bishop of London) was about to move, found nineteen Christian soldiers in confinement for having refused to perform a similar act, which was equally against their consciences. While India was under the government of Mahomedans, they never lent their troops in this way, neither did they interfere with the native religion, and he contended, that nothing short of that course by the British Government, would satisfy the public mind at home and abroad. What he wanted to see, was something like an advancement on the part of the directors towards that consummation so devoutly to be wished. But instead of this, they had retracted the orders they sent out in 1833; they first censured the practice, and then withdrew their censure. What conclusion could the people of England form from that circumstance, but that the Court of Directors did not feel disposed to fulfil the hopes of the public on this subject? There was another topic upon which he hardly knew how to speak in terms of moderation—he alluded to the offerings to idols made on the part of the Government. It was notorious, that such offerings were made by a Christian Government. He had lately heard of an instance which was of so gross a character, that he could scarcely believe it true, and therefore he would not relate it at present. But there was no doubt of this fact, that offerings were actually made to idols in the most solemn and formal manner, by the servants of the East India Company on certain days of the year. Was it to be supposed, that the Hindoos, who were not wanting in sagacity, indolent and ignorant though
224
they might be, and immersed in the most degrading superstitions and immoral practices as they were, would not take notice of this inconsistency? Why, they were in the habit of taunting our missionaries with these very things. He was persuaded, that if the known principles of the constitution of this country were regarded, we should more effectually advance and strengthen our influence with the heathen population, by something like a consistent and firm maintenance of them, coupled with moderation, than we could by a compromise of those principles. The kind of influence obtained by means of a compromise of principle, was such as their Lordships might be certain would not stand in the day of trial. At this period of the Session, he felt that he ought not to enlarge upon this subject, and, indeed, nothing but its great importance had induced him to press it upon their Lordships' attention. He would, however, just allude to the case of a distinguished individual who had been treated, in connexion with this important question, in a manner, he would not say unworthy of his character, but in a manner unworthy of a Christian Government, and in a manner which was calculated to impede the progress of Christianity. In consequence of the despatch to which he had alluded, Sir Robert O'Callaghan issued an order—and he was the more induced to do so, because of the unfortunate death of a sepoy at an idolatrous festival—that no troops should be so employed except as a guard of honour to the Rajah, thereby marking out the course of duty to be followed. When Sir Peregrine Maitland went out to take the command of the troops at Madras, having heard of the order of Sir Robert O'Callaghan—having considered with some attention, and viewed with some apprehension, the compulsory attendance of troops at idolatrous festivals, for it was no new subject either in this country or at Madras, and having received no new directions to depart from the instructions of the Court of 1833, he went out with the persuasion, that it was his duty to carry out those instructions according to their spirit. That distinguished individual also consulted one of the directors—the chairman, he believed, but certainly a leading person in the Court of Directors — on the principles which should govern his conduct of India. The gentleman whom he consulted, put into

225
his hands a book, in which he was informed he would find the principles laid down, upon which the directors wished their officers to act. There was only one paragraph in that book, which related to the subject now under discussion, which set forth, that while those who did not profess Christianity should not be exposed to persecution, but should be protected, Christians also ought not to be compelled to comply with practices which their consciences disapproved; and that the neutrality of the Government in religious questions should be perfect, for while, on the one hand, they should not force Christianity on the people, on the other hand, they should not evince any approbation of idolatry. Now, was it possible to suppose, when that distinguished person had this book placed in his hands, and when he found that Sir Robert O'Callaghan had issued the order already mentioned, that in carrying out the principles therein set forth, he was incurring; the displeasure of the Government? He believed, however, that the order was revoked by the Government, and Sir Peregrine Maitland, finding that he could not conscientiously proceed to discharge the duties of the post he occupied, placed at the disposal of the Court the command of the army at Madras, and his seat in the council. The reply which he received, was understood to be to the effect, that he had tendered his resignation under an erroneous impression — nevertheless his resignation was accepted. Amongst the papers for which he now moved, was the correspondence between the Court of Directors and Sir Peregrine Maitland. There might be objections to the production of that correspondence upon grounds with which he was not acquainted; but if those objections came from the Court of Directors, he must say, that it was due to the distinguished and gallant individual concerned, that they should produce those papers, because in them was to be found the justification of a step which no military chief should take, except upon strong grounds. He believed — but he spoke without any positive information—that the tendered resignation was not only accepted by the Court of Directors, but by another branch of the Government. He should be glad to hear what the noble Viscount at the head of Her Majesty's Government, would say before he determined whether he should
226
press for the production of these papers or not. He knew the arguments with which he should be met: he should be told that it would be unsafe to agitate this question in this country, and that persons here could not understand the bearing of it. But he saw nothing to awaken an apprehension, that by discussing this topic they would in the slightest degree endanger or impair the stability of the British empire in India. He had already pointed the attention of their Lordships to one conclusive fact, that the practices in Bombay and Madras were unknown in the other presidencies; and he could not understand why, since there was no difference in the habits or religion, or religious observances of the people, there should be a difference as to the interference of the British troops with their religious practices. What was safely done with 50,000,000 of people, might be safely done with 20,000,000. From the concurrent testimony of many wise and good men, who had lived in India, and well considered the subject, it was clear that hardly anything would more tend to cement the foundations, and secure the continuance, and increase the influence of the British Government in that country, than a firm, consistent determination on the part of the Government not to interfere with the superstitious practices of the people—not to thwart or hinder their wishes, nor to withdraw any means of protection to which, by treaty or law, they were entitled, but at the same time, to refrain from all interference, which could by possibility be construed into a sanction of idolatry. He was bound to say, that the Government had taken one step of which he approved: they had given directions for the discontinuance of the pilgrim-tax, that source whence the Government had drawn an immense amount of money, part of which went out again to the support of idolatry, and part remained an unholy addition to the gains of the company. The tax was abolished in the district of Allahabad, but there were many other cases in which revenues were drawn from idolatry; and was it not to be deplored, that a Christian Government should seek to derive profit from the superstitions of idolatry, while professing to be the worshippers of the true God? And let it be remembered, that he spoke not merely of the worship of idols in simple distinction from the

227
worship of the true God, but of a system which included obscenities, barbarities, and crimes which found no parallel in all the pages of classical mythology. Nothing could exceed the atrocities which were committed under the name of religion in India. The consequence was the entire degradation of the character of the natives, until they had become notoriously and proverbially regardless of truth and honour, so that no testimony given in a court of justice by a native Hindoo, could be relied upon. He did not wish the prejudices of these people to be interfered with in any improper manner; but he would have every means used to let them see that we felt that we were in possession of a holier and a happier religion, which, if they embraced it, would be the means of promoting their prosperity here, as well as their happiness hereafter. He would not have anything done, which would lead them to think it was a matter of indifference, whether they should embrace the true religion, or live in the practices of idolatry. That appeared to him to be so plain, so clear, and so faultless a course, that he could not anticipate what objections could be started against it, except those which were suggested by expediency. But if, indeed, we could secure our dominion of that vast territory—if we must be masters of that immense population, only at the expense of sacrificing the holiness of our own religion, he confessed he would rather give up all; nay, he believed, all attempts to retain it would be in vain, if we acted upon such a principle; for he never could suppose that a merciful Providence, which had entrusted us with that empire for the purpose of carrying out its benevolent designs towards mankind, would keep it in our possession that we should abuse our power and our privilege, and make that a dominion for Satan, which we ought to convert into a kingdom for God. He would now move for
"Copies of so much of any despatches sent by the court of Directors to India since the 8th of August, 1830, as relates to the abolition of taxes in India, connected with religious observances of the natives, or to the employment of Christian troops in the religious processions and festivals of the natives, Also, copy of the memorial sent to the Governor-general from the presidency of Madras on the subject of the attendance of Christian troops at the religious processions and festivals of the natives; together with the appendix to such
228
memorial. And also, copies of the despatch of the 18th of October, 1837, to the Governor-general in Council, No. 14, Revenue Department; and of Sir Peregrine Maitland's letter thereon to the Court of Directors, tendering his resignation of the command of the Madras army, and of his seat in council."
Before he sat down, he would trouble their Lordships so far as to read to them the opinion of an individual who had resided long enough in India to take an accurate estimate of the question—one who was eminently distinguished by his services in the cause of religion—the Bishop of Calcutta. The extract was from a charge delivered by that right rev. prelate in July, 1838:—
Before I quit the subject of missions, it may be proper for me to mention the great obstruction to the progress of the gospel, which has been directed to be renewed by that remarkable despatch of the Court of Directors of February, 1833, which did them so much honour, and which is, indeed, one of the most able and conclusive documents I ever read. What progress has been actually made in India itself, in carrying into effect the abolition of the pilgrim-tax, I am not informed. I observe that delay is creating feelings of sorrow and impatience in the generous hearts of British Christians. I can only say, rev. brethren, that everything we can properly do to direct and rouse public opinion, both here and at home, it is our duty to undertake. It is frightful to think, after all that Providence has done for us in India, that we should be still countenancing the most degrading and debased idolatries—should still be identifying ourselves with the blood-stained car of Juggernaut; and should still be enlisting the Christian virtues of prudence, sagacity, fortitude, and perseverance, in arranging the abominations, in preparing and decking out the pageants, of the grossest and most polluting idolatry. Thank God, we are exempt, on this side of India, from the personal and direct countenance, which at Madras and Bombay the authorities are understood to be called upon to give to heathenism and Mahometanism. I need not say that I honour Bishop Corrie, for the manly and, to his gentle nature, difficult part he took on this subject; and I beg to be understood to partake, as metropolitan, in all the sentiments of the memorial, which has brought down such unmerited calumny on his name, but which will ever be considered as amongst his highest eulogiums by all who estimate the duties of a Christian bishop."
Viscount Melbournehoped he felt as deeply impressed as any man, with a sense of the serious nature of the subject upon which the right rev. Prelate had descanted; he hoped he felt the importance

229
of the subject to this country, and to the great spiritual and future interests of the people concerned, as well as to the stability of that vast empire, which we now possessed in India. He did not in any respect disagree upon the general principles upon which that empire ought to be religiously governed. He agreed with the right rev. Prelate, that every respect should be shown to the religious prejudices of the country—that no disrespect or insult should be offered to the religious feelings of the inhabitants—and that at the same time no undue honour should be paid, no unnecessary respect should be shown, to their superstitions; and that all practices which could be construed to giving any sanction to them, should be carefully abstained from. He would not enter further into the general consideration of this question on this occasion; but he had hoped, and he still hoped, that on these general principles, there was no disagreement. The right rev. Prelate had given a history of the proceedings in connexion with this subject, from the time of the despatch of 1833, down to that period of the last year, when he did, unquestionably, in answer to an observation of that right rev. Prelate, inform him, that measures Were about to be taken by the Court of Directors of the East India Company, which he hoped would prove effectual in securing the object which the right rev. Prelate so much desired, and answer the expectations of those in whose names he spoke. It was with great concern that he learnt from the right rev. Prelate, that he considered that pledge as remaining unfulfilled; because, as far as he understood the objection taken on the present Occasion, and the reasons and principles laid down by the right rev. Prelate, it appeared that the despatch sent out instructing the Governor-general of India, which had been laid before the House, did proceed upon the very principles laid down by that right rev. Prelate. They all admitted the justice of those principles, and he believed it was the intention of the Government here and in India to carry it into effect. The right rev. Prelate had spoken of the pilgrim-tax; and what said the despatch?
In the same spirit we have again to express our anxious desire, that you should accomplish, with as little delay as practicable, the arrangements already in progress for the abolition or the collection of the pilgrim-tax
230
and for discontinuing all connexion of the Government with the management of any funds for the support of any religious ceremonies of the people. It is our wish that you should leave them exclusively to the management of their own priests."
That he understood to be the course which the Government wished to be taken. That was the course which the Government had pursued, and Government was still proceeding in the same course, in order to effect the total discontinuance of all sanction on the part of the authorities to the religious ceremonies of the natives. The right rev. Prelate had said, that they maintained all the. pagodas; that they managed the funds, and that they supported the temples; and he had asked, why the Government did not discontinue this connexion, and leave those matters to be settled by the native priests. Now, he would ask whether it was not fully shown by the despatch to which he had alluded, that the Government was anxious to adopt such a course and to leave the management of the temples and revenues to the natives themselves? That despatch contained the following passage, which showed clearly what the intentions of the Government were. It said:—
We wish it to be distinctly understood, that the management of the temples ought to be resigned into the hands of the natives, and, that the intercourse of all the public authorities with the natives, in regard to those matters, ought to be regulated by the instructions contained in section 62 of the despatch of 1833."
Those instructions prevented the soldiers from being called on to take a part in the religious ceremonies of the natives; but he thought no alteration should be made in the practice as regarded escorts to the princes of the country, as it was evident that those escorts were in honour of the individual, and not of the occasion. The right rev. Prelate had stated that those escorts took part in the religious ceremonies, and that the honour was considered by the natives as paid to the idol, and not to the prince. Unquestionably, it was his opinion that every means should be adopted, and every precaution taken, to show that this mark of respect was paid to the person, and not to the idol; but he must say at the same time, that in his opinion it would not be prudent at the present moment, to discontinue the paying of that mark of respect to the native princes, which had hitherto been paid.

231
It was his wish, certainly, to see those religious ceremonies discountenanced, and the Christian religion established; but at the same time it was necessary, in seeking the attainment of that object, that they should proceed according to the dictates of prudence; for if they did not attend to what prudence required, their measures might not only endanger the loss of the country, but prove injurious also to religion itself. He had certainly hoped that the despatch which had been sent out would have satisfied the right rev. Prelate, and he was sorry to find that it had not. He still, however, trusted that it would be found that there was no material difference in the course which the right rev. Prelate wished to be followed, and that which had actually been pursued by the Government. He hoped the differences might be reconciled, and that there would be found no great discrepancies of opinion, and that they might all labour by the same means for the attainment of that result which all, he was sure, were equally anxious to see accomplished. As regarded the papers which the right rev. Prelate had moved for, he had to state, that he had no objection to the production of the two first; they had already been laid before the other House of Parliament, and their production could not be attended with any inconvenience. As regarded the despatch of the 18th of October 1837, to the Governor-General in Council, it had not been yet produced, but he had no objection to its production. As regarded, however, the letter to the Court of Directors from Sir P. Maitland, considering that it was the letter of a general officer, and that it contained a statement of the reasons which had induced him to resign his command, he would put it to the House whether it was a document which ought to be produced? That general officer had thought proper to tender his resignation, but there was no charge against his character or conduct, and there was nothing in the proceedings which called for a vindication of his conduct; and he would, therefore, put it to their Lordships, without entering upon any further explanation of the transaction, whether this was a document of a nature or of a character which ought to be produced? There were other reasons against the production of this document, and he trusted the right rev. Prelate would opt press for its production.
Lord Broughamsaid, their Lordships were all greatly obliged to the right rev. Prelate for the able, eloquent, and touching manner in which he had brought this important matter under their consideration. He quite agreed in much that had fallen from the right rev. Prelate, and thought that those religious ceremonies ought to receive no encouragement from the Government. He felt, however, that he should not be doing his duty if he did not say, that it was too unqualified a condemnation to state that the natives of India were not be believed upon their oath in a court of justice. There were many natives of India of high character, and in whom implicit confidence might be placed. From his attendance before the Privy Council, where cases relative to India were decided, he was able to speak from experience on this subject, and he should have been unjust to the natives of that country if he had not said this much in their defence.
The Bishop of Londonsaid, that the noble and learned Lord must be aware that he had not included all the natives of India. There were many enlightened natives of India in whom perfect confidence might be placed, and his observations did not apply to those persons, nor did they include every one.
The Duke of Richmondsaid, the noble Viscount at the head of the Government had not told them why, if it was safe to discontinue in one province all interference on the part of the authorities of India in the religious ceremonies of the natives, it was not equally safe to discontinue that interference in all. He held in his hand, a document in which the character of those ceremonies was described. It was said in that document, that the religious rites and ceremonies of the natives might be well termed scenes of folly, licentiousness, and cruelty, for they were of a character from which the most abandoned persons in Europe would revolt with horror. He confessed that he had never before imagined that such scenes could have been sanctioned by a Christian Government. It was certainly not his desire to employ force, and he only wished that the Government should afford facilities to the natives of becoming Christians, and that no encouragement should be given to their religious ceremonies. He must, however, say, that he could not understand the course which had been pursued by the

233
Government, or by the Court of Directors. After the despatch which had been sent out in 1833, it appeared to him rather strange that such a course should have been adopted as had been pursued towards an officer, who had resigned because he had been prevented from carrying the intentions of that despatch into execution. He, therefore, wished to see the letter of his gallant relative produced, because, as it appeared to him, they ought to know the grounds on which that officer's resignation had been accepted. His gallant relative did not object to his resignation having been accepted, but the Government had said that he had been mistaken, and he thought some explanation of this matter was necessary. Whatever might have been the grounds for having accepted the resignation of this gallant officer, he was persuaded that Sir P. Maitland had only done his duty as a soldier and a Christian, and he felt grateful to the right rev. Prelate for having brought this subject in so able a manner under the consideration of their Lordships because he felt that a remedy ought to be applied to prevent the continuance of those revolting ceremonies.
The Duke of Wellingtonhad served in India for a considerable length of time, but he had never seen, he had never heard of, anything so revolting in the religious ceremonies of the natives, as had been described by the noble Duke and by the right rev. Prelate. The whole army, while he was in India, except about 50,000 men, consisted of idolators, but they were as good soldiers as could be found any where. They performed in the best manner whatever service was required of them, and certainly at that time the object of the Government, and of every man in the service of the Government, was to avoid not only to interfere, but even to seem to interfere, in any manner in the idolatrous rites and ceremonies of the country. He had seen none of the despatches which had been alluded to, and he must say, that he had seen too much in his own experience to encourage the practice of producing documents of this description. He begged their Lordships to recollect, that, with the exception of about 20,000 of her Majesty's troops, and with the exception of the civil servants of the Government, and the few European residents, there was not a man in India who was not an idolater, to manage and to regulate the affairs of that most extensive and important em-,
234
pire. He would entreat their Lordships never to lose sight of that fact. He knew, too, from experience, for he had seen the missionaries at work, the little progress which they made, and he knew, at the same time, that they created a good deal of jealousy. He warned the Government not to go too far in their measures against the idolatry of India, for the Indian empire was one of great importance, and they must not expect to convert 100,000,000 of idolaters to our holy religion by the small means at their disposal. In regard to what had been stated by the noble Duke (Richmond) relative to Sir P. Maitland, he could have no doubt that that gallant officer had resigned his command, as every honourable man ought, because he had found himself unable to perform what was required from him. There could be no doubt on that point. He had not seen the paper which had been alluded to, but he could have, no doubt, from what he knew of Sir P. Maitland, that he had conducted himself as a man of honour and a soldier. In his opinion, however, the papers relative to those transactions were of such a peculiar nature, and of so delicate a character, that they ought not to be produced here, for, if they were produced in this country, they would certainly find their way to India. The noble Viscount had not done quite right, he thought, in consenting so readily to the production of those despatches.
The Bishop of Londonsaid, his complaint was, that the scruples of the Mahometans were respected, while the Christian soldiers were forced to attend those religious ceremonies. He should not press for the letter from Sir P. Maitland.
The Duke of Wellingtonsaid, there were Mahometans in all the armies, but he was not able to say the proportion to the Hindoos. He had no hesitation, however, in saying, that the Hindoos generally predominated, and particularly in the army of Fort St. George, and he never remembered any question on this subject having been raised.
The documents moved for were ordered, with exceptions.

COURT OF ADMIRALTY.
The Lord Chancellorrose to state to their Lordships the nature and objects of this bill, and he would assure them, that he should trespass as shortly as possible on their time. The Admiralty Court was one of great

235
importance. The duties of the Judge of the Court of Admiralty were very important in time of war, but he had also very important duties to perform in time of peace. The amount of business done in time of peace was comparatively light, but the importance of the duty was, nevertheless, very great, and the judge who was called upon to perform that duty ought also to be capable of discharging the duties which would be imposed upon the court in the event of a war breaking out. The character which our Admiralty Court had obtained, not only in this country, but in other parts of the world, was well known to their Lordships. The judicial seat in that court had been filled by men of great learning and distinguished ability, and it was of great importance that its character should be maintained. That could only be done by placing men of the greatest talent and character at the head of that court. He would now state to their Lordships how that court was constituted, in respect to its most important officers. There was a judge, a registrar, and a marshal. The income of the judge was, in former times, entirely dependent on the amount of fees received. Gradually, however, additions were made to it, by way of permanent income, and the permanent income of the judge was at present 2,500 l. It appeared from the evidence of the late Sir John Nicholl, that the income of Sir W. Scott, in time of war, was for a series of years 5,700 l. a-year, and for another series of years, 5,300 l. Now, the bill before their Lordships proposed to abolish all fees, and to give the judge a permanent fixed salary of 4,000 l. -a-year, which was less than the salaries received by the puisne judges. It was desirable also that the registrar should have a suitable income. In time of war, his income had amounted to 12,000 l. a-year, while in time of peace it had been as little as 100 l. Now, it could not be right or conducive to the public service, that an officer of the court should be paid so extravagantly in time of war, and be left without any income at all in time of peace. The bill, therefore, proposed, that the registrar should have a certain income of 1,200 l. a-year, in time of peace, and that the Government should have the power, on the application of the Court of Admiralty, to increase his salary in time of war, to 2,000 l. a-year. Then there was the marshal, who was the executive officer of the court; the bill pro-
236
posed, that he should have a salary of 800 l. a-year, in time of peace, and in time of war, 1,200 l. The bill, however, had other important objects. It was proposed to add to the jurisdiction, and to improve the machinery, of the court, in order to enable it to perform its duties with more effect. There were some cases in which the court had a jurisdiction, but only to a limited extent. Thus it had jurisdiction over the possession of vessels as between the owner and the captain, but although it was in some cases necessary to sell the vessel in consequence of the claims upon it, it was not in the power of the Court of Admiralty to effect a sale. The same difficulty existed with respect to mortgages on ships. Then, again, there was the same question as to seaman's wages. This was a part of the bill, which, he thought, must receive their Lordships' approbation. Another part of the bill was to improve the means by which the Court of Admiralty had to carry its jurisdiction into effect—he meant that part of the bill which related to the examination of witnesses. But before he touched upon this part of the subject, he would refer to the jurisdiction of the Court of Admiralty when a question of prize came before it—namely, when it had to adjudicate upon the disposition of enemies' property taken at sea; this was undoubtedly, within its jurisdiction. But when a question of booty arose—namely, when the property was captured on land —the Court of Admiralty had no jurisdiction. If the property was taken in the course of the joint operations of an army and navy, then the Court of Admiralty had jurisdiction over both; but over questions of booty, it had no jurisdiction. Anciently these questions were determined by the Court of Chivalry; but that court having been abolished, they fell under the cognizance of the Treasury, from which it was now proposed to transfer them to the Admiralty Court. With regard to the machinery by which it was proposed to improve the working of the court, it was intended to give the court the power of examining witnesses vivâ voce, and also power to direct the trial of an issue, in the same manner as courts of equity. He had now gone over all the points in the bill which were of material importance, and he hoped their Lordships would allow the bill to go into committee.
Lord Lyndhurstwould detain their

237
Lordships but a very few moments on the subject of this bill. He agreed entirely with his noble and learned Friend in thinking that the subject was one of very great importance, and he thought, that that statement of his noble and learned Friend was sufficient to show, that it was not fit that this bill should be discussed at this period of the Session; and he believed, indeed, that he should be able to satisfy their Lordships that the persons who had introduced the bill were themselves of opinion, that it ought not to be pressed or urged forward at present. The bill was founded on a report of a Committee of the House of Commons made six years ago, and nothing had been done upon it from that time to the present; but year after year had been suffered to elapse, and then, after all, the promoters of the bill had only brought it forward at a late period of the Session. The bill was committed in the House of Commons on the 15th of July, and it did not come up to their Lordships' House till the 6th of this present August. He would ask their Lordships, then, whether this bill ought to be discussed at this period of the Session, and above all, whether it ought to be discussed in the absence of the noble and learned Lords, who were at the head of the law? But, moreover, this bill was founded not only on the report of the committee, but upon the evidence on which that report was founded, and he defied any of their Lordships to vote for the bill after having read that report and evidence. Besides, this bill proposed greatly to extend the jurisdiction of the Court of Admiralty. His noble and learned Friend said, that it was very desirable to give the Court of Admiralty an extended jurisdiction over the subject of seamen's wages, when secured by contract under seal. Now, against that he protested on account of the great expense of the proceedings in the Admiralty Court. Nothing could be more simple, on the other hand, than the trial of a question of this kind by a jury in the common law courts. He would cite, as an instance of the expense of Admiralty proceedings, the case of the Lima. The mate of that vessel thought proper to bring an action in the Court of Admiralty against the master for wages. The claim which amounted to 70 l., was resisted on the ground of misconduct, and the master had a judgment in hit favour. What was
238
the consequence? The master, although, victorious, had to pay 180 l. in consequence of the in competency of the mate to pay the costs. But the matter did not end here. The other party thought proper to appeal, and although he was defeated on appeal, yet the master had to pay costs amounting to upwards of 390 l. Now, these were facts which were incontrovertible. Yet the noble and learned Lord said it was extremely desirable that contracts of such a nature should be decided by the Court of Admiralty, where the proceeding was most expensive, instead of by the courts of common law. If this provision was adopted, what would happen? Every seaman, getting into the hands of a proctor, would institute proceedings in the Admiralty Court, because it would be well known, that the defendant would be afraid to resist on account of the expense, and that he would therefore submit to the demand made upon him. He mentioned this circumstance for the purpose of showing their Lordships, that a bill involving so many points for consideration ought not to have been delayed until the 13th of August, and then brought forward, in the absence of those noble and learned Lords who presided over the courts of law. For these reasons, he objected to proceeding with the bill at the present moment. He did not object to the proposed increase of salary to the learned judge. He thought it was proper that that judge should have a fixed salary, and, in his opinion the proposed was not more than an adequate remuneration for a person holding that high situation. But this was a point which, with the others involved in the bill, could he very well considered next year, when the bill might be brought forward in their Lordships' House. At the same time, the learned individual who presided over the Admiralty Court need not suffer by the rejection of the bill, as a vote for the amount of the salary might be passed by the other House, or the future bill might be made retrospective in this respect. He moved, that the bill be committed that day three months.
Lord Broughamhad repeatedly urged his noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack to bring forward some measure on this subject, for the purpose of taking the payment of the salary of the judge of the Admiralty Court out of the navy estimates. But he thought that a bill on this subject should be accompanied with ano-

239
ther provision, which appeared to him to be absolutely necessary, namely, that this judge should not hold a seat in Parliament. If the judge was to be paid by a regular salary, and ought to be independent of the Crown, he should on the other hand, be removed from political life, and not placed in a situation to be influenced by political feelings. [Lord Lyndhurst: That was recommended in the report of the commissioners.] He was aware that it was recommended in the report, and he was sure that his noble and learned Friend On the Woolsack must be of the same opinion. He did not object to the proposed salary of 4,000 l. a-year; but it should be recollected that this 4,000 l. a-year was for little more than twenty-eight days' work, for that was the period during which the court sat, and this was certainly very adequate remuneration for an office which was little more than a sinecure. His noble and learned Friend had stated that this was less than the salary of a puisne judge, but then the duties of the latter were very different. He might be told that they might look forward to a state of war, when the duties of the judge of the Admiralty would be greatly increased. Now, he had no expectation of seeing a war while he lived, at any rate, he sincerely trusted that he should not again see a war. He, however, would consent to this salary of 4,000 l. a-year, but when the comparison was made between the duties of the judge of the Admiralty Court and the puisne judges, he would remind their Lordships that the latter sat ten months in the year, while the Admiralty Court hardly sat a lunar month. This made all the difference, for if this bill passed, it would enable this judge, as a political partisan, to work double tides for the political party with which he was connected. He believed that a more zealous, active, or able partisan, and a more useful supporter to the Treasury, did not exist, than his distinguished and learned Friend who was now judge of the Admiralty Court. He might then work as long as his services were required, and as actively as possible as a member of the political party to which he belonged, and might again take the lead in coming up to search their Lordships' journals to see what they were doing with some particular measure. But it should also be remembered, that he was the only judge to decide on the matters involved in
240
that bill to which he had just adverted, as he alone had to determine on the delicate points of the law of nations; he, therefore, could not help feeling that his right hon. and learned Friend should not have taken quite such an active part in passing that bill. The Portuguese would certainly take this view of the subject; and, if their Lordships had enacted that bill, they would have complained that the most active partisan in support of it was the judge who would have to decide on all cases under it. He remembered two previous judges of the Admiralty Court who sat in the other House, Sir William Scott, and Sir John Nicholl; but both these learned judges were Members of the University of Oxford, and this was a very different thing from being Members of the Tower Hamlets; for in nearly every case that would come into his court it would be found that at least one of his learned Friend's constituents was mixed up in it, either as plaintiff or defendant, or as promoter or respondent, as the parties to a suit were called in the Admiralty Court. He would then be one day on the hustings of the Tower Hamlets, and the next day sitting in the Admiralty Court, deciding on some case involving the interests of his constituents. No man would assert that it was right that any one in such a situation should be appointed judge of this court. Again, it was now almost universally admitted, that judges should not have the disposa of patronage; but under this bill the judge had patronage to the extent of at least half a dozen places of emolument, and he was enabled to name whom he pleased to them. In the first place, he might appoint a registrar to he Court of Admiralty, with a salary of 2,000 l. a-year in time of war, and 1,400 l. a-year in time of peace. There then was also the office of deputy-registrar, with a large salary. There was also the marshal of the court, with a great salary, together with the clerk and assistants, all with large salaries, and all these appointments were to be placed at the disposal of the judge of the Admiralty Court. In past ages, no doubt, a great extent of patronage was given to judges, but more enlightened ages took it away. Formerly, they paid some of the judges small salaries, and they allowed them the patronage of certain offices attached to these courts, and they were even allowed to dispose of them, in certain cases; but this system had been

241
changed, and his noble Friend opposite, (the Earl of Ripon), when Chancellor of the Exchequer, had brought forward a measure to take away the patronage from the judges, and to give them increased salaries. This bill, however, gave more patronage to the judge of this court than any judge had ever before possessed. By this bill, also, the judge had power of making rules for the practice of his court, without the approbation or consent of any other judge. What was this, but that the judge of the Admiralty Court, himself a Member of the Legislature, was, under the name of rules, to have the power of making laws for the practice of the court? It happened that nearly half the decisions of the judges of the courts of law were on points of practice, and sometimes the most important matters were involved in them. Indeed, a most valuable book in the profession, which was contained in three thick volumes—he alluded to Mr. Tidd's work—was on practice alone. In all these cases, in the courts of law, a rule of practice was made after deliberation and consultation with other judges; but, by this bill, the judge of the Admiralty Court might make rules without consulting any person, but ex mero motu. It would have been better if it were directed that these rules, before being brought into operation, should be laid for a certain period before both Houses of Parliament, and, if either House disapproved of them that they should be rescinded. Under this bill, however, they were to be conclusive immediately on their being issued by the judge. This was very different from what he thought would have emanated from the recommendations of the commissioners. He, therefore, thought, on the grounds that he had stated, that it would be better to postpone the bill to another Session. He had asked for a measure on the subject from the first week in the Session, and now it had come up to them in this objectionable and imperfect form in the last week, as he trusted that it would be, of the Session. If noble Lords thought that they could in committee make something of this bill, that would be satisfactory. He had no objection to their trying, but he was by no means sanguine of this, and, therefore, felt disposed to support the amendment of his noble and learned Friend.
Lord Lyndhurstobserved, that it was a remarkable fact, that the learned person who was now judge at the Admiralty Court
242
was examined before the commissioners; and he described the judge of this court as being somewhat a political judge, and to make him therefore a party judge was really monstrous.
Lord Wynfordfelt the strongest possible objections to this bill, as it would enable the judge of this court to alter nearly the whole mercantile law of the country. If the bill passed, a great many causes would be taken from the Courts of Common Law into the Court of Admiralty. He did not think that that court was so constituted that it should decide on matters of this kind. He agreed in many of the objections that had been urged to this bill by his two noble and learned Friends, and he, therefore, thought that the best course to pursue was to send the bill to a committee up-stairs early next Session, when the whole bearing of its details could be considered. It would be a mere mockery to pass the bill in its present shape.
Viscount Melbournesaid, that unquestionably there might be some grounds for the objections that had been urged against this bill, but he thought that his noble and learned Friend must himself have been surprised at some of the objections, that had been urged by noble Lords opposite, and, in fact, he seemed towards the end of his speech to be ashamed of some that had been put forward, and at the opposition that had been got up to this measure, for he said if the bill could be made something of they might as well try it. His noble and learned Friend had for half the Session reproached the Government for allowing the old system of paying the judge of the Court of Admiralty to continue, and had repeatedly dwelt on the shame and scandal of paying a judge by an annual vote of the other House, and had urged that the present state of things should not remain any longer; but now, when the means were before their Lordships of getting rid of this ground of complaint, his noble and learned Friend found out that it was too late in the Session to go on with the bill. His noble and learned Friend had objected to the passing of this bill, because it conferred patronage on the judge of the Admiralty Court. From one who had never had the enjoyment of patronage in the disposal of place as a judge, this might appear to be very sound in principle. But if it was such an objectionable and difficult talk,

243
how he pitied his noble and learned Friend at the very painful situation in which he was placed when he was sitting as a judge on the Woolsack, for he had the largest patronage that could possibly fall to the disposal of any subject. Then, again, his noble and learned Friend objected to the judge of the Admiralty Court having the power to make rules for the practice of the court over which he presided, but all judges did so in their several courts ["No."] Did they not? He spoke from no practical knowledge of the subject, but he believed that all judges had that power. His hon. and learned Friend said, that he never would consent to a measure by which the judge of the Court of Admiralty would be enabled to sit in the House of Commons. The noble and learned Lord opposite only seemed lately inclined to adopt the same opinion; but, for his own part, he thought that it would be very objectionable to adopt the principle of excluding the judge of the Admiralty Court from the House of Commons, That high functionary had always been enabled to sit there, and his situation and position in the country might, in certain matters give very important weight and authority to the opinion or decisions of the House of Commons, which noble Lords might think was much wanting at the present time, and which it would certainly not be wise or prudent to lessen or diminish. This learned judge must be conversant with the Jaw of nations, and with the laws of other countries, and, therefore, his presence might be of peculiar service in regard to the decisions of the other House. He believed, that the opinion was as novel that the judge should not have the disposal of patronage, as that the judge of this court should not be a Member of the other House. He believed that the reason why the common law judges were excluded from seats in the other House was, because they were constituent Members of that House. He would not take any step to enable judges to be elected representatives in the other House, but he would not carry the exclusion that existed at present further. The exclusion of able and learned men from such offices, because they were Members of the other House, and because they represented large constituencies, was a conclusion not very complimentary to the people or the constituency of this country. His noble and learned Friend seemed to say, if the present judge of the
244
Admiralty represented a narrow constituency, it would not be so objectionable, but because he had been entrusted with the confidence of a very considerable body of his fellow citizens, and had been sent as their representative to the other House, he should not be allowed to continue there. Then it was objected, that in his situation on the hustings he might be induced to say unfair things, and to lend himself to popular views and acts and feelings, and that this unfitted him for the due discharge of the high functions of his important office; but he could not help feeling, that this was not a very great compliment to the representative system, or to the form of government under which we lived. It was also said that, in consequence of the high sanctity of the office of a judge, that it should be guarded by peculiar purity; but, at the same time, were they to be told that this peculiar purity, and honour, and integrity was only required in a judge? Other situations required high honour and integrity and character as well as this, and if the representative of a large constituency was unfit for the judicial office, how unfit he roust equally be for other appointments of trust? If the principle was admitted, it was a heavy blow at representative government, for it was acknowledging and admitting that those who were elected by the people as their representatives were unfit for offices of trust. It was one of the most dangerous admissions that he had recently heard that those who were so elected and chosen by large bodies of their fellow-citizens were unfit for the service of the Crown. This was one of the most objectionable and dangerous doctrines that could be uttered in that House. Therefore, in conformity with the constitution of the country, and with the constitution of the House of Commons, he felt satisfied that this judicial officer should now be enabled to sit there, as his predecessors did, and that he should not for the future be excluded from the position, and deprived of the power of serving his country in the way in which he could do it with the greatest weight, and in which ha could afford the greatest assistance to the councils of his country. In conclusion, he approved of the main principles of the bill, and notwithstanding the opposition that it had met with, he believed all would agree in them ultimately, and particularly as to the payment of the judge's salary

245
and the other great principles of the bill, but whether their Lordships were willing to adopt, or not adopt it now, he could not state.
Lord Broughamentertained, as he had before stated, the strongest objections to many of the details of this bill. As for being guilty of the slightest inconsistency in asking for this bill and now objecting to it, it was not more than if he had asked his noble and learned Friend for bread, and his noble and learned Friend had given him a stone. He had asked for a particular bill, and another, altogether different from what he had expected, was presented to him. Was it not a shame to expect him to eat a stone? If they had given him the bread he had asked for he would have eaten it; but with a portion of the bread they had given him two large flint pebbles, and his noble and learned Friend expected him to swallow them also. He would not attempt to do anything of the kind. The authors of this bill had given him two principles which he could not digest under any circumstances. His noble Friend had stated, that he had repeatedly asked for this bill. He did not deny that he had long urged his noble Friend to bring forward a measure on the subject, and the matter would have been settled, if it had been brought forward at an earlier period of the Session. His noble Friend seemed to think, that he had gained a great triumph in charging him with having administered, in the opinions that he had put forth, a heavy blow, and a great discouragement, to the representative system; but his noble Friend's observations applied to some office bearers, which was very different from the distributors and administrators of justice, who were undoubtedly appointed by the Crown, but they were irremovable. He cared not whether it was a heavy blow, a discouragement, or not, as he felt convinced that it was not a right source from which to take a judge, and that you should not allow him to be one day seated on the bench, and the next to make his appearance on the hustings. The sort of conduct which a popular constituency naturally expected was not becoming in any judge. He might be told, that the Master of the Rolls might also sit in Parliament, and that his noble Friend did so when he held that situation. He was rather surprised that his noble Friend-had not made an argumentum ad hominem on
246
this point, but he admitted the objection existed in this case. He recollected that he once had a conversation with one of the most acute and able men that the world had produced—he meant the late Mr. Fox, on the subject of-the learned and distinguished father of his noble Friend opposite (Lord Ellenborough) having a seat in the Cabinet, while holding the office of Lord Chief Justice. Mr. Fox stated, that he could give a dozen instances to justify the proceeding, and supported it with powerful argument, and concluded with doing him the honour of asking him what he thought of the matter, and he replied, that he was not convinced, notwithstanding the exertions made to justify the course then taken. The arguments used convinced neither the Bar nor the public; and his noble Friend's revered father himself said, some time afterwards, that if it was to do over again, he would not consent to it. His noble Friend had alluded to his having held the office of Lord Chancellor, but the Chancellor was a political man, and was removable at every change of government, or whenever occasion required. This was very different from the judge of the Admiralty, who had a great criminal jurisdiction, and was a member of the Central Criminal Court, and might be called upon to sit in trials of high treason. He was not on the same footing as the Lord Chancellor, who was known to be a political man, and to hold his office at the will of the. Crown. As for the dispensation of patronage that he had, it was a very disagreeable part of the duty of his office; and he did all in his power while Lord Chancellor to get rid of it, and diminish it, for which he was very much blamed, as his noble Friend very well knew.
The House divided on the original question:—Contents 23; Not-Contents 34: Majority 11.

List of the CONTENTS.

DUKES.

Leitrim

Argyll

Lichfield.

Somerset

VISCOUNTS.

Richmond.

Melbourne

MARQUESSES.

Duncannon

Normanby

Falkland

Conyngham

Lismore.

Lansdowne.

LORDS.

EARLS.

Cottenham

Minto

Holland

Ilchester

Colborne

247

Stanley

Foley

Seaford

Barham

Lilford

Sudeley.

List of the NOT-CONTENTS.

ARCHBISHOP.

VISCOUNTS.

Armagh.

Strathallan

Strangford

DUKES.

Gage

Dorset

Hawarder.

Wellington.

Canterbury.

MARQUESS.

LORDS.

Ormonde.

Colville

Sondes

EARLS.

Redesdale

Abingdon

Ellenborough

Galloway

Sandys

Beverley

Prudhoe

Liverpool

Rayleigh

Rosslyn

Wharncliffe

Harrowby

Fitzgerald

Verulam

Lyndhurst

Sheffield

Cowley

Eldon

Wynford

Munster

Brougham

Ripon.

De L'Isle.

Paired off.

CONTENTS.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Norfolk

Thomond

De Mauley

Stuart de Rothsay

Carlisle

Hertford

Albemarle

Winchester

Hill

Tankerville

Gosford

Glengall

Stafford

Tenterden

Clarendon

Charleville

Methuen

Wicklow

Mostyn

Boston

Bp. of Peterborugh.

Falmouth.

Bill put off for three months.