Sitting of 11 February 1853

MINUTES.
NEW MEMBER SWORN. — For Leith Burgh, James Moncreiff, esq.
PUBLIC BILL.—2° Transfer of Aids.

RELIGIOUS INTOLERANCE IN SPAIN.
SIR ROBERT H. INGLISsaid, he would take that opportunity of putting to his noble Friend the Secretary for Foreign Affairs (Lord John Russell) the question of which he had given notice, with respect to a decree which had been issued by the Spanish Government on the 17th of November last, by which it was provided that foreigners, either domiciliated in Spain, or travelling through that country, should profess no other religion there except the "Catholic Apostolic and Roman," or, in other words, except the religion of the Church of Rome. If that decree had re-

33
lated to the subjects of Spain only, he should be ready to admit that it was not a fair subject for discussion in that House, He could not deny that, whether the King of Dahomey, for instance, had an army of men or of women, and whether he might put 6,000 of them to death at one moment—although they were matters which, as Christians, they might deplore, and, as men of ordinary humanity, they might wish to see altered—yet they would not justify a war on the part of this country for the purpose of obtaining a violent suppression of such barbarities. But when a decree had been passed which would apply to any Member of that House travelling in Spain, as much as to the subjects of the Queen of Spain, he thought it was due, not merely to their common character as Protestants or as men, but as interested in the general intercourse of social life throughout Europe, that such an interdiction should not be applied in one of the great continental nations in the year 1852 to any Englishman professing what he believed to be the true religion. Let it be recollected that that was not an interdiction to hold public meetings or to preach in the streets: there were municipal laws in England itself which prevented any person, without a licence, from preaching or opening a conventicle. With that he had nothing to do; but he would read to them the language of the decree to which he was referring, and then he would ask them whether it did not distinctly prohibit the profession of any religion in Spain, whether by native or by foreigner, except the religion of the Church of Rome. He held in his hand the Gazette of Madrid of the 25th of November last, which contained the decree bearing date the 17th of November. He was then referring particularly to the 25th article of the 3rd chapter, which stated, in reference to the civil condition of strangers domiciliated or travelling in Spain, that "No such strangers shall profess in Spain any other religion than the Catholic Apostolic Roman." Now, he asked his noble Friend at the head of the Foreign Office, whether it was consistent with their duty as Members of that House, or with his duty while he had the control of the intercourse between his Sovereign and Foreign Powers, to permit such a decree to pass by unnoticed in Parliament, or without any representation to the Government by which it had been issued? When he had first called the attention of the House to that subject, the
34
case had been considered utterly unreasonable and incredible; but his noble Friend (Lord Stanley), at that time the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs, had told him that although he could not believe the statement, he would write to Spain to inquire about it. The evidence upon which he (Sir R. H. Inglis) had first asked the attention of his noble Friend to the case, had been to himself so conclusive that it had left no doubt upon his mind. His noble Friend had written to Spain according to his promise, and he (Sir R. H. Inglis) understood that the noble Lord at present at the head of the Foreign Office had since received some information upon the subject. He wished distinctly to ask him whether any such information had recently reached him; and whether, if it had, it was his intention to lay it before the House; and further, whether he had, in the name of the Queen of this Protestant country, taken any means to prevent the probable wrong which such a decree was calculated to inflict upon Her Majesty's Protestant subjects? Let him not be told that that was a mere paper decree. It might not be for the moment convenient for the Court of Spain to put in force such a decree against the subjects of such an ally as the Queen of England; but if it were to remain unrepealed, he would venture to say that the time might not be very distant when the Government of Spain might think it desirable to carry it into effect, and to seize a Protestant traveller in Spain, not because he was preaching in the street, or opening a conventicle contrary to law, but because he was assembling his own family for Protestant worship. In conclusion, he had to ask his noble Friend the Secretary for Foreign Affairs whether he could lay before them any information upon the subject?
MR. M. MILNESsaid, that, before his noble Friend answered that question, he wished to ask another question which had an incidental relation to this subject. It had been stated not long ago by our Foreign Minister at the time, that, after sundry negociations with the Spanish Government, permission had been given at last to open a Protestant burial-ground near the city of Madrid. But he (Mr. M. Milnes) had reason to believe that that permission had been limited by a provision to the effect that no religious ceremony whatever should be performed over the grave of the person interred in such ground. Now, it appeared to him that this condition was

35
altogether derogatory to the position of this Protestant country; and he would ask his noble Friend whether, if that provision still continued in force, he would be prepared to instruct the British Minister at Madrid to reopen that question, with a view to procure the removal of that disgraceful prohibition?
LORD JOHN RUSSELLsaid, that, with respect to the question of his hon. Friend the Member for the University of Oxford, he had to state that it was certainly quite true that by the 25th article of the law to which he had referred, it was declared that no foreigner could profess in Spain any other religion than the "Catholic Apostolic Roman" religion. The noble Lord who preceded him at the Foreign Office had asked for an explanation of that decree; and he held in his hand the answer which Lord Howden had given to the despatch in which that explanation had been demanded. Lord Howden, after stating that he understood the question to be, whether it was intended by the decree to deprive foreigners, whether domiciliated or travelling in Spain, of any right or privilege, in regard to matters of religion, which they had previously been permitted to enjoy, said that he had put that question verbally to the Spanish Minister of Foreign Affairs, and that the answer he had received was, that "the contents of the said article did not in the slightest degree change the practice hitherto observed, nor could any alteration be introduced thereby in what had previously obtained with regard to the point to which the said article had referred." There were one or two more despatches relating to the subject, but that was the information given upon the point to which his hon. Friend had specially referred. If his hon. Friend wished that the despatches upon the subject should be laid before the House, he (Lord J. Russell) could have no objection to comply with that wish. With regard to the question which had been put by his hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract relative to a Protestant burial-ground at Madrid, he had to state that some correspondence had lately taken place upon that subject. A spot of ground had been offered for a Protestant cemetery by the Spanish Government, but there were some objections made to that particular spot. There had, however, been no question, he believed, lately with reference to the performance of religious ceremonies at the interments of Protestants. He had not been aware that a question
36
would have been put to him upon that subject; but he should say he thought there was no correspondence which could be laid before the House with respect to it. He believed that no objection had been made by the Spanish Government upon the point, except an objection to the erection of a chapel.
SIR ROBERT H. INGLISthanked the noble Lord the Secretary for Foreign Affairs for his promise to produce the papers for which he had asked, and trusted that they would be laid on the table at as early a period as possible.

EMIGRATION TO AUSTRALIA.
MR. HILDYARDwished to put a question with reference to the very distressing mortality which, according to the accounts recently received, had taken place on board four vessels chartered by the Emigration Commissioners to convey emigrants from Liverpool to Melbourne. In one of those vessels, which made an unusually favourable passage in point of time, the voyage having occupied only sixty-four days, no less than 104 persons perished, and the remainder on reaching Melbourne were in a state of great prostration from sickness. The question which he wished to ask was, whether the Government had caused inquiry to be made into the mortality which, according to the recent accounts from Australia, took place on board four vessels chartered by the Emigration Commissioners to convey emigrants between ports of Liverpool and Melbourne?
MR. FREDERICK PEELsaid, the Government had received an account of the great mortality which had occurred on board the vessels to which the hon. and learned Gentleman had alluded. He believed that upwards of 104 deaths had occurred on board one vessel, and that on her arrival in the harbour at Melbourne no less than 300 persons were labouring under sickness arising from one cause or another. No doubt a great mortality had occurred on board all the four vessels. They were vessels of unusual size, and carried more than the ordinary number of passengers, having two decks prepared for their accommodation. Up to that time it had never been the practice of the Emigration Board to put passengers on board vessels with more than a single deck; but the state of the shipping interest at the period the vessels were taken up rendered the engagement entered into unavoidable. He understood when the vessels were engaged

37
by the Emigration Commissioners, that no other vessels were tendered for that purpose. On board the three other vessels he found, from the information which had been received, that no less than 175 deaths had occurred; but of that number 163 were the deaths of children—an unusual number of children in proportion to the number of adults having been sent out by these vessels. That arose from the relaxation of the regulation of the Emigration Commissioners, made in compliance with the urgent representations of parties connected with the colony, and interested in agricultural and other pursuits. But immediately on the receipt of the information by the Emigration Commissioners of this deplorable loss of life, they issued instructions that for the future no vessels with move than a single deck should be engaged by their agents; and they had refused to take out at the expense of the colony families having more than two children under seven years of age, or three under ten years of age. He believed these regulations would prevent the recurrence of such deplorable events for the future. The communication which had been received from Melbourne had been referred to the Emigration Board, with directions to report thereon. That report had been received, and there would be no objection to lay all the papers connected with the subject on the table of the House.

METROPOLITAN BURIAL GROUNDS.
LORD DUDLEY STUARTwished to call the attention of the noble Lord the Secretary for the Home Department (Viscount Palmerston) to the disgraceful state of the graveyards in the metropolis—a state which was most shameful, and most injurious to the public health, and which rendered the largest thoroughfares dangerous. He wished now to refer more particularly to that of St. Clement Danes, in the Strand. Great complaints had been made of the state of that churchyard, and many persons had been attacked by serious diseases in consequence of passing along that part of the Strand. One gentleman, who happened to be passing at the time of a funeral, was struck with a most virulent disease, which assumed an appearance very like the plague, swellings having arisen under each arm, and he remained for a considerable time in a state of great danger. Many medical men of eminence considered it dangerous for persons to pass along the streets, and were of opin-
38
ion that many deaths had taken place from that cause. He had been assured by one medical man that putrid flesh and blood had sometimes been thrown up by the gravedigger when exercising his functions in that churchyard. He wished to ask his noble Friend whether the attention of the Government had been drawn to this matter, and whether the noble Lord would not exercise the authority given him by the Act of Parliament, in order to put a stop to the practices to which he had referred?
VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, the particular case to which the noble Lord had alluded, was brought under his notice a few days ago, by a deputation from the parish to which that graveyard belonged; and the result was, that a meeting of the vestry was held, and an application was made to him for an Order in Council to shut up that graveyard, and that Order would as soon as possible be passed. He considered the state of the graveyards in this metropolis, generally speaking, a disgrace to a civilised community, and he trusted that the authorities of the parishes with whom it rested to take steps to correct so dreadful an evil, would not be deterred by any consideration of local expense from taking those precautions which would have the effect of removing from the metropolis a source of pestilence which might be attended with the most disastrous results, should it be the will of Providence that any outbreak of the cholera, which was raging in some parts of the Continent, should occur in the metropolis. He could assure the House that the attention of the Government would be anxiously directed to the subject to which the noble Lord had drawn their attention.

MR. SADLEIR'S SPEECH AT CARLOW.
MR. SPOONERwished to ask the noble Lord the Secretary for Foreign Affairs (Lord John Russell) a question of which he had given notice. In a printed paper, purporting to be a report of a speech delivered by Mr. Sadleir, one of the Lords of the Treasury, at the recent election for Carlow, it was stated that "the noble Lord had proffered a political refutation of the course which he had taken with respect to the Ecclesiastical Titles Bill, which that distinguished nobleman had had the manliness to proffer." He wished to ask whether the noble Lord had proffered such a refutation of the principles of the Ecclesiastical Titles Bill? On the same authority, Mr. Sadleir was likewise reported to

39
have said that "the principle of the Ecclesiastical Titles Bill had been deliberately and openly abandoned." He wished to ask the noble Lord whether that statement was correct—whether that principle had been abandoned? And he should also be glad if the noble Lord would kindly state whether he still retained the opinion that the aggression of the Pope, which induced the Government to bring forward the Ecclesiastical Titles Bill, was "insolent and insidious," and fully justified that measure.
LORD JOHN RUSSELLsaid, that on reading the report in the newspapers, he did not consider it necessary to ask Mr. Sadleir for any explanation, thinking that a statement so obviously incorrect could not have been made by that Gentleman. However, Mr. Sadleir had yesterday voluntarily informed him that the report was entirely inaccurate, and that certain words had been attributed to him by the Tory journals which he had never used. Mr. Sadleir went on to state that what he did say was in effect that the composition of the Government gave the Irish people a guarantee that the Ecclesiastical Titles Bill would not be made use of to infringe the religious liberties of the Roman Catholic people—that the acceptance of office by Lord John Russell, in conjunction with those who had opposed the principle of the Ecclesiastical Titles Act, ought to be regarded as a refutation of a false charge that he would use the Act to the injury of the Catholics of the United Kingdom. This was the statement of what Mr. Sadleir did say, and it was a statement of which he (Lord John Russell) had no reason to complain. He ought, however, to say that it was never intended, nor would it have been permitted, while Lord Clarendon was Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, and Sir George Grey was Home Secretary, and he and his Colleagues in the Cabinet held office, that the Ecclesiastical Titles Bill should have been used against the religious liberties of the Roman Catholics. The hon. Gentleman went on to ask whether he still thought that the aggression of the Pope, which induced him to bring forward the Ecclesiastical Titles Bill, was "insolent and insidious," and fully justified the introduction of that measure? He certainly thought the hon. Gentleman had taken a very considerable latitude in his inquiries, when he proposed a question with respect to his thoughts. But as the hon. Gentleman was so curious on the sub-
40
ject, he would take the opportunity of stating that he still thought the same as he did two years ago.

THE MADIAI.
MR. KINNAIRDwished to know whether the attention of the Government had been drawn to a statement made by Mr. Everett, expressive of the sympathy of the United States with the Madiai, and also stating that a vessel should be provided to convey them to that country. If the noble Lord was in possession of such a document, he wished to know whether it would be laid on the table, together with any papers or extracts of correspondence relating to the case of the Madiai.
LORD JOHN RUSSELLwas unable to answer the first question without referring to the documents in the Foreign Office; but had no objection to lay on the table the extracts of correspondence referred to by the hon. Member.

THE CAPE.
MR. ADDERLEYwished to know whether the obstacles which had arisen with regard to the completion of the constitution of the Cape of Good Hope—those relating to the franchise and the separation of the two Provinces—had been removed, and whether there was any prospect of the speedy completion of that constitution according to the letters patent of 1850? Also, whether the Government had any intention of forming a convict settlement in any part of South Africa? And whether the movement of the troops upon the territory of the Basuter was likely to lead to a prolongation of hostilities, or promised a speedy and permanent establishment of the British authority over the Orange River Sovereignty?
MR. FREDERICK PEEL, with reference to the first question, said that the nature of the franchise, and all the other details to be decided upon before the introduction of a new form of legislature, were at present under the consideration of the Government, and he had reason to believe that the matter was now in such a state of forwardness that it would admit of the constitutional ordinance being sent out to the colony by the mail of next month. It answer to the second question, he had to state that the Government had no intention of establishing a convict settlement in any part of South Africa. With regard to the third question, General Cathcart had advanced with a body of 2,000 troops to the

41
Orange River territory, but there was no indication that the presence of the troops was likely to lead to a hostile collision; and he had not gone into that Sovereignty in pursuance of any decision of the Government of this country in connexion with the Sovereignty of that part of South Africa.

AMBASSADOR AT CONSTANTINOPLE.
LORD DUDLEY STUARTwished to ask the noble Lord the Secretary for Foreign Affairs (Lord John Russell) whether, in the present state of Turkey, he intended any longer to leave this country unrepresented at Constantinople, or whether he intended to send out Lord Stratford, or some other individual?
LORD JOHN RUSSELLreplied that he had seen Lord Stratford de Redcliffe that day on the subject, that he had had several previous communications with the noble Lord on the affairs in Turkey, and that it was now arranged that he should go out almost immediately to resume his functions as British Ambassador at the Porte.
House adjourned at Six o'clock till Monday next.

MINUTES.
Took the Oaths. —The Lord Bishop of Chichester.
PUBLIC BILL.— 1a Poor Removal and Local Assessment.

CRIMINAL LAW AMENDMENT BILL— EXPLANATION—TRANSPORTATIO.
LORD ST. LEONARDSsaid, he understood that a noble Lord in another place

25
had stated, that as it was the intention of Her Majesty's Ministers, in accordance with the resolution of the late Government, to put an end to the system of transportation to the Australian Colonics, and at the same time to introduce a measure with respect to secondary punishments in lieu of transportation, it would not he prudent, in his opinion, that he (Lord St. Leonards) should proceed with his Bill to consolidate the present law with regard to secondary offences until the question of transportation had been finally disposed of. Now, it was quite true that his (Lord St. Leonards') Bill, as it stood, referred to transportation; but although he doubted whether transportation could be altogether abolished, yet whenever a substitutionary punishment was enacted in lieu of general transportation, the new Act which he proposed simply declared that the new punishment should stand in the place of the old. He believed that the noble Lord, if he heard this explanation, would he quite satisfied with it.
LORD CAMPBELLhoped, that before the Bill of his noble and learned Friend came into operation, the question of secondary punishments would be finally settled; and he would also take that opportunity of expressing a hope that the Government would not abolish the punishment of transportation; as, from his experience as a Judge, he was inclined to believe that for the punishment and reformation of convicts it was the best that had over been devised, and that it was one which conduced more than any other kind of secondary punishment to the security of the public. With respect to the question of forcing convicts upon unwilling colonists, he would give no opinion; but he hoped the Government would be able to retain the punishment of transportation to some penal settlement, without doing injury to any one.

POST OFFICE APPOINTMENTS.
The MARQUESS of CLANRICARDE The MARQUESS of CLANRICARDE moved for a return of all appointments of Presidents of Money Order Offices in London, Dublin, and Edinburgh, since the money-order system became officially connected with the Post Office; specifying the previous service in the Post Office or other public department of each person who had received such an appointment; also, copies of the correspondence between the Post Office and the Treasury in 1851 relating to the appointment of an assistant secretary to the Postmaster General; and also, copy of the appointment of Mr. Fred-
26
erick Hill to the situation he held in the General Post Office. A few months ago a vacancy occurred in the office of president of the money-order department of the Dublin Post Office, and the noble Lord opposite (the Earl of Hardwicke) filled up the vacancy by appointing a gentleman (Mr. Joseph Long) who had had no previous connexion with the Post Office, or any other public department whatever. As the amount which passed through that office was no less than 1,374,000 l., and comprised 924,352 money orders, their Lordships would see that such matters of detail required previous experience and knowledge; and that, however respectable and intelligent a man might be, a mere stranger could not be expected effectually to check and control twenty-five or twenty-six clerks. Besides, the appointment inflicted a hardship on those who, having previously served in the office, naturally looked forward to promotion in it; and this matter was the more serious, because, as their Lordships had heard, clerks in the Post Office, and in the money-order department particularly, were inadequately paid for their services. He understood that Mr. Joseph Long owed his appointment to his having been a very active registration agent on the Conservative side, and by promoting such a person in the Post Office the hardship inflicted was certainly greater than would have been felt in any other department, because persons connected with the Post Office were not allowed to interfere in elections; and therefore this gentleman had been rewarded for services which clerks belonging to the department were forbidden to render. This appointment had been defended upon the ground that a similar appointment had been made by Lord Lichfield in 1841, and by himself in 1851. Now, even if Lord Lichfield set a bad precedent, which he denied, that was no reason why the noble Earl opposite should follow it. With respect to the appointment of Mr. Frederick Hill, the facts were these: In 1847 the accounts of the money-order department were in a most confused state, and he thought it desirable to appoint Mr. Rowland Hill, as secretary, to endeavour to bring them into some order. The Money Order Office was placed under the exclusive control of Mr. Rowland Hill, instead of being left under the general superintendence of Colonel Maberly, and Mr. Rowland Hill having succeeded in arranging the accounts, said he had been much indebted to his brother, Mr. Frede-

27
rick Hill, for the assistance he had rendered, upon which he (the Marquess of Clanricarde) appointed Mr. Frederick Hill assistant secretary, to take Mr. Rowland Hill's place whenever Mr. Rowland Hill was absent from the office. That appointment did not alter one jot the duties of the President of the Money Order Office, and was not an appointment of a person wholly unconnected with the public service, as Mr. Frederick Hill had been for fifteen years inspector of prisons, at the same salary he received as assistant secretary to the money-order department.
The EARL of HARDWICKEsaid, he concurred in the principle laid down by the noble Marquess, that the expectation of promotion ought to be held out to persons engaged in the public service, and he thought that considerable inconvenience arose from the want of a regular system of gradual promotion for length of service throughout the whole Post Office establishment. At present there were two descriptions of appointments—one, in which the officers rose by gradation, and were subject to no interference with their prospects; and the other, in which the officers were appointed by the Postmaster General to offices which were supposed to be within his patronage. The appointment which he had filled up in the Dublin Post Office, and which had been called in question, was one of the latter class, and the gentleman appointed bore the highest character, and was perfectly competent to conduct financial matters, having for many years filled the office of accountant to the corporation of Dublin. The strongest recommendations were brought to him from men of rank and station, and he had every reason to believe the appointment would prove satisfactory. There was no precedent in the Dublin Post Office which he could follow in the appointment of a successor to the late President of the Money Order Department, as that gentleman was the first who held that office; but on examination he found a precedent in the appointment by Lord Lichfield to the same office in the London Post Office of a person who had not been previously a clerk in the Post Office. The case of Mr. Frederick Hill, brother of Mr. Rowland Hill, who had been appointed to the office, nominally, of assistant secretary to the Postmaster General, but really to that of supervising President of the Money Order Office in London, was a proof that previous connexion with the Post Office was not essential to these ap-
28
pointments, for that gentleman had been neither a clerk in the Post Office, nor connected with the Money Order Office, but had been, it appeared, an inspector of prisons. He thought that quite sufficient to justify the appointment he had made.
VISCOUNT CANNINGconcurred in every word that had fallen from the noble Marquess on the duty of the Postmaster General, to see that none of the numerous clerks in the public service were overlooked in case of advancement and promotion. That was a general rule applicable to all the departments of the public service, but preeminently applicable to the Post Office, from the circumstance that the number of subordinate compared with the number of superior officers, was extremely large; the salaries were not high, the increase in salaries was by slow degrees, and a great majority had nothing to look forward to but appointments to superior offices. The noble Earl had said there were two classes of officers, one in which promotion was obtained by seniority, and the other in which it was given by patronage. No doubt the advancement of some of the clerks was certain, provided they conducted themselves with propriety; and other offices did exist to which the Postmaster General was at liberty to appoint whom he pleased. But in defending the appointment in question on that ground, he thought the noble Earl did some injustice to himself; because, though it was no part of his duty to investigate the nature or reasons for the appointments of his predecessor in conducting the public business of the office which he held, it had come under his notice that in the distribution of these latter or more favoured appointments, the noble Earl had been uniformly guided by a regard for the efficiency of the public service, and the claims of meritorious public officers. He had no objection to lay the papers moved for on the table of their Lordships' House.
Motion agreed to.

THE SIX-MILE BRIDGE OUTRAGE.
The EARL of CARDIGANrose to ask the noble Earl opposite the question of which he had given notice. That question had reference to the prosecution which it was understood was about to be conducted by the law officers of the Crown in Ireland against certain soldiers for their conduct at Six-Mile Bridge. He hoped he should be acting in accordance with the rules of the House in making one or two observations

29
before he put his question. Their Lordships were aware that the services of the Army were various and manifold, and by no means the most painful and dangerous of those servives was what they had to perform when in action. There were other services, not purely military, which were not unaccompanied with danger, but which at the same time were most onerous and disagreeable. There was one duty which was always considered to be of a most painful character, that of being called upon to act against their own countrymen in times of public disturbance. There was another duty, which was a peculiar duty— for it was confined to the time of a general election in Ireland. The same duty was unknown in this country—for so far from the military being called upon to act at general elections in England, they were sent to distant parts in order to be quite out of the way of the proceedings; but in Ireland the Army was employed on all occasions of a general election, for the purpose of protecting voters and preserving the public peace. In his humble opinion it was very doubtful whether this kind of duty ought to be allotted to the Army under any circumstances. At the same time, he was quite aware that, owing to the condition of the sister kingdom, it would be difficult to know how a general election could be got through without disturbance, unless the aid of the military was obtained, or unless some other than present arrangements were established. But he would say, that if Government did employ Her Majesty's troops in services of this irksome and dangerous nature, where there was neither credit nor honour to be gained, and where the duty required was of a most painful character—if Government did employ troops, and by that means brought them into collision with the people at a general election, and if those troops, in defence of their own lives, protected themselves in the only effectual way by taking the lives of their assailants, Government was bound to support those troops in the discharge of that duty. But what was about to be done in the case of the soldiers employed at the late Clare election? There was not the slightest doubt that the people were urged to rage and violence by certain Roman Catholic priests. The people made a most violent attack on the soldiers who were engaged in protecting a body of the electors. Those soldiers' lives were exposed to great danger—they defended themselves, and it had been laid down by the greatest lawyers,
30
that when troops under arms were attacked they had a right to employ those arms for their own defence. Such being the case, they were told and understood—by the public—and the report had not been contradicted—that not only were the Crown lawyers going to prosecute the soldiers for defending their lives, but that Government had sent down parties specially to conduct the prosecution. This made the affair all the more strange. He should like to ask the Government if these Crown lawyers were to prosecute the soldiers for defending their own lives against a furious populace, urged on to violence by their priests, who were to defend the soldiers? Who were to pay for counsel to contend with the Crown lawyers? Were Government going to employ the Crown lawyers? Or, if not, were Government going to furnish money for the defence of the soldiers? The position of matters presented a most extraordinary anomaly. He doubted whether the doctrine would be satisfactory to the Army, or that soldiers could be made to believe it was justice—if they did their duty, and thereby became liable to prosecution, that, instead of being attended by all the legal talent at the command of Government, all this legal talent was to be employed against them. They had heard a great deal about the necessity for educating the Army—that if soldiers were educated, instead of being rough men and good soldiers, they would become more intelligent and refined. He did not dispute that it would be of advantage that soldiers should know how to read and write, but he hardly thought more was wanted. But could any amount of education which a soldier could receive teach him that such treatment as the soldiers engaged in the Clare election had received was right and just? He would take the liberty of telling their Lordships it was utterly impossible such a system could be good or beneficial. He was also informed Government were going to adopt quite a different course in this affair, to that course which the previous Government adopted. He should therefore be glad to be informed whether it was the fact that these soldiers were going to be prosecuted by Government and the Crown lawyers; and if so prosecuted by the Crown lawyers, how the expenses to enable them to defend themselves were to be paid? Further, he had been credibly informed in this country and in the sister kingdom, that, instead of the intentions of the late Government being carried out by the prosecution of the priests

31
who had excited the people to violence, it was the determination of the present Government not to prosecute. He should therefore be glad to hear what the intentions of Government were in both respects.
The EARL of ABERDEEN: Nothing can he more natural than the interest which the noble Earl feels in the fate of those persons whose case he has brought to your Lordships' attention. I am sure the House must respond to those feelings; and certainly no one can be more sensible than I am of the great pains and forbearance displayed by Her Majesty's troops when employed in the most irksome and most painful service they have to perform, in assisting in the preservation of the public peace. But, my Lords, the noble Earl's inquiry is somewhat premature. Only this day I received intimation from the Lord Lieutenant that the matter is under the consideration of the Irish Government, and that no steps whatever have yet been decided on. Your Lordships will, perhaps recollect, that on the verdict of the coroner's inquest on the murdered men, the learned Gentleman who lately filled the office of Attorney General in Ireland (Mr. Napier) brought the case before the Court of Queen's Bench in Dublin, and endeavoured to procure a decision which should quash the verdict of the coroner's jury. After fully considering the matter, the Court came to a unanimous decision that there were no grounds for that proceeding. In doing so, I make no doubt they were perfectly right; and I understand the Court expressed an opinion that it could only set aside the verdict upon some informality or technicality on the face of the proceedings. That not being the case, the verdict was allowed to stand undisturbed. If the case were so clear as the noble Earl represents it—and I am not disposed to doubt it, for from every account I have received of the transaction the manner in which he describes it is perfectly correct—but if the case were so, why did not the learned Gentleman, the law officer under the late Government, enter at once a nolle prosequi? He might thus have stopped the proceedings at the instant. The present Attorney General may still do so, for I am not prepared to say what course the Irish Government may determine on taking. As to the prosecution having been undertaken by the law officers of the Crown, that is a matter of course in Ireland; but the Attorney General may at any stage of the
32
proceedings, by interfering on behalf of the Crown, stop the further progress of the trial. I am sure I do not know whether it will be considered right to proceed at all; but if it should, and if the case should be sent for trial, the grand jury may ignore the bill, and if so, that would be an additional reason for the Attorney General exercising the power to stop further proceedings. I am really unable to give any answer to the noble Earl as to the course intended to be pursued by the Irish Government, because it is only to-day, as I have said, that I heard from my noble Friend at the head of the Irish Government (the Earl of St. Germans) that the matter is still under consideration, and that no decision has been come to on the subject.
The EARL of HARDWICKE: I am sure the noble Earl used a word which he did not intend when he spoke of the people that were shot as being "murdered men."
The EARL of ABERDEEN: Oh, I only meant they were killed.
The EARL of DERBY: I presume the noble Earl intends the same answer to apply to the other question which was put to him by my noble Friend with regard to the prosecution of the priests, who certainly, according to the published accounts, appear to have taken an active part in the riot.
The EARL of ABERDEEN: The noble Earl has anticipated the answer I was about to give. That question is also under the same consideration as the other.
House adjourned to Monday next.