Sitting of 24 June 1853

MINUTES.
NEW WRIT.—For Tralee, v. Maurice O'Connell, Esq., deceased.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1° Stamp Duties.
2° Evidence Amendment.
3° Soap Duties.

LEASING POWERS (IRELAND) BILL.
Order for Committee read. House in Committee.
Clause 10.
MR. NAPIERsaid, that by this clause

727
a tenant under an improvement lease was bound to improve one-tenth part of his land every three years, and, if he failed, he was liable to be ejected; subject, however, to compensation for the value of the improvements which had been made. He thought this latter provision would create great embarrassment, to landlords particularly, as the Bill provided no machinery for assessing the compensation which it was proposed to give. Believing that this provision would prevent owners of land from granting leases under this Bill, he would move the omission of that part of the clause.
MR. KIRKsaid, he should support its retention, on the ground that it was only just that, if any improvements were made, the landlord should make compensation for them.
MR. M'MAHONsaid, that he could not assent to the objection to these words, which was founded upon the embarrassment they would cause to the landlords, because it was quite optional with the owner of land whether he gave such a lease or not.
MR. NAPIERsaid, he must still maintain, in opposition to the hon. Member for Newry (Mr. Kirk), that where the re-entry of a landlord was caused by the default of a tenant, the latter was not entitled to compensation for improvements; such was the principle of the Scotch law.
MR. ROSS MOOREsaid, he thought that while on the one hand a tenant who was prevented by some unforeseen casualty from fulfilling the contract he had entered into by his lease, was entitled to compensation for the improvements which he had made; on the other hand a tenant who had undertaken the reclamation of more land than he could complete, or had in any way failed to fulfil his contract by his own default, should not be so entitled.
MR. MAGUIREsaid, that the clause as it stood was already more stringent in favour of the landlord than of the tenant. If the words which had been excepted against were omitted, the Committee would be sanctioning the grossest act of robbery. MB. NAPIER said, he would not press his Amendment now, but he trusted that his objection would be met at the bringing up of the Report.
COLONEL DUNNEsaid, he would suggest that there might be such a thing as collusion between the lesser and lessee to defraud the remainderman. He thought that the hon. Member's (Mr. Moore's) sug-
728
gestion was absolutely necessary. He regretted to see that there were so few Irish Members present, and that showed the inconvenience of taking these matters in such an unexpected way, and at such an early hour as 12 o'clock. He protested against the vacillation of the Government.
SIR JOHN YOUNGsaid, he denied that the Government had ever vacillated with respect to the measure. Nothing could be more certain than their intention to pass it with some slight amendments; and also to pass the Tenants' Compensation Bill, and the Landlords' Improvement Bill. The Government were perfectly united on this point, and he was in a position to state that they meant to carry all these three Bills. He also believed that by this Bill much would be done to enable parties to make such leases as would give the tenant full and fair compensation for the improvements which he had made. Reference had been made to the rights of property, and it had been intimated that this Bill was opposed to them. But he would ask whether the landlords' property was the only property that had rights? He believed that it was quite as much for the interest of the country that the property of the tenant should be protected, as that that of the landlord should be guarded.
MR. H. HERBERTsaid, he was glad to hear from the Chief Secretary of Ireland that the Government were determined to urge forward both the measures in question, for he believed that they would confer immense benefits upon Ireland.
MR. J. D. FITZGERALDsaid, he thought that it would be a valuable enactment to make the tenant liable, as it were, to a penalty if he undertook improvements and capriciously threw them up; but he ought to be compensated for what he had done with a bonâ fide intention to improve the land.
MR. LUCASsaid, he should support the clause. The machinery for assessing the compensation might be added to the 29th clause.
SIR ARTHUR BROOKEsaid, that, as a landlord, if they really wished the condition of Ireland to be permanently improved, they must give bonâ fide and full compensation to the tenant for the improvements which he effected by his labour and capital.
Clause agreed to: as were also Clauses 11 to 27 inclusive.
Clause 28.
MR. NAPIERsaid, that the portion of the Bill with which they had hitherto been

729
dealing related to the giving of enabling powers to make leases—they were now coming to that which regarded compensation for improvements. These were naturally divided into two classes—those on the soil, and those in the soil. With regard to the latter class, the Select Committee to whom this Bill was referred, agreed to the I principle originally inserted in the Bill—to give the tenant a certain period during which he should be sure of enjoying the benefit of his own improvements, and to entitle him to compensation if evicted be- J fore its termination for what was not matter of his own default. The Committee, however, thought that this principle would be a good one to apply to improvements in I the soil, and it was ultimately resolved that for improvements in the soil the tenant should be entitled to money compensation for such as were suitable to his holding, according to the value at the time of the landlord's entry, should that not be in consequence of his own default, while those improvements which he had chosen to make at his own risk should remain his property, to remove or dispose of as he pleased. The clause had been modified to embrace these provisions.
Clause agreed to; as were also Clauses 29 to 34 inclusive.
Clause 35 omitted.
Remaining clauses agreed to, with some verbal amendments.
MR. J. PHILLIMOREsaid, that he could not allow the House to resume without expressing his sense of the great ability, good sense, discreet and admirable temper, which had been displayed by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Napier) in the conduct of this Bill.
MR. FITZSTEPHEN FRENCHsaid, that he thought they might congratulate themselves upon the manner in which a House composed almost entirely of Irish Members had conducted the discussion on this measure.
House resumed; Committee reported.

LANDLORD AND TENANT (IRELAND) BILL.
Order for Committee read.
House in Committee; Mr. Greene in the chair.
Clauses 1 to 6 agreed to.
Clause 7 (Giving the landlord power to terminate the tenancy at a month's notice).
MR. M'MAHONsaid, this was a clause most undesirably affecting the position of
730
the cottier tenants. The clause enacted that the tenancy of a house, with or without land, under 7l. annual value, should be terminated at a month's notice. Great oppression might be exercised under such a clause.
MR. KENNEDYsaid, that considering the clause as an act of oppression towards the class of tenants in question, he should wish to see it expunged.
MR. J. D. FITZGERALDsaid, he must remind the Committee that it was introduced for the benefit of the cottier himself. It made no alteration whatever in the law as it now stood, for a landlord could take care that the tenancy should be weekly or monthly, as he thought proper, and then a week or a month would be quite sufficient to turn the tenant out.
MR. V. SCULLYsaid, if he was not mistaken, provision was made in another Bill that compensation should be awarded to a tenant if he was turned out at the very time when he expected to reap the advantage of the labour which he had expended on his garden. Of what use then would it be to strike this clause out? None whatever. On the contrary, it would be a disadvantage to the small tenantry of Ireland; because, as the law now stood, landlords were deprived from letting garden allotments, by reason of their being compelled to resort to an action of ejectment to recover possession of their land, in the event of the tenant not paying his rent.
COLONEL DUNNEsaid, he thought there would be a great deal of hardship if a landlord had the power of turning out this class of tenants at a month's notice in the middle of the winter.
MR. MAGUIREsaid, he considered the clause intrusted a harsh and tyrannical power to the landlords, and he should most strenuously resist it.
MR. NAPIERsaid, the object of the clause was to encourage the improvement of labourers' dwellings. Many landlords were now prepared to erect such improved dwellings, if they were furnished with powers which would enable them to get rid of their tenants at a moderate notice. The clause did not relate to cottier tenants in general, but only to hired agricultural labourers, and he hoped the Committee would not reject it.
VISCOUNT MONCKmoved that the Chairman do report progress, and ask leave to sit again.
Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

THE ARMS ACT (IRELAND)
MR. J. WILSONmoved that the House, at its rising, do adjourn until Monday next.
MR. I. BUTTsaid, that he had given notice that on this Motion he would call the attention of the House and Her Majesty's Ministers to the state in which the law in Ireland with reference to the possession of arms would he placed by the expiration of the Act popularly known as the Crime and Outrage Act. In putting to the right hon. Baronet the Secretary for Ireland the question of which he had given notice, he would ask the attention of the House for a few minutes to the state of things to which that question referred. Last year, the House might recollect, they had renewed the Crime and Outrage Act for one year. It would expire on the 30th of August. He (Mr. Butt) did not wish, if it could be avoided, to renew the provisions of that Act. But upon its expiration there would be no law in force restricting either the importation of arms into Ireland, the sale of them in the country, or the acquisition of them by the people. Now, this would be the first time for 150 years, with one disastrous exception, in which there had been such a state of things. For 150 years they had constantly had laws, more or less severe, restricting the possession of arms in Ireland. In 1846, the noble Lord the Member for London (Lord John Russell) was placed at the head of the Government. Coming into office very late in the Session, he introduced, on the 10th of August, a temporary renewal of the Arms Act, justifying the proposal by the fact that Ireland had never been without such regulations for a century and a half. The opposition made to the proposal by his own supporters was so strong, that on the 17th he abandoned it. The noble Lord, in giving up the Bill, said that he did so with great hesitation—that he felt he was taking a very great responsibility. Then let the House see the result of the experiment. It was undertaken under the most favourable circumstances. The noble Lord said in 1846 that Ireland was then in a state of unexampled tranquillity; that the previous assizes had presented almost a total cessation of crime. Nay, more—Lord Bessborough, then Lord Lieutenant—a nobleman whose name he (Mr. Butt) would never mention without respect, and who had governed Ireland as ably and impartially as any Lord Lieutenant of any party ever did—that nobleman had said that he was willing to undertake
732
the responsibility of governing Ireland without an Arms Act. But what was the result? A perfect mania seized on the people to possess themselves of arms; auctions of muskets were held in every district. The winter of 1847 was disgraced by outrages of the deepest dye. No sooner had Parliament met in that winter than the noble Lord was compelled to propose a Coercion Act infinitely more severe in its character than the Arms Act he had abandoned. The noble Lord in 1850 again proposed the continuance of that Act, and on that occasion, with the candour and manliness that invariably distinguished him, owned his error. He said, that he had felt a heavy weight in the responsibility he had taken on himself in 1846, and that the result of the experiment was such as to make it impossible to risk the consequences of dispensing with those powers. That Act had been again renewed in the last Session; but it would expire on the 30th of August, and, unless there was some legislation in the interim, Ireland would be left exactly in the position which had produced such sad results in 1846. These were the facts to which he had felt it his duty to call the attention of Ministers and of the House. He did so with not the slightest wish to embarrass the Government. He had waited until that period of the Session at which it became indispensable that something should be determined. If Ministers, acting on that official information with which the knowledge of no private Member could be put in competition—if Ministers were prepared deliberately to say that the circumstances of Ireland had so changed that they would venture to repeat the experiment of 1846—then he (Mr. Butt) could only say that, whatever misgivings he might have, he still would receive with satisfaction such an assurance of the view taken by Ministers of the tranquillity of Ireland, and give them credit for acting on a sincere wish to promote the peace of that country; but he had felt it his duty to bring the matter before the House, that if Ireland was to be left in that position, it might be done deliberately, and not in any inadvertence. He begged to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Ireland, whethey the attention of the Government had been called to the state in which the law as to arms in Ireland would be placed by the expiration of the Act of last Session on the 30th of August; and, if so, whether they intended to propose any measure upon the subject?
VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, the matter to which the hon. and learned Gentleman had called the attention of the House, was one, no doubt, of very considerable importance, and might well be supposed to have occupied, and to occupy, the attention of Government. All he could say on that occasion was, that due notice would be given to the House of the course the Government might think fit to pursue.
MR. I. BUTTsaid, he should give notice that on the first Committee of Supply, he should move a Resolution that it was the duty of the Parliament to turn their attention to the state of the law relating to the possession of arms in Ireland.

PUBLIC BUSINESS.
MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, he begged to call attention to the manner in which the public business of the country was conducted. He never knew it to have been conducted in a manner so objectionable as during this Session. Night after night they had been sitting until two or three o'clock in the morning passing Bills of very great public importance, without scarcely any person being present except some hon. Members whom the Government could induce to remain. The time allowed to Members after such a long attendance in the House was not sufficient, and, what was still more worthy of attention, Bills of great importance, and Reports, were presented to the House, and no time was allowed for the consideration of any one of them, so that Bills of great public consequence were frequently passed which six Members of the House had never read through. The Members of that House were held responsible by their constituents for the passing of any Bills that were injurious to the country at large, though it was impossible for them to attend to them. They adjourned this morning at three o'clock; they sat again at twelve o'clock; they might expect that that would be a common occurrence during the remainder of the Session; and he hoped Her Majesty's Government would take the matter into their serious consideration.
LORD JOHN RUSSELLsaid, he must own that he differed very much from the hon. Gentleman. He had always thought that it was a matter of great satisfaction to consider that that House did, in fact, perform more business, and go through more important duties, than he believed any other Legislative Assembly had ever
734
done. If the hon. Member would go through the various Bills that came before them in the course of the Session, he would find that business of the greatest and highest importance was brought before the House, and that there were many Members of the House who took great interest in those measures, and were competent to discuss them, and give their opinion upon them. With respect to the complaint that the time of the House was taken up for so many hours in the day, there was only one alternative to remedy it, and it was one which he did not think the House would be ready to adopt. Instead of crowding the business at that period of the Session, they might finish at twelve o'clock at night, and go on and continue their sittings through the whole year. However severe it might be to sit at twelve o'clock in the morning, and until two or three o'clock the next morning, he did not believe that any Bills of great importance were passed without attention being paid to them. If a Bill were much discussed on the second reading, and the opinion of the House was pronounced by a large majority, the subsequent stages were generally passed over without observation. In like manner when a Bill had gone through Committee, and the sense of the House was taken on all its clauses, there was generally very little discussion afterwards; but he did not think it could be said that the business of the House was neglected, or that due attention was not paid to it.
Motion, that the House at its rising do adjourn till Monday next, agreed to.

GOVERNMENT OF INDIA BILL —ADJOURNED DEBATE (SECOND NIGHT).
Order read, for resuming adjourned Debate on Amendment proposed to be made to Question [23rd June], "That the Bill be now read a second time:—And which Amendment was to leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "in the opinion of this House, further information is necessary, to enable Parliament to legislate with advantage for the permanent Government of India; and that, at this late period of the Session, it is inexpedient to proceed with a measure which, while it disturbs existing arrangements, cannot be considered as a final settlement," instead thereof.
Question again proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
Debate resumed.
MR. HUME, who rose amid some impatience, and cries for the right hon. Member for Edinburgh, said, it was all very well for those hon. Members who were determined to support the Bill of the Government, to call for their friend; but it did not seem at all fair to take a course so unusual as to call up a Member of that House in opposition to one who had moved the adjournment of the debate on the previous evening, and who, therefore, by their rules of debate, was in possession of the House. He (Mr. Hume) would relieve those Gentlemen who were so impatient by stating that he should not occupy the attention of the House for any great length of time. Having been so long connected with India, and having directed much of his attention to the subject of administering its affairs— as much, perhaps, as any private individual Member in that House—he could not allow the present occasion to pass without offering his opinion upon the question before them. He would submit that it was a mere mockery, and contrary to all the ordinary usage of the House, to proceed with this Bill until they had before them the report of the Committee now investigating the affairs of India upstairs. An hon. Gentleman had just presented a petition referring to one of the most important branches of inquiry determined upon by the Committee, and had asked that it should be referred to that Committee; but he did not believe it would ever come under their consideration. What was the use of presenting petitions when the Government had brought in a Bill without any information—without ascertaining from the parties concerned how far their interests were attended to? It was a perfect mockery. He had entreated the Government not to press a question which required the most grave consideration of that House without full information—and in what state was inquiry before the Committee? They had only got through three or four heads out of eight. A great deal had been said about the interests of the millions intrusted to their government—altogether 150,000,000 of persons—for whom they were about to legislate; and they had had petitions from Madras, from Bengal, and from Bombay, natives and Europeans of all classes, praying for inquiry; and he himself had moved in the Committee that some of the petitioners should be requested to appear themselves, or by their agents,
736
to explain their petitions; but only one Member voted with him, all the other Members voting against him. The consequence was, that not one native petitioner had been examined before the Committee. But how could they say what grievances were real, and what were imaginary, without fair examination? Looking to what had taken place before—to the knowledge every man in India, native and European, had of the matter, he would say that if ever there was anything that would keep up agitation and disquiet among the people of India, it was the hanging of a provisional measure of this kind over their heads, accompanied by the understanding that it was to be altered and amended as time and circumstances might require. He thought that the Bill was most injudiciously introduced in point of time. What he could have wished was, that it should have been deferred until the inquiry was finished. It was therefore his intention to support the noble Lord's Amendment. Every man who looked at the welfare of India, and considered the situation in which that country was placed—a situation altogether anomalous, no other possession of the British Crown being placed in the same—an empire obtained, not by conquest, as most most of our colonies were, but created by the industry, labour, and capital of a commercial country a century ago, and conducted in a manner unequalled by any other of our possessions—would say that those who wished to alter that which was going on so well, ought to prove their case and show why that alteration was required. The Under Secretary to the Board of Control (Mr. Lowe) had attempted to mislead the House last evening, by stating that the Government were now proceeding in a course agreeable to the precedent of 1833, and compared the period of the Session at which the present Bill was introduced with the period of the introduction of the Bill for the renewal of the Charter in that year. The hon. Gentleman, however, forgot to state that the heads of the present Bill were only submitted to the Court of Directors on the 1st of June last; whereas the scheme of the Government in 1833 had been under the consideration of "the Chairs" from October 1830, and the Bill itself was submitted to the Directors in March the following year. The hon. Member would find all the correspondence which took place on this subject in a corner of a shelf in his office. The present

737
Bill had been introduced without any previous consideration, and almost without notice. In fact, the conduct of the Government with respect to the question seemed to partake of insanity. On the 30th of March last "the Chairs," having heard rumours as to the intention of the Government to legislate this Session, wrote to the President of the Board of Control to ask whether Ministers meant to introduce a Bill. On the 9th of April the President of the Board answered their letter, but said nothing about the Bill. It was not until the 1st of June the right hon. Baronet announced the intentions of the Government to the Court of Directors. With those facts before him, he thought he was perfectly warranted in stating that sufficient time had not been given to do justice to the matter under consideration. His own opinion was that one great defect of the existing system was, that none of the natives of India were included in the Legislative Council. Did hon. Gentlemen believe that India was to continue for ever, as now, under the management of a few hundred Europeans, and that, in the administration of its affairs, we were not to take advantage of the existing means of civilisation? The complaint he had to make was, that during the last twenty years the resources of India had been wasted, and wasted in uncalled-for wars, which would never have been carried out if the Court of Directors had had that power and control which the Act of 1833 was intended to leave in their hands. He was surprised to hear the late President of the Board of Control state last night, that neither the Court of Directors nor the President of the Board of Control was responsible for Indian wars. The right hon. Gentleman's language, as accurately reported, was as follows:—"Neither the Board of Control nor the Court of Directors was responsible for wars undertaken in India." Now, he maintained that the Board of Control and Her Majesty's Government were responsible for those wars on which the revenues of India were wasted. The Court of Directors did not know how the Affghan war originated until they were called on to pay the bill. In 1833 the home and foreign debt amounted to 38,000,000 l., but through the persevering exertions of the Directors, from year to year, it was reduced in 1839 to 31,000,000 l. Then came the Affghan war, and since then their expenditure had always exceeded their receipts. Then came the wars
738
of Scinde and the Punjaub—would the House believe that the enormous sum of 28,700,000 l. had been spent in these three wars alone, all of which had happened since the last renewal of the Charter? The following extracts from the evidence of Sir J. Hobhouse showed that the President of the Board of Control could do as he pleased in India, in defiance of the wishes of the Court of Directors:—
"Do yon correspond with the Governor General of India, and with those other high functionaries the Governors of Madras and Bombay, directly, without the intervention of the chairman or deputy-chairman of the India House?—Of course I do, privately.
"Have you any official correspondence with them which does not go through the India House? —Certainly; the letters from the Secret Committee are written by myself—they go, indeed, from the India House, but not from the Court of Direc tors."
This state of things should be put an end to. He contended that it was more a European than an Indian question; and that these wars were directed by a Secretary of State here in conjunction with the Board of Control. What he wanted was, that they should have a security against the continuance of such proceedings. If there was, as he was anxious there should be, a responsible Minister for India, such a Minister ought to have a Council to con. sult and advise with, and there could be no better council than a Court of Directors, properly constituted. He considered that they ought to make the Court of Directors more efficient; and the way to do that was to prevent any man entering that Court who had any other business to occupy his attention, and to infuse into it a larger proportion of members conversant with the affairs of India. With respect to the question of the double government, he wished to see the administration of India as it now was carried on by the Court of Directors— called by the name of a Council, if they pleased—to see that system continued, improved, and perpetuated. He could not believe that the government would have been carried on, or raised to its present extraordinary position of power and importance, if they had not had that body appointing its own servants, and taking care; of, and controlling, the whole revenue of the country. The present Bill degraded the Directors, for it positively placed them
under the clerks whose masters they were. He objected to leaving the power in the President of the Board of Control of doing the evil he had hitherto done, without any

739
check, and without any means of Parliament knowing when important measures were taken by him. At present, according; to the Minister himself, no one could tell where responsibility really rested. One said it was in the Board of Control, another in the Directors, whilst a third said it was in India. Parliament ought to know where lay the responsibility; and for effecting this object he suggested that the Secret Committee should be obliged to keep minutes of their proceedings. As regarded patronage, he would have the House consider whether it was not desirable that half of it should go to the families of the civil and military officers who served in India. The patronage had been given to the Directors with the view of disconnecting it from political influence in this country. Judging of the system by its results, a candid man must admit that the Indian patronage had been judiciously bestowed. In no other country in the world was to be found so admirable a body of civil and military servants. For his part, he entertained great doubts as to whether competition would be attended with the beneficial results anticipated from it. On these several grounds he entreated the House not to be led away by hasty or rash proposals, but to insist that the inquiry now proceeding should be closed before they legislated.
MR. MACAULAY: Sir, I shall vote for the second reading of the Bill; and, even if I had not determined to take that course, I should not vote for the Amendment proposed by the noble Lord. That Amend-ment appears to me to be not much mended by the speech of the hon. Member who has just sat down. He certainly cannot tell us that he has not all the information he can desire, or that he has not sufficiently made up his mind on the subject. He has made up his mind not only that the present Bill is a bad one, but also that it is desirable to adopt—even in its most minute details—a plan of government which he himself recommends. He has sketched out the complete plan of a government, fixing the relations between the Board of Control and the Court of Directors, and disposing of the patronage of India in a manner certainly very different from that proposed by the Bill. After having given this complete sketch of an entirely new plan of a government for India, that the hon. Member should call upon us to pass a Resolution declaring that the information is not at present accessible which alone can enable us to legislate for India, does, I confess,
740
seem to me somewhat paradoxical. Nor can I agree with the noble Lord opposite in condemning the Bill on the ground that it changes the existing system, and yet is not final. The noble Lord has condemned the Bill for being what any Bill proposed for the government of India, either this year or next year, or three years hence, or ten years hence, must necessarily be. Such a Bill ought to make alterations, and yet it ought not to be final. The Bill which we pass—be it what it may—ought to be a large yet cautious step in the path of progress. That which we have a right to ask from the Government is not a Bill which should leave everything that exists unchanged—not a Bill which should make such reforms and no other reforms as may now be necessary—but a Bill that shall introduce improvements, and leave us free agents to effect future improvements. Such a Bill I think is the Bill proposed by the right hon. Baronet the President of the Board of Control. One reason which, perhaps, leads me to look on this Bill more favourably than some Gentlemen for whose ability and intentions I have great respect, may be this—that the parts of the Bill which to them seem the most important, are precisely those which, to me, seem least important. We have heard very much—we have read very much—about the changes which it is proposed to make in the home government. That the home government ought to be constituted with care, that it should be as well constituted as possible, is perfectly true; but I do not conceive that the points in dispute touching the constitution of the home government are by any means the most important points we have to decide. The truth is, that vicinity, as we well know, acts on the mind as it does on the eye. A small object near will hide a large object at a distance. 'India is a great way off, but we all know the India-house; and India-house politics may hide from some, and cause more to see imperfectly, Indian politics. We all know something, more or less, about India-house politics. A man must have led a very secluded life indeed who has not in some way or other come across a canvass for a seat in the Direction. I think that many men who would find it very difficult to state whether the people of the Mysore or of the Nizam's territory are Mahomedans or Hindoos—whether the Guicowar is in the east or the west of India, or to explain the difference between the Ryotwar and Zemindary systems, who,

741
nevertheless, would take exceeding interest in the question who shall be the person next elected to the Board of Directors. If not stockholders ourselves, at all events we may be asked to speak to another gentleman to ask him to speak to a lady to ask her to speak to a proprietor to secure the promise of his vote, if not for this or the next time, at least for the time after. When a Director is elected—he is solicited —indeed he is solicited during his canvass very often—by those who have given him "their vote and interest," for cadetships and writerships. Some of us have been obliged by the "home government"— many of us have been obliged by the "home government," but it is on account of these circumstances that we all know something of that government—we all watch its operation; and therefore it is that the proposed change excites so much discussion and so much warm if not angry feeling. I must say, however, that the controversy carried on really seems to me to be altogether disproportionate to the magninitude of the subject. For what, after all— when we come to examine it—is the vague idea entertained about the home government? Much has been said against a double government; and yet, when we come to examine any plan which may be proposed by any Gentleman, we always find that it always does propose a plan which deserves the name of double government exactly as much as that contained in this Bill. No human being proposes, or would think of proposing, that the Crown should have nothing to do with the government of India. No human being proposes, or would think of proposing, that dominions containing a population more than half as large as that of Europe, and where a greater military force is kept up than in all the rest of the Queen's territories, should be placed under an authority distinct from that which governs the rest of the British empire. Nobody would propose, or think of proposing, this: but, if you have the Indian Government under the control of the Crown, the Minister for India must go out of office with the other Ministers of the Crown— that is to say, he must come in and go out on grounds which have nothing whatever to do with the merits or demerits of his Indian administration. In fact, since the Board of Control was first organised and brought into existence in 1784, I believe no single instance can be found of a President of the Board of Control taking or leaving office on account of any difference
742
of opinion on Indian affairs. Two Ministers for India went out on the question of Catholic emancipation, and another because he would not agree to the BILL of Pains and Penalties against Queen Caroline; the last President but one of the Board of Control went out because his Colleagues were in a minority on the Militia Bill; and the last, because the Cabinet of which he was a Member, was in a minority on their Budget. During the last quarter of a century there have been ten changes in the Board of Control—that is to say, the average time during which the Indian Minister has held office is about two years and a half. Now, whoever considers what the nature of Indian government is, the vast extent of the country, the various subjects calling for attention, and the small amount of attention which those subjects generally receive from English public men, whose peculiar duty it has not been to consider them, will be forced to admit that our Ministers for India must often come in and sometimes go out upon questions which have no reference to the merits of Indian administration whatever. It seems, then, necessarily to follow that you must give to them—to the Indian Ministers—some more permanent body which should advise them, and which should, to a certain degree, act upon them as a check. I have never heard any person deny the necessity of having such a body; but if you are to have such a body—such a council—yon have a double government. It seems to me idle to say it is a double government if the Crown appoints the Minister, and the proprietors elect the Council; but that is not double government if the Crown should appoint both Minister and Council. Surely it is just as much double government as if the Minister holds office by one tenure— the tenure from the Crown—and the Council by another, from the Court of Proprietors. You will have the same inconvenience whether the Council be appointed by the Crown, or by the Court of Proprietors. It is utterly impossible to attach to any Minister a council or body of men whose business it is to look on—to restrain and advise him—it is utterly impossible to give any Minister such a council, without at the same time relieving him to a certain extent of his responsibility. It is impossible you can give him such a council without in some degree causing delay in the transaction of the business of the department. These will he the evils of double government under any system I have ever heard

743
of yet. Look at the effects hitherto produced, and see if they do not prove this statement. It seems to me, however, that under the plan of the Government there will be found rather a better council to assist the Minister than we have had before. I think it a great advantage that it is a smaller council, and that, I think, will, on the whole, cause its proceedings to be marked with more vigour and ability. I accept it as an improvement. But it is not in this particular only that I am desirous this Bill should pass. I do not consider that the matter under our consideration is only to settle the form of government for India. I hear one hon. Gentleman say that the Board of Control really governs India; while another says that that is not so, but that the Board of Directors are the governors of that empire. Now, I conceive it to he very incorrect to say, that either the Board of Control or the Board of Directors really exercises the chief authority in this respect. India is, and must be, governed in India. That is a fundamental law which we did not make, which we cannot alter, and to which we should do our best to conform our legislation. While such an extent of ocean and of continent lies between Calcutta and London, India must be governed there, and not here. Ay, in spite of all the improvements which science has made in the means of locomotion and transit, a despatch from India is not read in London until six weeks after it was sent from Calcutta. Suppose it is answered on the very day on which it is received here, six weeks more must elapse before the answer arrives at Calcutta. But we know quite well that no such despatch is answered on the same day as that of its arrival—very rarely indeed in the same month. The double government, whatever he its merits or dements in other respects, is unquestionably not an expeditious government. When a despatch is received, it must be considered by many persons—many persons must have an opportunity of reading it, and both branches of the governing body at home must have opportunities of offering suggestions as to the answer to be sent out; and when you reflect on all this —when you take into consideration the delay which is the effect of your machinery and the effect of distance—you will see that when a despatch reaches Calcutta, it is a despatch not calculated to meet the state of things existing on its arrival, but such as existed six months before. No
744
empire can be governed by precise instructions shaped to meet a condition of circumstances which existed six months before. All our own experience proves that this is impossible. We all remember when in July a Royal Speech congratulated Parliament on the increasing prosperity of the country; and yet, at Christmas, we were within twenty-four hours of a state of barter. We all, too, recollect when in autumn, all Europe seemed in a state of profound peace; and yet, in the next year, from the Vistula to the Bay of Biscay, there was nothing but war and insurrection. Even in the space of the very last month we have seen this. Suppose the ablest and clearest instructions for a scheme of foreign policy drawn out but six months ago, of what effect would they be at such a juncture as that in which we now find ourselves? It is, therefore, I say, utterly impossible that India can be really governed except in India. The instructions which go out are indeed very rarely precise instructions; they are generally expositions of principles. The business of the Home Government is rather to judge what is past, than to give positive instructions for the future; and even when their directions are most positive, there is almost always a proviso, that, after all, the local authorities must, with a view to the circumstances which exist when the instructions arrive, exercise their own discretion. The whole history of the Indian Government is full of instances to this effect; but, in my own experience, I can illustrate the proposition in the clearest manner, for, certainly, during the time when I was taking part in the government of India, I can venture to say that every day altered the measures that were taken by the Home Government—indeed, every measure of which history will hereafter make mention, was taken without any authority whatever from home. I believe that almost every one of those measures or acts was regarded with disapprobation at home; yet not one of them was rescinded or annulled, but every one of them was suffered to stand, the language of the home authorities generally being such as this:—"You have done wrong, hut what you have done is done." That was most eminently the case with respect to that great reform made in 1835 by Lord W. Bentinck, before his departure from India, on the subject of the education of the Natives in European literature. Such was the case with respect to the abolition of the transit duties. On that

745
occasion a severe reprimand came out with respect to the distinguished functionary who bore the chief part in that transaction. Nevertheless, the transit duties were abolished, and that great boon was secured to the people of India. The same was the case with respect to the Act which established the liberty of unlicensed printing. Then, a most severe reprimand came out from home on account of it, imputing rashness and temerity to the Legislative Council; nevertheless, the home authorities did not command them to undo that Act. It was the same with the Act which established an uniform coinage throughout India. A reprimand came out, but still the Act was not set aside. These instances, all taken from a period of little more than a year—a period certainly of less than a year and a quarter—will convince Gentlemen that the organisation of the Government in India is really much more important to the happiness of the people of that country than the organisation of the Home Government. I am not sure, Sir, with regard to many, and not the least important, of the functions of the Home Government, that I should not be inclined to say, that the most important of all these functions is the choice of the Governor General; but I should be inclined to say that even the character of the Governor General is less important than the general character and spirit of the servants by whom the administration of India is carried on. A test, then, by which I am inclined to judge of the present Bill, is the probable effect it would have on the character and spirit of the civil service in India. Is it likely to raise or is it likely to lower the character of that distinguished body which furnishes India with its judges and collectors?—for, without meaning the slightest disrespect to the Court of Directors, I must say that three or four or six incompetent Directors would cause far less evil to the people of India, than a single incompetent collector in a district where a settlement is to be made between the Government and the villagers. Though many hon. Gentlemen fancy they know what the functions of a collector of revenue are, yet there exists, and I am surprised at it, a strange ignorance as to the power and importance of functionaries of that class in India. Some Gentlemen seem to imagine, putting the Indian collector at the very highest, that he is something like a Commissioner of Taxes or Stamps in this country; while the truth is, that the collector of revenue in many parts of India is the sole
746
consul of a great province, the district assigned to him being about the size of one of the four provinces of Ireland, of Leinster or of Munster, and the population therein probably about 1,000,000 of human beings. In all that district there is not a single village—there is not a single hut—in which the difference between a good and a bad collector may not make the difference between happiness and misery. The difference between a good and bad collector to the people in such a district is infinitely greater than the difference between the very best and the very worst government that we have ever seen or are likely ever to see in England, can be to the people here. I have been assured by those who have had the best opportunities of judging, that you might read the character of the collector in the eyes and in the garb of the population—in the appearance of the fields, and of the houses. Where there was an incapable collector, the peasantry there were brokenhearted. In the first place, the ornaments of the women, in which the peasantry of India lay up their wealth, and which they so greatly prize, are sold—then the pressure overcame their fondness for the village to which they belonged, and emigration by hundreds and thousands took place. The villages became desolate, the jungle encroached on the country before cultivated, and wild beasts made dens where human habitations stood before. But let a good collector replace the bad one, and the whole scene is altered. Cultivation reappears, the jungle recedes, the tigers and beasts of prey are driven back to their former haunts, the houses rise again, and the fugitive population come back to their villages. Such a power as that which collectors in India have over the people in India is not found in any other part of the world possessed by any class of functionaries; and I can conceive that if we made the very best arrangements possible with respect to the home government, we should be rendering far smaller service to those millions for whom we are bound in the first place to take thought, than if we raised the capacity for the civil service. Some Gentlemen for whose ability I have great respect—though upon this subject I cannot agree with them—think the best mode of improving the government of India, is by throwing open the public appointments. Let the Governor General, they say, choose his instruments for the administration. There will be no want of ability, they say, if you only give him the freedom to choose

747
those who serve under him. There is something plausible in the proposition that you should allow him to choose able men wherever he finds them. But my firm opinion is, that the day on which the civil service of India ceases to be a close service, will be the beginning of an age of jobbing—the most monstrous, the most extensive, and the most perilous system of abuse in the distribution of patronage that we have ever witnessed. Every Governor General would, in such case, carry out with him, or would soon be followed by, a crowd of relatives, nephews, first and second cousins, friends, and sons of friends, and political hangers-on; while every steamer arriving from the Red Sea would carry to India some adventurer bearing with him letters from some powerful man in England, all pressing for employment. Upon these persons so recommended the Governor General would have it in his power to distribute residences, seats at the Council Board, seats at the Revenue Board, places of from 4,000 l. to 6,000 l. a year—upon men without the least acquaintance with the character or habits of the natives, and with only sufficient knowledge of the language to be able to call for another bottle of pale ale, or to desire their attendants to pull the punkah faster. These men would be sent to exercise authority in different districts. One might be sent to a great station at Gwalior; or Khatmandoo, or Mysore, not inferior to Scotland in extent and population, might be made subject to his absolute power. In what way could you put a check on such proceedings? Would you—the House of Commons— control them? Have you been so completely successful in extirpating nepotism and jobbing at your own door, and in ex-eluding all abuses from Whitehall and Somerset House, that you should fancy that you could establish purity in countries the situation of which you do not know, and the names of which you cannot pronounce? This is what you would be called upon to undertake. I believe most firmly that instead of purity resulting from that arrangement to India, India would soon be tainted; and that, before long, when a son or brother of some active Member of this House went out to Calcutta, carrying with him a strong letter of recommendation from the Prime Minister to the Governor General, that letter would be really a bill of exchange drawn on the revenues of India for value received in Parliamentary support in this House. That would be no new traffic, but only an old traffic revived.
748
We are not without a guide and experience on this point. We have only to look back to those lamentable and shameful years which followed the first establishment of our power in Bengal. Then, as may be well known, if you only look to any poet, satirist, or essayist of those times, you may see in what manner the system of appointments operated. Looking over, only yesterday, for another object, a file of newspapers of 1771, I was struck by a paragraph stating that Mr. So-and-So, who went out with the Governor General only three years ago, had just landed with 40,000 l. But it was not only so. There were the sort of men who took no office, but simply put the Governor General to a species of ransom; they laid upon him a sort of tax—what the Mahrattas call choret, and the Scotch blackmail—that is, the sum paid to a thief, in consideration that he went away without doing harm. There was a tradition in Calcutta, where the story was very circumstantially told and generally believed, that a man came out with a strong letter of recommendation from one of the Ministers during Lord Clive's second administration. Lord Clive saw that he was not only unfit for, but would positively do harm in, any office, and said in his peculiar way, "Well, chap, how much do you want?" Not being accustomed to be spoken to so plainly, the man replied, that he only hoped for some situation in which his services might be useful. "That is no answer, chap," said Lord Clive, "how much do you want? Will 100,000 l. do?" The person replied, that he should be delighted if by laborious service he could obtain that competence. Lord Clive then wrote out an order for the sum at once, and told the applicant to leave India by the ship he came in, and, once in England again, to remain there. I think the story is very probable, and I also think that the people of India ought to be grateful for the course Lord Clive pursued; for though he pillaged the people of Bengal to give this lucky adventurer a large sum, yet the man himself if he had received an appointment, might both have pillaged them and misgoverned them as well. Now, against evils like this there is but one security, and I believe but one, and that is, that the civil service be kept close. The consequence of keeping the service close is, that though the Governor General has a wide choice, he must choose from among a certain set of instruments which he finds prepared to his hand. It is in

749
the highest degree improbable that any one, upon going out as Governor General to India, should find many relatives or friends in the civil service—and it more generally happens that he has not one; and the consequence is, that the most unscrupulous Governor General would dispose of his patronage under the present system more properly than an upright Governor General under a system by which he should be at liberty to appoint any one. Even an unscrupulous Governor General, when he finds he cannot oblige relations and friends, comes to the conclusion that the best thing to do is, to appoint men who would do the most credit to his choice, and make the public service go on most easily and successfully. That excellent and valuable man, Lord William Bentinck, in the month he left India, said, "I have now been here seven years, and during that time I have had to dispose of immense lucrative patronage, and I have never but once in all that time been able to do a single service to a single old English friend." There was the office of a police magistrate vacant at Calcutta, not strictly belonging to the civil service, and Lord William Bentinck gave it to this friend of his who had fallen into distress. That was the single instance where Lord William Bentinck had an opportunity of appointing a friend, and he only did that by going out of the service. It may be asked, What a security is such a system for the proper disposal of the patronage? I say it is infinitely a better security than even the virtues of such a man; for if any man is to be trusted with the uncontrolled disposal of the Indian patronage, Lord William Bentinck certainly was. Then it appears we are agreed that it is of the highest importance that the civil service in India! should be most capable and efficient. We are agreed also, that it must be a close service. In this case, it certainly necessarily follows that we ought to watch with the utmost care over the road to admission to that service—that we ought, if possible, to take such measures that this service may consist entirely of picked men, of superior men, taken from the flower of the youth of India. Now, it is because, in my opinion, this Bill does tend to produce that effect, that I feel earnestly desirous that it should pass, and pass without delay. My right hon. Friend (Sir C. Wood) proposes that all places in the civil service—all admissions to the civil service—shall be distributed among young men by
750
competition in those studies—as I understand the plan—which constitute a liberal British education. That plan was originally suggested by Lord Grenville, in 1813,! in a speech which, though I do not concur in every part of it, I would earnestly re- commend every Gentleman to read, for I believe that since the death of Burke nothing more remarkable has been delivered. Nothing, however, on this point was then! done; and the matter slept till 1833, when my Friend Lord Glenelg, the purest and most disinterested of men, proposed the adoption of a plan not altogether framed according to those views, but still a plan which would have introduced this principle of competition. Upon that plan twenty years ago I remember speaking here. I ought not to say here, for the then House of Commons has been burnt down, and of the audience I then addressed the greater part has passed away. But my opinion on that subject has always been the same. The Bill has passed; but difficulties were either found or made—the fault lies between the Government and this House; the I Company were less to blame, as they had opposed the thing from the beginning. The enactments to which I have referred were repealed, and the patronage ran in its old course. It is now proposed to introduce this principle of competition again, and I do most earnestly entreat this House to give it a fair trial. I was truly glad to hear the noble Lord who proposed the present Amendment express approval of the general principle of that part of the Bill. I was glad, but not surprised at it, for it is what I should expect from a young man of his spirit and ability, and recent experience of academical competition. But I must say I do join with the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Lowe) in feeling some surprise at the manner in which that part of the plan has been spoken of by a nobleman of great eminence, once President of the Board of Control and Governor General of India, and of very distinguished ability, both as an orator and as a statesman. If I understand the opinions imputed to that noble Lord, be thinks the proficiency of a young man in those pursuits which constitute a liberal education, is not only no indication that he is likely in after life to make a distinguished figure, but that it positively raises a presumption that in after life he will be overpassed by those he overcame in these early contests. I understand that the noble Lord is of opinion that young men

751
gaining distinction in such pursuits, are likely to turn out dullards and utterly unfit for the contests of active life; and I am not sure that the noble Lord did not say that it would be better to make boxing or cricket a test of fitness than a liberal education. I must say it seems to me that there never was a fact better proved by an immense mass of evidence, by an experience almost unvaried, than this—that men who distinguish themselves in their youth above their cotemporaries in academic competition, almost always keep to the end of their lives the start they have gained in the earlier part of their career. This experience is so vast that I should as soon expect to hear any one question it as to hear it denied that arsenic is poison, or that brandy is intoxicating. Take the very simplest test. Take down in any library the Cambridge Calendar. There you have the list of honours for a hundred years. Look at the list of wranglers and of junior optimes, and I will venture to say that for one man who has in after life distinguished himself among the junior optimes, you will find twenty among the wranglers. Take the Oxford Calendar; look at the list of first-class men, and compare them with an equal number of men in the third class, and say in which list you find the majority of men who have distinguished themselves in after life. But is not our history full of instances which prove this fact? Look at the Church, the Parliament, or the Bar. Look to the Parliament from the time when Parliamentary government began in this country—from the days of Montagu and St. John, to those of Canning and Peel. You need not stop there, but come down to the time of Lord Derby and my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Has it not always been the case that the men who were first in the -competition of the schools have been the first in the competition of life? Look also to India. The ablest man who ever governed India was Warren Hastings, and was he not in the first rank at Westminster? The ablest civil servant I ever knew in India was Sir Charles Metcalfe, and was he not a man of the first standing at Eton? The most distinguished member of the aristocracy who ever governed India was Lord Wellesley. What was his Eton reputation? What was his Oxford reputation? But I must mention—I cannot refrain from mentioning—another noble and distinguished Governor General. A few days ago, while the memory of the
752
speech to which I have alluded was still fresh in my mind, I read in the Musœ Cantabrigienses a very eloquent and: classical ode, which the University of Cambridge rewarded with a gold medal. The subject was the departure of the House of Braganza from Portugal for Brazil. The young poet, who was then only seventeen, described in very Horatian language and versification the departure of the fleet, and pictured the great Portuguese navigator, Vasco de Gama, and the great Portuguese poet Camoens hovering over the armament which was to convey the fortunes of the Portuguese monarchy to a new hemisphere; and with pleasure, not altogether unmingled with pain, I read at the bottom of that composition the name of the Hon. Edward Law, of St. John's College. I must say I saw with some considerable pleasure that the name of Lord Ellenbo-rough may be added to the long list of those distinguished men, who, in early youth, have, by eminent academical success, given an augury of the distinguished part which they were afterwards to play in public life; and I could not but feel some concern and some surprise that a nobleman so honourably distinguished in his youth by attention to those studies, should, in his maturer years, have descended to use language respecting them which I think would have better become the lips of Ensign Northerton, or the Captain in Swift's poem, who says—
"A scholard when first from his college broke loose
Can hardly tell how to cry boh! to a goose.
Your Noveds and Bluturchs, and Omurs and stuff,
By George, they don't signify this pinch of snuff;
To give a young gentleman right education,
The army's the only good school in the nation."
The noble Lord seemed, from his speech, to entertain that opinion. [A laugh.]
"My schoolmaster called me a dunce and a fool, But at cuffs I was always the cock of the school."
But if a recollection of his own early academical triumphs did not restrain the noble Earl from using this language, I should have thought that his filial piety would have had that effect. I should have thought that he would have remembered how eminently splendid was the academical career of that great and strong-minded magistrate, the late Lord Ellenborough; and, as I have mentioned him, I will say that if there be in this world a trying test of the fitness of

753
men for the competition of active life, and of the strength and acuteness of their practical faculties, it is to be found in the contests of the English Bar. Have not the most eminent of our Judges distinguished themselves in their academical career? Look at Lord Mansfield, Lord Eldon, Lord Stowell, Sir Vicary Gibbs, Chief Justice Tindall, Lord Tenterden, and Lord Lynd-hurst. Look round the Common Law or the Equity Bar. The present Lord Chief Baron was senior wrangler; Mr. Baron Alderson was senior wrangler; Mr. Justice Maule was senior wrangler; Mr. Baron Parke was eminently distinguished at the University for his mathematical and classical attainments; Mr. Baron Platt was a wrangler; and Mr. Justice Coleridge was the most eminent man of his time at Oxford. Then take the Equity Bar. The Lord Chancellor was a wrangler; Lord Justice Sir George Turner was high in the list of wranglers; all the three Vice Chancellors were wranglers; Sir Lancelot Shadwell was a wrangler, and a very distinguished scholar; my friend Sir James Parke was a high wrangler, and a distinguished mathematician. Can we suppose that it was by mere accident all these obtained their high positions? Is it possible not to believe that these men maintained through life the start which they gained in youth? And is it an answer to these instances to say that you can point—as it is desirable you should be able to point— to two or three men of great powers who, having neglected the struggle when they were young, stung with remorse and generous shame, have afterwards exerted themselves to retrieve lost time, and have sometimes overtaken and surpassed those who had got far in advance of them? Of course there are such exceptions; most desirable it is that there should be, and that they should be noted, for they seem intended to encourage men who, after having thrown away their youth from levity or love of pleasure, may be inclined to throw their manhood after it in despair; but the general rule is, beyond all doubt, that which I have laid down. It is this—that those men who distinguish themselves most in academical competition when they are young, are the men who, in after life, distinguish themselves most in the competition of the world. Now, if this be so, I cannot conceive that we should be justified in refusing to India the advantage of such a test. I know there are gentlemen who say—for it has been said—"After all,
754
this test extends only to a man's intellectual qualifications, and his character is quite as important as his intellectual qualifications." I most readily admit that his character is as important as his intellectual qualifications; but, unfortunately, you have not quite so certain a test of a man's character as you have of his intellectual qualifications. Surely, if there are two qualifications you want a man to possess, and which it is very important he should possess—and if you have a test by which you can ascertain the presence of the one qualification, but no decisive test by which you can ascertain the presence of the other—your best course is to use the test you have, and to leave as little as you possibly can to chance. This argument would seem unanswerable unless some person should say that the circumstance of a man's superiority in academical competition raise a presumption that he was inferior in practical judgment and manly rectitude. But if that could be shown, then the consequence would go a great deal further than the rejection of my right hon. Friend's proposal. It would go to this, that we must reconsider the whole system of English education, and remove our boys from those places where they are trained to studies which have a deleterious effect upon the character. There is another point on which I am desirous to say a few words. Some very able and judicious men, who are strongly of opinion— as strongly as I am myself—that it is important that there should be high intellectual tests for admission to the Indian service, are yet of opinion that this would be best managed, not by means of competition, but by having examinations of a high standard, and rejecting every candidate who does not come up to that standard. Now, all my experience and observation! lead me to believe that this is a complete mistake. The effect of competition is to keep up the standard. Every man struggles to do his best, and the consequence is, that without any effort on the part of the examiner, under a system of competition the standard keeps itself up. But the moment you say to the examiner, not "Shall A or B go to India?" but "Here is A; is he fit to go to India?" the question becomes altogether a different one. The examiner's compassion, his good nature, his unwillingness to blast the prospects of a young man, lead him to strain a point in order to let the candidate in if he possibly can. That would be the case

755
even if we suppose the dispensers of patronage to be left merely to the operation of their own minds; but you would have them subjected to solicitations of a sort which it would be impossible to resist. I speak of what I know, and of what I have seen. I have known cases where public servants have been under the painful necessity of pronouncing young men, on examination, to be unfit for the public service. What is the consequence? The candidate declares that he will exert himself to the utmost, and that, if he be but tried, no endeavour shall be wanting on his part to discharge his duties satisfactorily. The father comes with tears in his eyes; the mother writes the most pathetic and heartbreaking letters. I have repeatedly seen very firm minds shaken by appeals of that sort. Now, the system of competition allows nothing of the kind— the parent cannot say "the other boy beat my son, but please say my son beat the other boy"—in that way the system of competition necessarily keeps your standard high, while the other system constantly tends to bring it lower and lower. I hope most earnestly it will not be supposed that in anything I have said I intend in the smallest degree to reflect on the present civil service of India. Some of the dearest and most valued friends I have in the world belong to that service, and for the general spirit and character of that service I feel the greatest respect and affection. I think it wonderful that a body of men not picked or chosen, but taken merely at random—appointed because one is the son of a Director, because another is the nephew of a Director, because the father of a third is some person who has been, perhaps, of great service to the President of the Board of Control at a contested election—I think it wonderful that men selected purely and avowedly on grounds of a personal nature, should have conducted themselves as they have done, and have discharged their duties under great temptation, under great difficulties, with so much success. It is, I think, a thing glorious to our country, that 800 men taken in that way—at random, from among the gentlemen of England—should have conducted themselves in general with such distinguished ability and probity. That, however, is no reason for not making the service better, if we can do so; and it is impossible to deny that we have proofs that the service is not entirely free from defects. How, indeed, could it be other-
756
wise? You must necessarily have a certain number of inferior men in a service formed in such a manner—-in a service consisting of 800 men, not selected on the ground of ability. Among any 800 gentlemen whom you might select at random, there would be a certain number of men of very superior powers; the great majority might be not very much above, nor very much below, the average of ability; but there must necessarily be, in every body of 800 men, not selected by some test of ability, a considerable number—say a tenth, or, if you please, a twentieth—who fall decidedly below the average of ability. Now, you can do very well with this in this country. You don't want all the clerks in the War Office, or the Treasury, to be superior men. There is plenty of routine business to be done in those offices which a man of no great ability can transact. The men of small ability do that routine business; the men of great ability rise in position. But the case is different in the Indian service. You have there 800 men charged with the happiness of 120,000,000 of people. There is not a single one of those men upon whose capacity the happiness of a very large number of human beings may not, in any situation, depend. It is utterly impossible that one-tenth part or one-twentieth part of that service can consist of incapable men without causing great suffering to thousands of individuals. And here, I believe, we find the real explanation of that which has appeared to me, from all I have been able to learn, the most defective point of our system in India. I quite agree with the noble Lord who moved the Amendment as to the evils of the judicial system in India. All the evidence leads me to that conclusion; but permit me to say that this is no novelty. Those evils were distinctly predicted before the Bill of 1833 passed. I heard them predicted myself. It was said by a very able man—"Your opening the China trade will, in one sense, inflict great evils upon the people of India, unless you alter the mode in which the patronage is dispensed. While patronage is exercised as it is exercised, there will always be a certain number of incapable men in the service. At present they are sent into the trade; your able men are left for judicial, revenue, and political positions. If you abolish the trade, you will still have the same proportion of incapacity in the service; but there will no longer be commercial affairs to which you can ap-

757
point these men of small ability, and you will send them to the judicial department." The prophecy has been strictly realised, for to the judicial department they have gone. The evidence before us leaves no doubt that, though there are very eminently able and useful men—as able and useful as any which the service comprises —in the judicial department, yet that in general it is to that department that men deficient in ability and energy are sent; and I do not blame the Indian Government for having taken this course; for, shocking as it sounds in the car of an Englishman to say that the collection of taxes is more important than the admistration of justice, yet, practically, I do believe that the happiness of the people of a district in India depends more upon the ability of the revenue collector than even upon the ability of the judge. Now, what is the remedy for this? Not, I think—as some would propose—to strengthen the judicial department at the expense of the revenue department—not, in my opinion, to pour out upon India, as has been suggested, some scores of barristers from the back rows of the Court of Queen's Bench, and to give them office as Indian judges. The true remedy is to raise the general character of the service, and to take such measures that it may be in the highest degree improbable that any men who are really incapable-—any men who are below par— will find their way into that service at all. I believe that the plan proposed by Her Majesty's Government will accomplish this end, and it is on that ground chiefly that I give it my most sincere and cordial support. One word more. It seems to mo that this plan provides the best means that can be imagined for effecting an object upon which much has been said, and which I admit to be desirable—the gradual admission of Natives to a share in the higher offices of the government. Legally, they are now admissible; practically, none have been admitted. I do not blame those who do not admit them, for it is my belief that there is not in India a young Native whom it would be a kindness to the Native population to place, at the present moment, in your civil service. I can conceive nothing more unfortunate for the people of India than that you should put into the civil service a Native, because he is a Native, if he is to be the last man in that service, a man decidedly inferior in attainments to all the other members of that service, and who would be looked down upon by his
758
European colleagues. Above all, I cannot conceive anything more pernicious than the suggestion which has been made, that before you admit any Native to the service at all—before any native has been even an assistant collector or a judge, you should take some Native, and appoint him a member of the Legislative Council. That, of all propositions, would seem to me least likely to promote the real benefit of the people of India. Under the proposed system it would depend on the Natives themselves, and upon them alone, at what time they should enter into the civil service. As soon as any young Native of distinguished parts should, by the cultivation of English literature, have enabled himself to be victorious in competition over European candidates, he would, in the most honourable manner, by conquest, as a matter of right, and not as a mere eleemosynary donation, obtain access to the service. It would then be utterly impossible for his European fellows to look down upon him; he would enter the service in the best and most honourable way; and I believe that in this mode, and in this mode alone, can the object which so many friends of the Native population have in view be attained in a manner at all satisfactory. I differ, I am well aware, as to the effect of the admission of Natives to such situations, from a noble Lord (the Earl of Ellenborough), whom I mentioned a short time ago. That noble Lord is of opinion, not only that we ought to exclude Natives from office, but that even by encouraging them to study the arts and learning of Europe, we are preparing the way for the utter destruction of our power in India. I must leave it to the noble Lord to explain what seems to me a rather singular inconsistency in his opinion. I am at a loss to understand how, while utterly contemning education when it is given to Europeans, he should regard it with dread when it is given to Natives. This training, we are told, when given to a European, makes him a bookworm, a twaddler, a man unfit for the active duties of life; but give the same education to the Hindoo, and it arms him with such an accession of intellectual power, that an established government, with an army of 250,000 men, backed by the whole army and navy of England, are to go down inevitably before its irresistible power. I do not pretend to explain how the knowledge which is power in one race, can be absolutely impotent in another; but I can only say, for myself, with regard to this

759
question, that, in my opinion, we shall not secure or prolong our dominion in India by attempting to exclude the Natives of that country from a share in its government, or by attempting to discourage their study of western arts or learning; and I will only say, further, that, however that may be, I will never consent to keep them ignorant in order to keep them manageable, or to govern them in ignorance in order that we may govern them long.
MR. BLACKETTsaid, he did not rise to combat the eloquent speech of the right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, but to call attention to the extraordinary conduct of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Control. He was aware that one, who like himself, derived his knowledge of Parliamentary usages from books, was liable to mistake in discussing a point of Parliamentary precedent or law. He ventured, however, to ask whether the right hon. Gentleman had taken a Parliamentary or constitutional course when, in introducing his measure, he quoted the authority of Lord Dalhousie in support of it, and then refused to lay on the table of the House the despatches to which he had referred? The right hon. Gentleman, in reply to the hon. Member for Montrose, said it was not so much a despatch as a private letter. But when in a similar manner, at the period of the Canadian rebellion, Lord Glenelg spoke of a despatch as a private communication, Lord Brougham said, that whether a document began "My Lord," or "My dear Lord," was immaterial; the main fact was whether the matter of the despatch related to the public service. He would also ask the noble Lord the Member for the City of London, whether he recollected the occasion when, in 1808, Mr. Canning fell into the same fault by quoting a despatch from our Minister at Copenhagen which he refused to lay upon the table. On that occasion Mr. Adair, supported by the Whigs of that day, moved a vote of censure upon the right hon. Gentleman; and so sensible were Mr. Canning's Tory colleagues that he had offended against the laws of Parliament, that they only met the vote of censure by moving the previous question. The proceeding of the right hon. President of the Board of Control was not more defensible than that of Mr. Canning; and he wished to see whether the Whig Ministry of 1853 were as zealous guardians of Parliamentary practice as the Whig Opposition of 1808. In addressing himself
760
to the question before the House, he would confine himself solely to the question of a double government in India. He dissented from the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Edinburgh (Mr. Mac-aulay), when he said that this was a matter of small importance. No doubt, compared with the happiness of the millions of India, it was a matter of comparatively small importance; but still it must be remembered that it was the source and the spring from which all the other parts of the system flowed. On this question of double government he would make a special appeal to those Gentlemen who represented commercial and manufacturing constituencies, and who had distinguished themselves by their endeavours to introduce into public business the principles of economy, simplicity, and despatch. He believed there never was a system that more required the adoption of the principles of Bentham and Adam Smith—the principles of cheap government and cheap law—than the home government of India. He was sorry to find the noble Lord, in his recently published Memoirs of Fox, differing from the principles which that great statesman laid down on the government of India, and stating that the experience of seventy years had blunted Pox's arguments, which could not be logically refuted, and that the principle of despotism in the Indian Government was tempered by the spirit of our representative institutions. On this point he (Mr. Blackett) was directly at issue with the noble Lord, as he believed that the present Government of India possessed the vices of both forms of government, without the virtues of either; that it had all the oppression of despotism, without its impressive and sweeping energy; and all the vacillation and feebleness of representative government, without possessing the spirit of popular control. One main difficulty with which the Government had to struggle was, the irresponsible position in which English officers were placed in India; and for this difficulty there was no remedy except that of concentrating the government at home, and enforcing, with regard to it, the principle of responsibility —bringing public opinion in England to bear upon it with the greatest possible force. This could never be accomplished under a system of double government. Where two men performed the task of one, it was difficult to apportion the proper degree of praise or blame; and this was rendered infinitely more difficult where

761
the real responsibility rested with one, while the great object was to persuade the public that the authority rested with the other. The hon. Baronet the Member for Honiton maintained that the whole work of Indian administration rested with the Court of Directors; but, in opposition to this, he need only quote from the memoirs of the late Mr. Henry St. John Tucker, just published, in which that gentleman lamented over the humiliating position in which the Directors were placed —a humiliation which he himself had deeply felt. He believed the real explanation of this difficulty to be, that, in point of fact, the administration was not a double one; or, rather, the two departments divided two kinds of administration between them. All the show, the levying of war, the raising of taxes, and all such duties, were decided on by the President of the Board of Control; but the public works, education, and all measures for promoting the civilisation of the people of India, which ought to be the work of the Directors, or of both together, were left to slumber under the bureaucracy of Leaden-hall Street. The result was extravagance, negligence, and waste, which it would be impossible to parallel in any other government whatever. There were one or two points in the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Edinburgh which he would notice. The first related to the education of the natives of India. When that right hon. Gentleman went to India, the English mind was divided into two theories—whether the natives should be instructed in Oriental knowledge or in European learning. What was the part taken by the Court of Directors? In 1837 the then Governor General (Lord William Bentinck), instigated mainly by the masterly minute which was drawn up by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Edinburgh on the subject, issued a proclamation that the fund for education should be employed in instructing the natives in European learning. Now, it was true that that change had been carried out in India, and a blessed change it was; but he had good reason for stating that when Lord William Bentinck sent home his despatch, the Court of Directors actually drew up a despatch condemning his Resolution, and ordering him to reverse it; but Sir John Hobhouse altered the despatch into one approving of the change, which the Court of Directors refused to accept, and the consequence of which was
762
that no despatch on the subject had ever been sent out at all, and that great change had to this day received neither the sanction nor the censure of the Home Government. In another observation of the right hon. Gentleman he fully concurred—that India was to be governed only in India; and it was his complaint against the home authorities that on this point they were constantly overstepping their legitimate powers, and abandoning that wise course which had been adopted in regard to our colonies of leaving as much as possible to local legislation. By the 43rd clause of the Charter the right of making laws was vested in the Indian Legislative Council; but in 1845, when a Bill declaring the lex loci of India was prepared by the Legislative Council, and sanctioned by Lord Har-dinge, the Court of Directors sent out a despatch demanding that no such law should be passed till it had been submitted to their decision. For what purpose did he mention these things? In order to test the tendency of the Home Government to outstep their authority. The Home Government possessed the same power over Indian legislation as the Crown did over colonial. It would be in the recollection of the House that the only interference with legislation on the part of the Crown on record was on an Indian question—namely, when Mr. Fox was passing his India Bill through the Lords, and a note was circulated that George III. would not consider those Peers as friendly to him who apposed that measure. He would ask what were the changes to be introduced by the Ministerial Bill? He must say that it was his impression that the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Control was about to leave the question of the double government of India in a worse position than he had found it. The Bill introduced six nominees of the Government into what was formerly a homogeneous body, and left it at the mercy of the Minister of the day. He had no objection to strip the Directors of some of their prerogatives, but he objected to stripping them of those prerogatives in order that they might be transferred to the Crown. There was not, moreover, a single clause in the Bill which increased the responsibility of the President of the Board of Control—there was not even a proviso that there should be an Indian budget every year; but the Presi-dent of the Board of Control was left at full liberty, should he desire it, to juggle with the names of the Indian Committee,

763
and to sign the names of the Chairman and Vice-Chairman at the foot of every Indian despatch. He knew it would be said that the only escape from all these difficulties was the establishment of a Parliamentary Government. He knew he should hear it asserted that India was better governed than our colonial dependencies. But let them take as a test the comparative imports and exports of India and our Colonies—their relative population and their consumption of British manufactures, and he believed it would be found that the Colonial Office would beat Leadenhall Street out of the field. If they took the instances in which Parliament interfered with our Colonies, and compared the amount of evil with the good caused by that interference, it would be found that the evil was very little, and the good was very great. Where would free trade in our Colonies have been —where would negro emancipation have been—but for the interference of Parliament? Where would the freedom to the Indian trade granted in 1813 have been, had it not been that the pressure of Liverpool had been brought to bear on Parliament? Where would the missionary efforts have been but for Mr. Wilberforce? It was Parliament which had passed the clause admitting Natives to offices—it was Parliament which had established that Legislative Council to which he had referred. The President of the Board of Control had, in introducing this Bill, made a special appeal to the House that it might not be made the theme of party conflict. Now he, for one, did not dread the exhibition of a party spirit, believing that from hence some of the noblest efforts of statesmen had originated; but if party spirit were, as the right hon. Gentleman hoped it would, to be excluded altogether from this debate, there should have been no Treasury whips this evening—there should have been no hints thrown out that Government might be possibly annoyed by the division. If the question were to be fairly left to the impartial spirit of the House, he, for one, should have no fear of the result. He felt that it was to the commercial Members of that House that he was to look for a support of the Amendment proposed by the noble Lord (Lord Stanley); and if that Amendment were fairly put, as a question of economy against wastefulness, of simplicity against intricacy, he should have no fear of the verdict which would be pronounced by the dispassionate feeling of an impartial Parliament.
VISCOUNT JOCELYNsaid, that having often brought forward Indian questions, he was desirous of addressing the House on this occasion; and of doing so, not in a party spirit, but with a wish to do justice to the subject; and while acknowledging the defects and demerits of the Indian Government, to give it credit for what deserved approval in its administration; the only object he had in view being to point out the best mode of improving that Government. The present, perhaps, was a fortunate period for bringing forward the subject, because the disruption of party ties had left the House at liberty to consider the subject in an unbiassed frame of mind. It was most important to consider it in a fair and impartial spirit. The representatives of a free people, who were proud and jealous of their constitutional privileges, were about to legislate for a people wholly destitute of these advantages, and to give them a despotic Government— the only Government they were capable of receiving. When the British Parliament was about to form a Government for India on the principles of despotism, it was their duty to frame such a Government in a paternal spirit, and as much as possible adapted to the wants and wishes of the people. In framing a Government for India, it was necessary to look back to her past history, for in the history of a people we could trace the character of the race For centuries India had been subject to strife and invasion, and had found under our rule the blessings of security and peace. The rise and progress of our own rule in India was one of the marvels of history. Scarcely a century ago we were only a company of merchants on a hostile shore; since then our empire had extended and expanded almost against the wishes of our rulers. It was clear that a far higher power than human will had destined the vast extension of our Indian rule; and therefore our object ought to be, not so much to prepare the natives of India for self-government, as to prepare them to take part with us in her internal administration, and teach them the blessings of a Christian rule. He was sorry that, though there were few points of difference in principle between himself and his noble Friend (Lord Stanley), he felt compelled to vote against his noble Friend's Amendment. He could not, however, do otherwise, considering, as he had stated a few weeks ago, that Parliament already possessed sufficient evidence to enable them to form a Government for

765
India, and he did not know what advantage could be gained by waiting for further information. He knew that his hon. Friend opposite (Mr. Hume) was anxious that the Natives should have been heard before they framed a measure for their rule. So also was he; but at the same time he did not think that the opinions of the Natives could assist them towards the conclusion as to what the Government of India should be. He could not agree with his noble Friend (Lord Stanley) that delay in legislation was unimportant. He did not, it was true, believe that the effect of delay in legislation would be the upsetting of British rule in India; but he felt that delay would tend to paralyse the Government both at home and abroad, and would engender in the minds of the people of India hopes and expectations which could never be fulfilled, and which must eventually lead to discontent. He did not in all respects approve of the Government measure; but this he would say—whatever they did, let them legislate now, and let not the people of India think that they were hesitating as to the course they would adopt. Look to the past, and see what had been effected by the Indian Government. First, with respect to revenue. He was astonished to hear it said by a learned Gentleman that the course of the Indian administration as to land assessment had been disgraceful. Such language was, to say the least, very presumptuous, when it was considered that some of the wisest and most experienced of the servants of the Indian Government, after twenty years' residence in the country, had not been able to arrive at a clear conclusion on that most difficult subject, which had engaged the consideration of Lord Cornwallis, Sir T. Monroe, Mr. Holt Mackenzie, and others of the most illustrious men India had ever known. The system now adopted—that of leases—had been an improvement, and it could not be said that on this subject the Indian Government had neglected its duty. Next, as to the judicial department. He admitted it had been one of the greatest blots on our Indian administration. But the very pamphlet of Mr. Norton—the great source of the accusations against the Company on this head—was compiled from statements procured by the Company themselves in their anxiety to promote improvement. Then, with reference to education. Nothing was more important for Christian rulers than to provide the blessings of education for the people. He admitted that what had been done on this subject was
766
below what it ought to have been; but he could not admit that the Government had neglected its duty. Native youths were seen, who were educated in our schools, and were now taking part in the literature and politics of the day, and the very petition presented upon this subject from Natives of India proved the progress they had made. Suttees and infanticide had been abolished under our rule; and he could not say that if the Indian Government had not fully performed these duties, they had wholly neglected them. He now came to public works. He was fully sensible of their advantage. He himself had first brought forward the question of railways in India; and in his travels through that country he had seen the injuries arising from the want of irrigation displayed in all the horrors of famine. He had even entered villages depopulated, and spots where once the cottages of men had been, now the haunts of the panther and the tiger. He could not deny, when he saw the small sums expended by the Indian Government on public works—when he found that out of the revenue—between 28.000.000 l. and 30.000.000 l. a year, only 5,000,000 l., in the whole, had been spent in public works—it might truly be matter of wonder that the Indian Government should have been so regardless of their own interests. But his wonder was diminished when he found that during that period 16.000.000 l. had been expended in unjust and reckless war—the wars in Scinde, the war in Affghanistan—a war not called for by our security, and which almost terminated in our disgrace. The Governments which carried on th6se wars ought to have been brought to the bar of Parliament; but the truth was, Parliament had not felt any interest in the subject. It was idle to pretend that the Home Government were not responsible for these wars. The President of the Board of Control had been as much responsible for the affairs of India, as the Secretaries for Foreign Affairs, and for the Colonies, were responsible in their respective departments; and it was Parliament alone that was to blame for this dereliction of duty on the part of the Government. He was desirous of imposing some species of check upon the Minister, to prevent his acting in opposition to the will of the Directors. The truth was, that Parliament had neglected its duty, and it was not fair to rest the blame upon the Company. It was not true that the Government of India was a

767
curse to the country. If this were Be, it was a terrible slur on the character of this nation. But it was not so. The simple fact was, that an Englishman might walk unarmed all through India, and be received everywhere with civility and courtesy. They held India at this moment with a force of 40,000 men; and yet since 1833 they had had no insurrection against their authority in India which had called for any interference on the part of Parliament; but he would remind the House that since that period they had had a rebellion in Canada; they had had two wars at the Cape of Good Hope; they had had a revolution in Ceylon, and an insurrection in New Zealand; and during all that time pot a single arm had been raised against British rule and authority in India. They had there a faithful army of upwards of 200,000 following their banners, and acting and co-operating with them in the field. These were all facts which could not be denied; and he firmly believed that the rule of the British Government had been, on the whole, a blessing, and not a curse, to the people of India. He came now to consider the measure proposed by the Government. In the principle of that measure he entirely concurred. He thought the propositions of his right hon. Friend went in the direction in which he himself wished to proceed. One of the great evils of the present system, as regarded the Court of Directors, was the system of canvass; and he did not think that there could be any good grounds urged for maintaining the present system—it was utterly indefensible. He thought the canvass a bad arrangement, and the Court of Directors so constituted a monstrosity. Then, with regard to the six new Directors whom it was proposed to introduce. Friend as he was of the double government—believing, as he did, that it was necessary that the debates upon Indian matters of detail should be kept out of Parliament, and not discussed in that House—that it was necessary, if they did not mean to extend constitutional government to India, at least to give the means of discussing the question of what was advantageous or otherwise to the interests of the people of India, by men of experience, knowledge, high position, and character—he was an advocate for the maintenance of the Court of Directors. He thought the Court should be established and maintained for these reasons; but he was satisfied that many able men were excluded from tendering
768
their services to the Indian Government owing to the difficulties attending the canvass. He did not dissent from the appointment of six new Directors as regarded the principle of such an infusion of a new element; but he thought it most essential that they should appear to the public independent, and that there should be no doubt about their exercising an independent action. He doubted, however, the efficacy of the means taken to attain that object. The tenth clause merely provided that they should be nominated by the Crown; but in order that they might not remain dependent on the caprice of a Minister, the most effectual means would be to make them removable by Parliament only, as in the case of Mr. Fox's India Bill of 1784. In regard to the question of patronage, he concurred with his right hon. Friend in thinking that Ministers were right in throwing open the civil service of India to general competition; but he did not consider the mode in which this was*proposed to be done one that would possibly work. He doubted whether any satisfactory decision as to the merits of the candidates could be arrived at from the proposed examination, and thought it would have been far better that the patronage should have been given to the great public schools—he did not mean the schools of the Church of England, but the schools and large seminaries throughout the country; otherwise a large portion of those who were entitled to compete for it would be shut out. The effect of the Ministerial proposition would be to shut out from patronage a large class of persons who had hitherto looked forward to it as a provision for their children. He did not say that was a sufficient reason why it should not be thrown open to competition, as it was their duty to procure the best and ablest men for the public service of India. He concurred with his right hon. Friend in thinking that a portion of the appointments in the military service should be reserved for the servants of the East India Company. Whilst not disapproving the plan of throwing open the civil service to competition, he thought it would be well that the appointments should be distributed by the authorities of India. It was not a-man's passing an examination creditably here that should give him a right to a place, but proofs given of character and abilities such as would justify the Government of India in conferring a high trust on him. He felt bound to add, that he

769
knew it was the opinion of some of the highest authorities that there would be no small danger in opening the whole of the civil service to the Native population. He had endeavoured to state his views and opinions with reference to the future government of India. He could assure the House that his statement had been made from no other motives but what he believed to be for the public good. He had turned his attention to India at a time when few persons had done so. He believed, from all he had seen of that mighty empire, that the real improvement of India was not to be effected by the Court of Directors, or the Board of Control, but by those whom they would entrust with the government of India. He said, give these functionaries great power and great responsibility, and call them in question if they did not perform their duty in a satisfactory way. There were some who looked forward with distrust and gloom to the future prospects of our rule in that vast territory; but he was not afraid to avow himself more sanguine. The people of India, as they gained political information, would learn that they enjoyed greater prosperity and comfort under our administration than they had ever obtained under other foreign rulers, or under their native princes; and, learning to live and respect their governors for the blessings they received at their hands, they would make allowances for inevitable deficiencies. Knowing our faults as they did, they yet were evidently disposed to consider them in a more generous spirit than was evinced by many Gentlemen on the benches opposite.
MR OTWAYsaid, that throughout all the various speeches that had been made in the present debate, he observed a universal concurrence as to the importance of the question that was now engaging the attention of the House. That question was one of such magnitude that he would almost have shrunk from obtruding on the House the opinions of a Member so inexperienced as himself; but since the Amendment of the noble Lord the Member for Lynn had been moved, the question had assumed a somewhat different aspect. It no longer referred exclusively to the determination of a form of government for India; but they had the alternative offered to them of delaying a decision, and were thereby afforded an opportunity of acquiring further information on this subject. He had heard nothing to induce him to alter the opinion he expressed in the
770
House when the question was first mooted —that before they proceeded to legislate for India, it was expedient to obtain from the Natives themselves some information as to their wants, their opinions, and their views in the matter. He could not think it wise or just to legislate for a population of 150,000.000, differing from us in language, laws, and religion, without having done so. The advocates of delay, on the ground that it was necessary to collect further information before legislating, had been taunted by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Control with having already made up their own minds decisively to oppose the present system; but it appeared to have escaped the penetration of that right hon. Gentleman, that this measure might be regarded as a bad measure, and that those who were opposed to it might, with perfect consistency, consider it their duty to stir up discussion and expose the iniquities of the system they condemned, until the supporters of the Bill were obliged to yield to agitation what they denied to reason and justice. But the main feature of this Bill was the continuance of the system of double government for India—a system which was attended with two of the gravest evils, irresponsibility and secrecy. This was strikingly illustrated in the case of Colonel Outram, the resident at Baroda, who felt it his duty to bring charges of corruption against the officers of the Company; but the conduct of the Government prevented these charges from being properly investigated. Again, it had been proved over and over again that the Court of Directors had been compelled by the President of the Board of Control to sign despatches to be sent out to India, against the contents of which the majority of them solemnly protested; and on the other hand, Mr. Campbell, an eminent authority on this point, declared that it was most difficult to determine the authorship of any despatch. Therefore, the double system was manifestly what the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire would call an organised hypocrisy. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Edinburgh had alluded to the prosperity of the people of India, and referred for the proofs of it to the dress, ornaments, and general appearance of the native population; but Mr. Marryatt, speaking of the Bombay Presidency, said that the people were verging on the lowest state of pauperism; and other eminent authorities bore testimony that

771
there were everywhere marks of general deterioration. Another point to which he would briefly refer, was the administration of justice. He was astonished to hear the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Control say, that the Judges of India were universally believed to be incorruptible. The very reverse was the fact. A circular was recently sent round to fifty of the principal officers, judges, commissioners, and political officers of the Bombay Presidency, requesting answers with regard to the feeling of the Native population of their respective districts as to the integrity of the judges; and the result was that thirty-eight out of the whole fifty of these officials returned answers to the effect that among all classes of the inhabitants of Western India there was a belief in the corruptibility of the persons appointed to administer justice. Nine declared their partial belief to the same effect; and only three out of the fifty gave a negative reply; and of these three, two of them were, he believed, British agents in non-regulation provinces, and the third, he regretted to say, was an individual who was accused of being personally implicated in dishonourable transactions. He (Mr. Otway) need not cite instances in illustration of this state of things; but the case of Jotee Persaud, a native contractor, who had rendered great services to the army, and who, when he sent in his bill for 400,000 l., instead of being paid, was placed in the felon's dock upon a fictitious charge, was familiar to the public. With regard to public works, he should really have thought, after the able articles which had recently appeared in the Times and other papers, that the right hon. Gentleman would scarcely have spoken so highly in praise of them as he had done. The hon. Baronet the Member for Honiton had taken great credit for the canal connected with the Godovery river; but he forgot to mention that the works ought to have been, and might have been, constructed many years ago, and for a less sum than was spent by the Directors upon dinners in Leadenhall-street. Again, could the hon. Baronet deny that the revenue of India was in a perpetual state of deficit—that the charges were constantly increasing in a greater ratio than the revenue—that at this moment the resources of the country were being squandered in a Burmese war —and that the finances of the country were largely dependent on the opium trade, which rested upon a most precarious foot-
772
ing? With regard to the existing form of double government, he asked if there was anything about it to recommend it to them? The House were aware how the Directors were elected, and that those gentlemen most distinguished in the Indian service were almost never chosen. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Control had directed that, in the course of a few months hence, the thirty gentlemen who at present formed the Board of Directors should, somehow or other, make themselves into fifteen. But how was this process of elimination to be carried out? Was the hon. Baronet the Member for Honiton (Sir J. W. Hogg), like another Brutus, to sacrifice the hon. Gentleman the Member for Berwick-on-Tweed (Mr. Marjoribanks); or was the hon. Member for Berwick-on-Tweed to raise a parricidal hand against the hon. Member for Honiton? However the matter might be accomplished, he believed that it would not be the best members of the Board—it would not be those most acquainted with the affairs of India—that would remain in the direction. The right hon. Gentleman had said that the Directors were necessary for the distribution of the patronage of the Company, because, if the Directors were not there, that patronage might be made instrumental for increasing the influence of the Crown. Now, he (Mr. Otway) could not admit that such a conclusion necessarily followed from such a premiss, because a mode of distributing the patronage of India might be devised by which a portion of it should be set apart, as had been suggested, for the sons and orphans of the servants of the Company, civil or military; and another part might be put up to public competition, not at Haileybury or Addiscombe merely, but at all the public schools of the kingdom. But, on the other hand, he conceived that these fears of the increase of the power of the Crown were idle and chimerical, and no more rational in these times than any unworthy apprehensions of the increase of the power of the aristocracy. There might have been cause for such an apprehension in Pitt's day; but he did not think there was any in these days. Recent events had shown that the institutions of this country were rooted in the hearts of the people; but if there was one thing more repugnant than another to Englishmen, it was an irresponsible bureaucracy; and such a system it was that they were now called upon to maintain for the people of India. He said that by that

773
bureaucracy the faith of treaties had been violated, the Native population had been impoverished, degraded, and oppressed; and for these reasons he was anxious to release India from the grasp of a rapacious Company. He should vote for the Amendment of the noble Lord, because the Government Bill contained no remedy for the evils of which he complained, and because it proposed to carry on the government by means of those who had shown themselves unfit to be entrusted with it.
MR. ADDERLEYrose for the purpose of making a suggestion, which he thought would put the question before the House in that simple position in which it seemed to him it really ought to present itself to their minds, and which, besides, offered the advantage of a much smaller field of discussion than that over which the debate had hitherto travelled. He could not but think, indeed, that if the question were simply, succinctly, and clearly placed before the House on its true merits, no independent or unbiassed Member could possibly hesitate to prefer the Amendment to the Motion. He fully agreed in all that had been said by those who had gone before him with regard to the great importance of the subject they were discussing; and he believed that upon the wise treatment of the question of the government of India would depend their retention of that great dependency. The question was, would they accept the Bill proposed by the Government, or would they accept the alternative proposed by the noble Lord? There were some, however, who seemed to think that a third course might be taken, because they did not think the bearing of the noble Lord's Amendment. The right hon. Baronet the Member for the University of Oxford (Sir R. H. Inglis) thought that they might condemn both the Bill of the Government and the Amendment of the noble Lord, and yet so alter the Bill in Committee that he could arrive at the object he had in view; hut in the course of the speech of the right hon. Baronet, it was clear that he contemplated the cutting up of the Bill in such a manner that nothing essential of the Government Bill would remain, and he would end by virtually having the same measure as that which was proposed by the noble Lord the Member for Lynn—namely, nothing more or less than a Continuance Bill. It appeared to him that certain hon. Members who had spoken were not aware of the full bearing of the noble Lord's Amendment—
774
that they were ignorant of the fact that the noble Lord's proposition involved the necessity of passing a Continuance Bill, for the purpose of affording time for the more deliberate consideration of an amended Act; and he would therefore suggest the addition of a few words to the Amendment, to make that point clear to everybody. With regard to the Bill before the House, he really had not heard one single individual unconnected with the Government, either in or out of the House, attempt to defend it. The East India Company condemned it; and the Manchester Chamber of Commerce condemned it; he hardly knew which condemned it most loudly. There might seem to be one exception to his remark in the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Edinburgh, who from the Treasury bench had undertaken the defence of the measure; but he appealed to the House whether, after all, that eloquent address was not the most remarkable condemnation that had yet been passed upon it. For what had the right hon. Gentleman done, in order to enable himself to undertake the defence of the Bill? He had been obliged to lay down principles which excluded from the discussion the first three-fourths of the Bill, containing the main features of the measure. The right hon. Gentleman, for example, had told them that the Home Government was not the principal subject to discuss; he allowed, indeed, that that was an important question, but said that the Government of India was a still more important question. That might be so; but was not the alteration of the Home Government one of the main features of the Bill? Was it not the fact, too, that almost all the eloquence of the right hon. Gentleman was expended on the 35th clause of the Bill? ["Hear, hear!"] Well, then, he would ask the Government, if, adopting the right hon. Gentleman's defence of their measure, they would be ready to omit the first 34 clauses, and limit the Bill to those parts of which the right hon. Gentleman had expressed his approval? If they did, he believed that the Bill would be allowed to pass without opposition. What had been said against the Amendment of the noble Lord the Member for Lynn? The one sole objection that he had heard to it was, that it would cause delay; but everybody allowed that as much delay attached to the Bill as to the Amendment. The only question was, what sort of delay would be the best, whether the delay of a provi-

775
sional and temporary form of government, or the delay of a Continuance Act. For his own part he should prefer the latter. It had been said that they must do something, because the British empire in India rested upon public opinion in that country. What sort of public opinion was referred to?—was it a blind and barbarous public opinion, that mere rapidity of action would dazzle? If so, that was not the public opinion they ought to respect in India; and there was in that country a higher class of public opinion to refer to. He thought that public opinion would be much better consulted by the cautious adoption of wise Acts, than by the most rapid passage of crude and imperfect measures. It was said that the first part of the Amendment was not borne out by the fact that "further information" was not necessary. He did not care whether we wanted "further information" or not; but he maintained that there could not be a better proof that we wanted more preparation than that which was afforded by the Bill itself. The only means they had of knowing what were the real intentions of the Government, was, by the few letters that had passed between them and the Court of Directors. In that correspondence, the right hon. Baronet the President of the Board of Control told the Directors that he wanted to make them a better instrument of government, and, at the same time, to maintain their independence. Now, the way in which he proposed to maintain their independence, as laid down in the Bill, was, by introducing six Government nominees. The Bill, therefore, did not meet the avowed object of the Government; for, instead of maintaining the independence of the Directors, it did quite the reverse. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Edinburgh told them, most truly, that the Government of India must be a despotic form of government, and he also told them that for India to be well governed it must he governed in India. If this was so, then the object should be to make the references home as few, as free, and as simple as possible, and that those references should, if possible, only be made on questions clearly affecting Imperial interests. Now, the system of duplication in the governing body at home prevented this simplicity of reference, and that was one strong reason why this duplication should be removed. In conclusion, he would say, that if the measure proposed by the Government was such, that their great champion, the right
776
hon. Gentleman the Member for Edinburgh, had to shirk every great principle of the Bill, and rest almost entirely on one clause at the conclusion of it, little would be required to induce him to support the noble Lord the Member for Lynn, and vote for further time. At the same time, he would take the liberty to suggest to the noble Lord, that he should make his proposal still more clear, by adding to it the following words:—"And that it is expedient to continue the present Act for the government of India for two years."
MR. MANGLESsaid, he would not have spoken on the question were it not that his silence might have been misconstrued, and that it might be considered he was willing; to allow judgment against the Court of Directors to go by default. From one section of the House he certainly thought he was entitled to a fair hearing —he meant those Gentlemen who clustered so closely below the gangway, and who went by the name of "Young India," because he had always been an earnest and laborious reformer, and had never attempted to conceal the errors and shortcomings of the East India Company, with which it was the pride of his life to be connected, but, on the contrary, had always done his best to remedy them. But the hon. Member for Manchester (Mr. Bright) had taken advantage of his candour, and, in alluding to his evidence, had carefully suppressed the fact that his (Mr. Mangles') preponderating conviction had been expressed in favour of the Company, although he had never failed to point out the blots in our Indian administration. And here he must observe that the only good argument in favour of delay came from the almost incredible ignorance of Indian affairs exhibited by some of the Gentlemen who had spoken on this question. He believed that the Indian Government had nothing to gain from concealment; but that, on the contrary, the better it was known the more favourable would be the judgment formed of it. If the East India Company had committed no errors, then it would be very unlike any government that ever existed; but he honestly believed that it was the best government of a great dependency that the world had ever seen, and he was satisfied that impartial history would not fail to do it full justice. He did not think that he was called upon to defend the measure of the Government; and, for his part, he should be ashamed to make any objections to that part of their scheme

777
which affected the Directors personally. The retention of the principle of double government was, in his opinion, the great recommendation of this scheme, which happily reconciled the difficulty of having a superintending control lodged in the Supreme Government, and at the same time having some intermediate body standing between India and the strong political action of the Home Government. It was insisted that a direct Parliamentary responsibility was needed. Well, they had a direct Parliamentary responsibility, fixed in a Minister of the Crown, who had the power of deciding on all matters relating to peace and war. But, he would ask, what had direct Parliamentary responsibility done for our Colonies? What had it done for Canada? Had it prevented the Kafir war? Had it been of any use to Ceylon, or had it averted an inundation of convicts into our Australian colonies? The hon. Member for Manchester. in one of his recent "starring" excursions in the provinces, had had the rashness to say that the debt of India had increased to the extent of 20,000,000 l. since 1833, and that assertion had been repeated by the noble Lord the Member for Lynn. [Mr. BRIGHT: It is stated in the evidence of one of your own servants.] But what was the fact? If the hon. Member would take the trouble of referring to a Parliamentary paper recently laid on the table of the House, he would find that the Indian debt ostensibly up to 1851 had been only increased by 13,000,000 l while the balance in the Treasury bad been increased by 4,000,000 l.; so that the real increase of debt during the period mentioned had been only 9,000,000/. The noble Lord the Member for King's Lynn made a statement with regard to the Punjaub, the fallacy of which was so great that he (Mr. Mangles) wondered that it could have been entertained by a mind so acute as his. The noble Lord said there was an apparent balance of 500,000 l. annually against the Punjaub, and he then called upon the House to consider the enormous military establishments we had there. But those were charges against the revenue of the North-Western Provinces, on the revenue of Bengal; and if they were so charged on Bengal, if the noble Lord would inquire he would find a corresponding balance there to cover the expense. Again, if they had such a number of troops as was complained of in the district of Lahore, the House must recollect there was a corresponding decrease in
778
other districts. It was asserted that the finance of India was in an awful state, and the word "bankruptcy" was not unsparingly applied to that finance; whereas the fact was, that taking the last four years, deducting the deficiency of one year from the surplus of the other three, there was a surplus revenue of not less than 850,000 l. With respect to the complex subject of the public works, if the Government had not done in that way what might have been expected of them, it was because of the lack of money. The funds that might have been usefully expended on those public works had been squandered in wars, in the origin of which the East India Company had little or nothing to do. He might say, in reference to those wars and the parties interested in them, it was the old story —delirunt reges, plectuntur Achivi. Talking of the public works in India, let the House think for a moment on those at home. Let them look at the Woods and Forests, for example. Was there any part of the administration of India, with regard to public works, so discreditable as the management of the Woods and Forests in this country, though they were entrusted to the care of a Minister specially appointed for the purpose? With respect to the employment of the Natives, he did not think the Government had proceeded so rapidly as it might have done. At the same time, nothing could be more cruel to the Natives themselves than to thrust them prematurely into offices which they were unable to fill. It appeared to him that they ought to be introduced gradually into the administration of affairs.
On the Motion of Mr. F. VILLIERS,
Debate further adjourned till Monday next,

PARISH VESTRIES BILL (No. 2).
Order for Committee read.
House in Committee.
MR. BAINESsaid, that at present a rate might be made on a Saturday, and published on the church door on Sunday, so that a person attending a vestry meeting held on the following day might have it demanded of him, and he would be disfranchised unless he was prepared to pay it on the spot. The object of the Bill was to enable persons to vote if they had paid all rates made within six months previous to the holding of the vestry. He thought, however, that three months would be a sufficiently long period, and he begged

779
to move that the blank be filled up with that time instead of six months.
MR. HENLEYthought that two months Would be sufficient.
SIR GEORGE PECHELLsaid, he must defend the original proposition. He knew very well that there was no use in resisting the Amendment, though he certainly did not approve of it; and he had no alternative but to consent to the limitation of three months, if it was insisted on by the right hon. President of the Poor Law Board.
House resumed; Committee reported.
The House adjourned at a quarter after One o'clock till Monday next.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILL—1a Excise Duties on Spirits.

INCOMES OF THE BISHOPS—THE SEE OF SALISBURY.
The BISHOP of SALISBURY:* My Lords, I have first to thank the noble Lord opposite (Lord Berners), whose notice stands first on the paper of to-day, and the other noble Lords, for the kind courtesy with which they have permitted me at the earliest possible moment to bring before your Lordships the Motion I wish to make; and I am sure that it is not necessary for me to ask of your Lordships on the present occasion that measure of indulgence which your Lordships are always ready to extend to those who desire to vindicate their personal character from imputations cast upon it in respect of their conduct in any public capacity. This, my Lords, is a desire which every Member of your Lordships' House may rightly feel; but which assumes a character of even sacred duty in one holding such an office as I have been called to fill, and who feels that if he be indeed guilty of the charges brought against him, religion itself is, in the eyes of men, wounded in his person, and shares, though it ought not, in the dishonour which attaches to its unworthy minister.
My Lords, I have been publicly accused, as many of your Lordships are aware, of "selfish malversation of funds dedicated to the highest purposes," and of "having received and retained" large sums of money "more than my due." I hope to be able to show your Lordships that there is not any ground for these charges; and, in order that I may do this, I must request you to bear with me while I state, as succinctly as I can, the real facts of that case to which these charges apply.
It is familiar to many of your Lordships, though perhaps not equally known to all, that the Act 6 & 7 Will. IV., c. 77, constituted a Board of Commissioners, with powers to make inquiry into the revenues of the several sees, and to attach to the more largely endowed such fixed charges, to take effect on each new incumbency, as should leave to the respective bishops incomes approximating as near as might be to those which were intended for the respective sees.
Now, my Lords, there are two points
686
with respect to this Commission and its functions which, in reference to this case, it is essential to bear in mind:—First, as to the constitution of the Commission itself, that it was not the present body of Ecclesiastical Commissioners, which comprises all the bishops, but a smaller body, consisting of thirteen persons, eight of them laymen, and five only ecclesiastics. The laymen were some of them members of the Administration, sitting at the board in virtue of the offices they held; others were specially named as persons particularly interested in the work for which the Commission was appointed, and willing and well qualified to give their assistance in it. These were—the late Earl of Har-rowby, Mr. Hobhouse, and Sir H. Jen-ncr Fust. The ecclesiastics were the late Archbishops of Canterbury and York, and the Bishops of London, Lincoln, and Gloucester; none of whom were themselves subject to the powers of the Commission. I, therefore, was not a member of this Commission. They were not to me, as they have been falsely termed, "brother Commissioners." They were not persons who could do a job for me to-day, and for whom I might do a job to-morrow, as has been coarsely insinuated; but they were persons with whom I was not in any special relation—with none of whom, with the exception of my kind friend and patron the late Archbishop of York, was I at that time in any habits of intimacy, and with most of whom I had hardly any, even the slightest, personal acquaintance. Secondly, as to the functions of this Commission— It was not their duty to assign fixed incomes to the several sees; but to affix such charges upon the more largely endowed sees as should, "upon due inquiry and consideration, be determined upon." The charges were to be fixed; the income was left uncertain. It might be more or it might be less, as chance or other circumstances might determine; and the reason why this course was adopted was always stated to be that the bishops would thus have a personal interest in the management of their property, as whatever additional income was obtained by better management would rightfully appertain to them during their incumbency, and the benefit of it accrue to the common fund of the episcopate only from the larger charge which would be laid upon their successors. Now, my Lords, when I entered upon the possession of the see of Salisbury, in the year 1837, these Commissioners had, in

687
a previous report, recommended that no charge should he affixed upon this see; hut upon finding, at the time of the death of my predecessor, that a return of the income for the last seven years exhibited a surplus, in consequence of some large fines received by him, they proposed to alter their decision, and to charge my see with the payment of 800 l. a year. Now, my Lords, I need hardly say, that an average of seven years must exhibit a very uncertain means of judgment as to the future amount of an income in great measure derived from fines upon leases for lives; and, if this must always be the case, it was more especially so in respect of the see of Salisbury, the property of which consists of a very small number of large estates, and the income of which, therefore, falls in at the most uncertain periods, and varies most extremely in amount. I have received in some years as little as 2,500 l. I have received as much as 16,600 l., and every possible variation between these extremes. It was upon this ground that I was strongly advised by persons whom I had reason to think much better acquainted both with the property of the see, and with business of this kind, than I could pretend to be myself, to propose to the Commissioners that, instead of founding their decision upon the average of the last seven years, they should institute an inquiry into the state of the property, and the condition of the leases, and base their judgment upon that. A somewhat extended correspondence ensued, in which the Commissioners made different suggestions, hut in which I adhered steadfastly, and almost exclusively, to this point. Now, my Lords, I certainly will not undertake to say that in a long correspondence, written with the freedom and unreserve of a supposed private communication, and which assumed somewhat the character of a controversy in which each party endeavoured to make good his own position—I certainly will not say that every argument, or every expression I may have used, is such as, on fuller knowledge and reconsideration, after the lapse of sixteen years, I would now select or employ. But I thought then, and I think now, that the general principle I had in view was legitimate and just, and that I supported it by arguments I was entitled to advance. It appeared so, I presume, to the Commissioners themselves, for they finally adopted my suggestion. The leases of my property were made the subject of a reference to the eminent actu-
688
ary, Mr. Morgan; and it was mainly upon the opinion which he gave respecting them that the Commissioners resolved that there were not sufficient grounds to justify them in affixing any charge upon my see. If they were in error in that decision, the responsibility was exclusively with them. They were not induced to arrive at it by personal favour to myself. I was not one of their body; I was not in a situation of mutual confidence with them; but, whether rightly or wrongly, I am sorry to say, rather at that time in one of opposition and controversy. I believe that they exercised their judgment as fair and honest men, as they thought, on the whole, right in a matter in which the materials of judgment were very insufficient, in which experience has shown that it was impossible to arrive at any certainty, and in which, therefore, any decision was very likely to be falsified by its results. Undoubtedly the result did show how very uncertain such materials of judgment were, and, therefore, how unsatisfactory that system was, and that state of the law, which exposed men on the one hand to grievous loss; or, on the other, to imputations such as those which have now been cast upon me. Had I died during the first four years of my incumbency, the former would have been my lot. In the following three years there came those large receipts which have given the foundation for these charges. At the end of seven years the receipts from my see averaged 7,482 l.; and the average in the following corresponding period was 5,993 l.; so that the whole average of the fourteen years was 6,737 l.
Now, my Lords, I freely admit that the difference between this amount and that which had been contemplated as the income of my see is a large one. I freely admit that it exhibits an imperfection in the system then in force for the regulation of episcopal incomes, for which it was desirable to find a remedy. But what I am at the present moment concerned to show is only this: first, that I could not have anticipated such a result from materials in my hands at the time of my correspondence with the Commissioners; and, secondly, that when this surplus did accrue, it was one to the possession and use of which I was rightfully entitled. Now, in order to this, I assert that the difference between this result and that which both the Commissioners and myself had anticipated, is in part indeed to be ascribed

689
to the uncertainty necessarily attaching to property of this kind. But it is in part, also, to be accounted for by a system of better management, for which, at the time of this correspondence, I did not know that there was either the occasion or the means. I think I can give your Lordships the proof of this. I hold in my hands a letter from the steward of my manors, a gentleman of high character and ability, a barrister, whose name, Mr. Alfred Caswall, may be known to some of your Lordships in connexion with the law of copyhold property. He saw in the papers the attack which was made upon me, and, though it might not have occurred to me to apply to him—indeed, I did not know that he was in England—he immediately wrote to me of his own accord respecting it, and I will take the liberty of reading part of his letter to your Lordships:—
"Temple, Juno 21, 1853.
"My Lord—I was sorry on my way to London this morning to see the virulent and unfair article in the Times of this morning. Allow me to say one or two words. I have been steward of the diocese about three months longer than you have been its bishop. As to the probable value of the copyhold portion of the estates, you could form no opinion beyond this which I had ascertained—namely, that the average animal receipts for the last seven years from one manor had been 23 l. 5s. 8d.; and from another manor, 308 l.9s. 6d.; total, 331 l. 15 s. 2d My predecessor was an aged man, who died, after a long illness, at eighty-four, and naturally had not been very active, so that the results of the first seven years of your episcopate gave to the first of these manors an average income of 120 l. 14 s. Id,; and to the other an average income of 712 l. 13 s. 3d; total, 833 l. 7s. 1d. This increase could not at this time have been calculated upon. * * *
"I would wish to say that in all your dealings with me you have never interfered on the subject of fines, but have left me full authority to act according to my own judgment; and when I have thought allowances needful, I have never found you otherwise than willing to comply with my suggestions.
"Mr. Burder, no doubt, in regard to the leaseholds, can say much the same as I do, which amounts to this—that of late years all persons connected with Church property have paid more attention to its management than they did formerly. But because this has been done, is it a lair principle that existing interests should suffer? Had Mr. Burder and I been careless in our respective offices, nothing I suppose would have been said on the subject. It is simply by steady careful management that the increase was obtained; and it is a strange doctrine that a tenant for life is not to reap the advantage of his own or his agents' improvements—a doctrine no less strange than injurious to all progress. If the compact had been as it now stands by your voluntary act, that all surplus income after a fixed sum should be paid to the Commissioners, I could better
690
have understood the article in the Times. —I remain, my Lord, your faithful servant,
"ALFRED CASWALL."
Now, I beg your Lordships to observe, that this relates to one comparatively small part of the property—the copyhold manors; and that on these you have the assertion of my steward, that the receipts were raised by better management from 300 l. to 800 l. in seven years; and therefore, that in this comparatively small part of the property— 500 l. a year—one-fourth of the whole surplus is accounted for on the principle of better management. The same thing in a measure no doubt applies to the leaseholds. I do not, indeed, claim any merit to myself, as if I had been personally instrumental in introducing a better management of the property. In truth, I was not in the least aware that there was any opportunity for doing so, and I have not done any such thing. But I have had trustworthy agents, and I have placed confidence in them, and I have not troubled myself about the details. When applications have been made for renewals, the properties have been surveyed by an experienced surveyor; and those who are acquainted with business of this kind will easily understand that the fact that I entered upon my episcopate at the age of thirty-six enabled my agents with less difficulty to enforce fair terms of renewal than might have been the case had I been more advanced in life. I merely instructed them always to estimate the fines on reasonable and moderate terms, and assured them that I would not be induced by any circumstances to accept other terms than those which they should advise me were due to the Church, whose trustee I was. It is, my Lords, in my power to give your Lordships proof also on this part of the subject. I hold in my hand a letter from a Gentleman, known, probably, personally to many of your Lordships—known, at all events by name, as a highly respected Member of the other House of Parliament —I mean Mr. Sotheron, Member for North Wilts. He, my Lords, is a lessee of the see of Salisbury; and, having seen this attack upon me, he has, with the courtesy of a gentleman, and the kind feeling of a friend, written me a letter respecting it, which, by his permission, I will take the liberty of reading to your Lordships:—
51, Eaton-place, June 23.
"My dear Lord—On my return to London last night, I read the bitter article in the Times of the 21st, in which your transactions with the Commis

691
sioners in regard to the income of the see of Salisbury are impugned. A part of the charge set forth in that article is, that you understate the estimate of probable income which would be derived from renewals of leases held upon lives. I am one of the tenants of the see, holding under a lease of three lives, and about ten years ago one of those lives dropped. I was then called upon by your agents to pay a fine for inserting a new life in the lease, fully a third larger in amount than I had reckoned upon, judging by the experience of former renewals. I expected the fine would be set at a sum rather under 6,000 l.; but the sum required of me was rather under 10,000 l., which, accordingly, after some demur, I paid, having been satisfied that although this valuation was much more favourable to the see than it had been upon former occasions, yet that it was based upon strictly accurate calculations, which I could not invalidate or reduce. If your agents dealt with your other tenants in a similar manner, as doubtless was the case on similar occasions, I cannot wonder that the income of the see, derived from such sources during your episcopate, owing to better management, should have proved much larger upon an average of years than either you or your tenants could have expected or reckoned on beforehand.— Believe me, my dear Lord, yours very sincerely,
"T. H. S. SOTHERON."
And thus, my Lords, I conceive that it is shown that a very large part, at least, of that surplus which has thus accrued in the revenues of my see, is one which, as both Mr. Gaswall and Mr. Sotheron assert, I could not have expected or reckoned upon beforehand, hut which is to he referred to that better management which it was the express intention of the law to promote, by giving to the bishop a personal interest in the proceeds of it during his incumbency. This is proved by Mr. Caswall's letter in the case of the copyholds; it is proved by Mr. Sotheron's in the case of the leaseholds; and therefore I assert that the surplus which has thus accrued was not one which was not rightfully my due, but one which the express provisions of this Act were designed to promote, and which the bishop was intended to retain. And this, therefore, is my answer to that part of the charge which relates to receiving and retaining a large sum more than that which was rightfully my due.
But another part of this charge refers to a "selfish malversation of funds dedicated to the highest purposes;" and I must, therefore, however reluctantly, crave permission to say a few words as to this. My Lords, I am conscious of many and grievous faults. I look back upon the long years of my ministry, and see sad shortcomings and painful deficiencies. May a merciful God pardon me for them! But of an avaricious love of money, or of a
692
selfish expenditure of it, my heart and conscience do not accuse me. I believe that the revenues of my see, of whatever amount, being rightfully dedicated to the highest purposes, have not been selfishly diverted from them. I believe that this surplus was, in my hands, made not less instrumental in promoting the cause of true religion, and the ministrations of the Church, than if it had been paid over to the Commissioners. I am sure at least of this—that it has not been either hoarded for myself or my family, or spent for my personal gratification. I have been Bishop of Salisbury for sixteen years, in possession of these revenues, and I can truly assert that I have not from the income of my see saved a single shilling. While at no former period of my life, neither when I lived as a Fellow of a College, nor when I was incumbent of a small benefice in the country, have I found it so impossible, or have I been so little willing to spend money in the gratification of personal tastes. Were I to die to-morrow, my family would have no other provision than that arising from my and their very small private means, and such moderate addition thereto as I have felt in my duty to make by insurance on my life. My son will inherit only this patrimony; but I hope that I may add that, in spite of calumnies such as these, he will
I have also that which I trust he will value above hoarded wealth—the inheritance of a father's unblemished name. I have now, my Lords, disposed of the two points of which this charge consists. I know that I have trespassed very long upon your Lordships' patience in doing so; and I believe that I might safely leave the case at this point in your Lordships' hands, and trust to you to do me justice respecting it. But there is yet one more point to which it is necessary that I should advert in order to the completeness of the whole; and I the rather wish to explain this point, because it is one which my assailant, be he who he may, may possibly be ignorant of, and I am willing and desire to believe this is the case; for had he known it, he could hardly, I think, have done me the wrong of which I now complain. I said, my Lords, that this is not any new business. It relates to a correspondence which took place sixteen years ago—sixteen years ago, my Lords! a long time this to go back to rake up charges such as these, even if there were ground for them. But, my Lords, not only this; but six years ago these same charges

693
were brought forward by an hon. Gentleman in the House of Commons, Mr. Horsman; and I replied to him at that time in a letter, which was published in the papers of the day. In that letter, after vindicating my position in respect of this income under the existing law, I went on to say, "I am very sensible of the inconvenience of the existing mode of regulating the Episcopal incomes, and I shall be very glad if any arrangements can be adopted by which these inconveniences can be avoided, and which shall not be open to other and greater objections." At that time there was no other mode that could be adopted. The existing arrangements were established by law. One bishop might lose under them; another bishop might gain; but neither had any possible means of remedying this, however much it were wished. But two years after this time, in the year 1850, a new law was passed, by which it was enacted, that all bishops appointed after that time should have fixed instead of fluctuating incomes; that, instead of the charge being fixed, and the income left to fluctuate, the income should be fixed, and the surplus, if there was one, be paid over to the Commissioners, or the deficiency, if such arose, be made good by them. And while this law was made imperative upon all bishops appointed after that time, existing bishops were permitted, should they wish, to adopt the same regulations. No sooner, my Lords, did that law pass, than I at once signified my intention of placing myself under its provisions. I was, I believe, the first of my right rev. Brethren who did so. I see that the noble Earl the First Estates Commissioner (the Earl of Chichester) signifies by his assent that this was the case. I announced this intention in person to the Secretary of the Commission, when at the close of that year I sent in my septennial return. I repeated it to the noble Earl and his Colleagues at a meeting I had with them shortly after; and I then formally placed my offer on record in that letter, for the production of which I am about to move, and which, in conclusion, I will take the liberty of reading to your Lordships:—
"40, Chesham-place, July 18, 1851.
"My dear Sir—Though I signified to you personally early in February of the present year my intention of proposing to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners to enter into the arrangement for receiving a fixed income under the Act of last year, and I afterwards formally announced this willing-ness on my part in an interview with the Estates
694
Committee, it appears to me desirable to record in writing the circumstances under which I make this proposal, in case any question should at any future time arise respecting it.

"It appears by my return that the average net income of my see for the last seven

£5,993

"That for the previous septennial period it was

7,482

2)13,475

"Average of fourteen years

£6,737

"I believe that the difference between this result and that which was anticipated at the time of my entrance upon the charge of the diocese of Salisbury is to be attributed in part to the want of accurate information respecting the revenues of the see at that time, and in part to an improvement in their value, arising from a more careful and exact management of the property during my incumbency.
"It was the object of the Act 6 & 7 Will. IV., c. 77, to give the bishop a pecuniary interest in such management, by securing to him during his incumbency the enjoyment of any increased income which might arise from it; and it was on this ground that the Commissioners of Inquiry stated in their third report, bearing date May 20, 1836, that the arrangements in this respect proposed to be established by that Act appeared to them 'less open to objection than any other that had presented themselves,' in spite of some obvious inconveniences inevitably attending them.
"Since that time the general opinion on this subject appears to have undergone a change, and this change has at length been marked by the provision in the Act of last Session, which determines that bishops hereafter appointed shall have fixed instead of fluctuating incomes, and makes it lawful for the Ecclesiastical Commissioners to enter into arrangements for the same purpose with such existing bishops as may signify their willingness to do so.
"It is my object in this letter to record this willingness on my part, and to signify my consent to receive in future a fixed income of 5.000 l. per annum, in lieu of that which I might otherwise derive from the revenues of my see.
"In making this proposal I do not wish to offer any opinion as to what the future receipts of the see may be expected to be. I leave the commissioners to exercise their own judgment as to this from the materials which they now have in their hands, only adding that if they should wish for any further information as to the existing leases of the property of the see, I shall be happy to supply it.
"E. SARUM.
"J. J. Chalk, Esq."
My Lords, I have now done; and, although I fear that I have trespassed too long upon your Lordships' patience, I must add that, though I have not the right to ask your Lordships for any expression of your opinion, if there be any one of your Lordships who feels a doubt as to any part of my statement, and would have the goodness to put to me any questions respecting it, he will add thereby to the load of obli-

695
gation I have already incurred. It has been my object to show—
First: That the Commissioners, to my correspondence with whom these charges relate, were a body of whom I was not one; that they were principally laymen of high station; that they were all, with one exception, persons with whom I had not any special relations whatever of friendship or intimacy.
Second: That for the decision they came to they alone were responsible, while I, in a position of controversy with them presented to them such arguments and considerations as I was rightly entitled to advance.
Third: That if the result was different from both their expectations and my own, this is mainly to be ascribed to that improved management for which it was the object of the law to give occasion. I have proved this in respect of the copyholds by Mr, Caswall's letter. I have proved it in respect of the leaseholds by Mr. Sotheron's.
Fourth: I have asserted what, had it been fitting, I could have proved, that I have not selfishly perverted from sacred purposes the funds I not wrongfully, but rightfully, retained.
Fifth: I have admitted, nevertheless, that the law which made such imputations possible was in itself bad; but I have proved my sense of this by taking the earliest opportunity of placing myself under the new regulations in this respect. At the ago of fifty I have resigned voluntarily an income which has averaged to me for fourteen years 6,737 l., and which I could legally and equitably have retained; and I have accepted in lieu thereof the fixed income of 5,000 l., which the law has assigned to my successor.
My Lords, this is my case. I thank you from my heart for the opportunity you have given me of stating it; and I leave it, I hope not with presumption, but yet I will say with the confidence of conscious integrity, in your Lordships' hands.
The right rev. Prelate concluded by moving—that the Letter of the Bishop of Salisbury to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, of 18th July, 1851, be laid before the House.
Motion agreed to.

SEQUESTRATION OF BENEFICES.
LORD BERNERS presented a petition from 3,560 householders of Camberwell,
696
complaining of the evils they are suffering from the law of sequestration for debt as applied to benefices, and praying a remedy for the same. The noble Lord stated that the living of Camberwell was formerly possessed by the Rev. J. II. Story, who contracted debts, as was shown when he appeared before the Insolvent Court in 1851, amounting to 51,376 l. The consequence had been that the living was sequestrated and was without an incumbent, the only spiritual ministration being that of some curates attached to the different districts, who received a very small stipend. This was a very discreditable state of things, and he trusted that some remedy would be applied to so crying an evil.
The ARCHBISHOP of CANTERBURYsaid, that the right rev. Prelate in whose diocese the parish in question was situate, had already that evening, with reference to this petition, expressed his opinion that it would be a great boon to the Church and the clergy if some remedy was applied to the evils which the noble Lord had pointed out. That, however, could not be done without an entire alteration in the law relating to Church property. He hoped, however, that cases of this sort were merely exceptional. With regard to the parish in question it should be remembered that it was divided into ten districts, each of which was provided with clergymen.
The BISHOP of LONDONsaid, that no one would be more anxious than the bench of Bishops to remedy the evil complained of; and on more than one occasion they had tried to do so; but the moment they proposed any plan for a better provision for the spiritual wants of parishes, they were met by their noble and legal friends on the ground that they were interfering with the property of the Church. No doubt there were great difficulties in dealing with the question; but he could assure their Lordships that no one could be more aware of the evils attending the sequestration of livings than the Bishops were, and the subject should meet with their attention; they could not hope to succeed unless they had the assistance of the noble and learned Lords who were acquainted with the law.
LORD ST. LEONARDSsaid, the evil complained of required a remedy, and the subject was one well worthy the attention of Government. With regard to the remarks of the right rev. Prelate who had just spoken, as to objections taken to any

697
alteration of the law by noble and learned Lords, on the ground that there would be an interference with the rights of property, he would say that if you made a retrospective law with regard to sequestration, you interfered with the rights of property. But the right rev. Prelate seemed rather to think it would affect the rights of the patron, which was not the case, as all his rights of property in a living ceased on presentation; and the question then really was between the incumbent and the parishioners. The sequestration of livings was clearly a perversion of funds which ought to be applied to religious purposes; and if creditors possessed this right, the effect was to deprive the parish of the incumbent, and leave its ministration entirely to curates with very small stipends. The law also wanted amendment in the case of clergymen suspended for misconduct, when the effect was the same. If any measure on this subject was brought forward by the right rev. Bench. he was sure it would meet with no opposition from the law Lords, and he would give it all the assistance in his power.
LORD CAMPBELLthought the greatest evil resulted from the sequestration of the wages of the actual working clergy of the country, and being exceedingly anxious to see the law on the subject altered, would be happy to co-operate with the noble and learned Lord (Lord St. Leonards) in rendering to the Government any assistance in his power.
The EARL of WICKLOWfelt very strongly the evil of the system. He could state that in the part of Ireland in which he lived since he had been a boy, the successive deans of a certain deanery had been unable to perform the duties of their office in consequence of debts they had contracted, although they possessed large revenues. He hoped there would be some amendment of the law.
Petition ordered to lie on the table.

FUNCTIONS OF THE IRISH CONSTABULARY.
LORD MONTEAGLErose to move for the appointment of a Select Committee to consider the consequences of extending the functions of the constabulary in Ireland to the suppression or prevention of illicit distillation. He rejoiced to say, for the sake of their Lordships, as well as for his own sake, that it would not be necessary to detain them at any length, because from
698
a communication he had received from the noble Earl at the head of the Government, he had reason to believe that there would be no opposition to the Motion. This was a question not only relating to the constabulary force—a force of about 12,000 or 13,000 men, maintained at a heavy expense—but it was also connected with the administration of criminal law in Ireland. He would not wish to throw any difficulty in the way of Her Majesty's Government in collecting any branch of the revenue; but he felt himself compelled to call upon the Government to pause before taking a step which might impair the efficiency of that valuable force, for that would be a far greater sacrifice than any slight loss from the excise duties. He proposed that the inquiry should be assisted by a public officer who had had experience in Ireland; and he would impress upon their Lordships that it was most desirable that an inquiry should take place, and that the question should be finally settled in order to save the time of Parliament, because, if a false step were taken, there was no question more prolific of discussion than that of the Irish constabulary. He asked for this Committee, not on any consideration connected with any branch of the revenue, but solely to consider what would be the effect upon the constabulary themselves of being employed in its collection. He hoped that their Lordships would not consider the subject to be of little importance because he had spoken so shortly upon it; but he felt reluctant to occupy their Lordships' time, and he should conclude by submitting his Motion to their Lordships.
The EARL of ABERDEENwas of opinion that the subject was a fitting one for a Committee to inquire into, inasmuch as there was a great difference of opinion among persons who were best informed upon the subject. The Government could i have no other desire than to come to that conclusion which might be most beneficial for the collection of the revenue, and the most consistent with the preservation of the efficiency and the morals of the constabulary force.
The EARL of DONOUGHMOREexpressed his satisfaction that the noble Earl at the head of the Government was willing to agree to the appointment of a Committee. The subject was one which to him seemed to require grave consideration.
Motion agreed to.

THE SIX-MILE BRIDGE AFFRAY—CLARE ELECTION RIOTS.
The EARL of CARDIGANsaid, that in rising to put the question to Her Majesty's Government of which he had given notice, he should take the liberty of addressing a few observations to the House. His question had reference to the intentions of Government with regard to the prosecution of certain priests connected with riotous proceedings at the late election for the county of Clare; and, at the same time, he should move for copies of a correspondence which was supposed to have recently taken place between the noble Earl at the head of Her Majesty's Government and certain Roman Catholic Gentlemen, with reference to their resignation of office in Her Majesty's Government. It appeared to him that the question of interference on the part of the priests at the late Clare election afforded a fair opportunity to submit to the Government whether it was not expedient that the law with regard to the conduct of troops called out to assist the civil power, should be more defined and rendered less ambiguous than it was at present; for it seemed that although for many years the law of the case, as laid down by those great Judges, Lord Ellenborough and Chief Justice Tindal, had obtained, yet on a late occasion, an Irish Judge (Mr. Justice Perrin) delivered a decision which completely reversed the law as it previously stood; and which decision, if acted upon, would certainly place the military, on all future occasions, in a most embarrassing, if not dangerous, position. He would, however, pass to a more important subject, and would ask the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Aberdeen), what were the intentions of Government with regard to the prosecution of the two Popish priests who had been reported by a Committee of the House of Commons to have exercised an influence at the late election for the County of Clare which was destruction of the freedom of election. He thought their Lordships would be anxious to know whether the solemn declaration made by the noble Earl at the head of the Government, when he said that "whether the individual were soldier or priest, peer or peasant, no matter who the man was that transgressed the law, legal proceedings should be taken against him with the strictest impartiality"—he thought their Lordships would be anxious to know whether that declaration would be adhered
700
to or not. Their Lordships were doubtless aware that some of those unfortunate soldiers engaged in the Six-mile Bridge affair, had been, by the ingenuity of the Irish Attorney General, twice put upon their trial, and twice acquitted. Therefore, he was anxious to know whether the Popish priests—who had excited the outrage against the military, and who had been the cause of having them subjected to severe penalties, and placed in the felons' dock as murderers—would be dealt with? It was of the greatest importance that they should have a clear and undoubted answer from the Government with regard to the course they were inclined to adopt. That importance was enhanced by the course taken by the noble Lord the leader of the House of Commons; who had lately broached principles of so sound a Protestant character as to entitle them to the admiration of the people of this country. Well, after that declaration by the noble Lord—who possessed talents, experience, and character, and who 'had more than once held the high position of Prime Minister—a letter appeared, of which he (the Earl of Cardigan) was anxious to see an authentic copy, which stated that, whatever might be the opinions of the noble Lord (Lord John Russell), they were not shared in by the majority of his Colleagues. Now, by that it appeared a want of harmony and a difference of opinion prevailed in the Cabinet; and therefore he thought they were the more entitled to a clear and positive answer to the questions which he was going to put. He could not help thinking that the present was, above all other moments, the time most necessary to give a clear explanation to the Protestant community of this country; because, in his humble opinion, he did not think the Protestant Church Establishment of this country and Ireland was ever surrounded with so much danger as at present. The Legislature had lately passed a measure which appeared to him the most dangerous and injurious of any he had ever known to the institutions of this Protestant country. They had broken down for the first time that barrier which surrounded the Protestant Church Establishment of this country, by authorising the secularisation of Protestant Church funds to the alien purposes of State endowment—perhaps for the endowment of hostile religions. Under all these circumstances he hoped the Government would

701
see the necessity of dealing with this practice of priestly interference in public elections. Because, unless some decisive course was taken, it was perfectly clear that the Popish priests, if permitted to use their influence, would prevent the election of any persons except such as were sworn to the destruction of the Protestant interests of this country. He trusted their Lordships would not be told that the local Government of Ireland had taken the matter into consideration, and were preparing to come to a decision upon it. He trusted it was well considered by Her Majesty's Government, and that the noble Earl opposite would be able to give a decided answer as to the course to be adopted. The question he had to put was—whether it was the intention of Her Majesty's Government to prosecute the two Roman Catholic priests implicated in the riots at the last election for the county of Clare? And his Motion was—
"That there be laid before the House a copy of a correspondence which lately took place between the Prime Minister and certain Roman Catholic Gentlemen with reference to the resignation of their offices."
The EARL of ABERDEENsaid, their Lordships might, perhaps, be aware that in a very short time—he believed next week—a fresh election would take place for the county of Clare. How far the proceeding of the noble Earl might affect the order and tranquillity of that election, he would not undertake to say; but he hoped that it would have no tendency to disturb that order and tranquillity, however excited the state of the country might be. Of this, however, he had the satisfaction of being able to assure their Lordships, that the precautions taken by his noble Friend at the head of the Irish Government were such as to insure tranquillity. The noble Earl seemed to imagine that some difference had taken place in the intentions of the Government in respect of the prosecution of the priests. There had never been any concealment on this subject, or unwillingness to answer questions. The matter remained now exactly as it did in the month of March last, when it had been fully discussed in that and the other House of Parliament. The Government had then declared and given reasons why they did not consider it expedient to institute any prosecutions against the priests to whom the noble Earl referred; and the Report of the Committee of the House of Commons did not affect the question in the least degree.
702
The Committee of the House of Commons reported respecting the conduct of those two priests; but that Committee did not, as it might have done—or what any Member of the other House might have done— move that the Attorney General be directed to prosecute those priests for interfering with the freedom of election in that county. The case, therefore, was not altered at all so far as the Government were concerned. So much was this the case, so clearly was it understood and admitted that the prosecution of these priests would be most improper and unwise, that the learned Gentleman in another place who accused the Attorney General for Ireland, with an acrimony rarely observed between members of the profession, had never thought of recommending the prosecution of these priests; and when they were urged by another learned Gentleman to assert that if they were in office tomorrow they would proceed against those priests, they had not had a word to say. No man could venture to do anything so unwise or so imprudent as to suggest such a course as was proposed by the noble Earl. The noble Earl had referred to the declaration which he (the Earl of Aberdeen) had made in that House, and which he was quite ready to repeat—that it was the intention, and the firm intention, of the Government to administer justice in Ireland with the most perfect impartiality, whoever might be the parties implicated, or whatever might be their rank. When he was asked whether it was the intention of the Government to prosecute those priests, in the first instance he had answered that it was; and although it was a matter of comparative unimportance whether a priest more or less was prosecuted, yet, as he thought it of very great importance that the conduct of Her Majesty's Government should be free from all suspicion, he would now state the reason why he had said that such was the intention of the Government. On the day preceding that on which the question was put, the matter was considered fully by the Cabinet, and they came to the unanimous opinion that both the soldiers in question and the priests should be prosecuted. Then, knowing as he did that his noble Friend the Secretary for the Home Department had on the previous day given instructions that this course should be pursued, their Lordships would forgive him if he said that he was entitled to give the answer which he had given. Well, those instructions were forwarded to the

703
Lord Lieutenant; but he, exercising that sound discretion with which every person invested with such high responsibilities must be supposed to act, and consulting with the law authorities of the Crown in Ireland, determined—not from any political motive, but from reasons founded on professional grounds, and from regard for the due administration of justice—that the prosecution of those two priests would not be advantageous for the due and proper administration of justice; and, desirous as he (the Earl of Aberdeen) had been to carry out the pledge which he had given, he could not help assenting to the propriety of the views which were advocated by his noble Friend and the law officers of Ireland. Now, as the noble Earl had introduced the subject, he (the Earl of Aberdeen) thought it would not be an unfitting opportunity to give their Lordships a narrative of the case to which he referred, and of the reasons which induced the Irish Government to deviate from the instructions which had been forwarded to it. The difficulty of the question, both as regarded those under accusation and the priests, had been greatly increased by the course pursued by the late Attorney General for Ireland—he must say the blunders committed by that learned Gentleman. It might appear a strong thing for an unlearned person like himself to talk of the blunders of a Gentleman learned in the law; but when he saw the opinion which had been pronounced by the Court of Queen's Bench, he felt himself entitled to say so. Their Lordships were aware that this riot took place in the month of June or July last, in the county of Clare; that the soldiers were compelled to fire; and that seven or eight persons were killed. A coroner's inquest sat on the case, and the jury brought in a verdict of wilful murder against the soldiers. This verdict was entirely unsupported by sufficient evidence; that wa3 the opinion of the Attorney General, and, had he thought proper, he might have put an end to the prosecution by entering a nolle prosequi, and so have stopped all proceedings. But what did he do? He transported the case to the Court of Queen's Bench, and called on the Judges of that Court to quash the verdict in consequence of the insufficiency of the evidence produced. But what did the Court say? They considered the matter very fully, and heard it argued at great length, and with much learning, and they came to this conclusion. They said—"We are
704
called upon to quash the verdict, not from any alleged misconduct of the coroner, but from the alleged insufficiency of the evidence. But no reported case has been found, and neither in this country, nor upon search in the Crown offices in England, can any instance be found of the fact of the actual exercise of such jurisdiction to quash an inquest for insufficiency of evidence. Having no precedent for our guidance, we are bound to consider the consequences implied in such a case; and to do so not only in regard to the individuals concerned, but also as regards the interests of public justice and the due administration of the law." That decision was, he thought, practically a censure upon the learned Gentleman, who made an application for which there was no precedent, and which was accordingly rejected by the highest authority. This was the state in which the case stood when the learned Gentleman went out of office, and handed over the matter to his successor. Now, how did the case stand after this judgment in the Court of Queen's Bench? Why, to a certain degree, the verdict of the coroner's jury was confirmed by that judgment. The Attorney General of the present Government, then, finding the question in this state, thought that the best course would be, not to put the soldiers on their trial at once, but to prefer bills against them before the grand jury. He did so, and their Lordships would admit that in the position in which the case was at the time he could do nothing less. But then came the question of the priests. Now, one of the priests had been a principal witness against the soldiers on the inquest; and he was, therefore, brought as a witness before the grand jury who had to inquire into the matter. It had been said that the Government were wrong in bringing this priest as a witness; but what would have been said if he had not been brought forward? Surely it would have been said that the most important testimony had been suppressed. But this priest was under a sworn information for a riot. Well, but that was a course which had not been adopted until some time after he had given evidence on the verdict. It was, moreover, a course that was open to much suspicion, for it was rarely that a cross prosecution of this kind was got up. The priest was sent as a witness before the grand jury, who, as might be expected, ignored the Bill against the soldiers; and he (the Earl of Aberdeen) had no doubt

705
that the grand jury did perfectly right. After that the Attorney General merely put one of the soldiers on his trial, as a matter of form; no evidence was brought, and the acquittal of all was thus secured. But then it was said, "Why not prosecute the priests?" Why, for this reason, it was contrary to the manifest dictates of justice and universal practice that a man who had given evidence against parties who were placed on their trial should be turned into a culprit and tried himself. Such a course would be perfectly unprecedented. It was said this was part of a system of yielding to the influence of the Roman Catholic priests in Ireland. He could not help smiling at the absurdity of such a notion. However, if the noble Earl had any thirst for the prosecution of priests, he could be indulged in the sport, for at the last assizes several Popish priests were prosecuted for offences more or less of a similar nature, and undoubtedly as many would be prosecuted as laid themselves open to it. He did not dispute that the noble Earl was a very zealous and devoted champion of the Protestant faith. At the same time, he hoped the noble Earl would give him credit for not being entirely indifferent to the welfare of the Protestant Church and faith. He did not profess to have the same ardour as the noble Earl had shown, but he hoped he had quite as much sincerity. Before leaving this branch of the subject, and in order to show that their Lordships ought not to adopt too hastily the notion that the Government wished to yield to the influence of the Popish priests, he might recall to their recollection an accusation made last week by a noble Marquess opposite against the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland for truckling to priestly influence by releasing from prison several persons who had been convicted of certain offences. On that occasion the noble Earl who stood at the head of the late Administration was obliged to confess—what no doubt was not a very pleasant confession for him to make—that there was not the least foundation for that accusation; and their Lordships might believe that the charge of yielding to priestly influence was equally groundless. He came now to the subject of the correspondence which the noble Earl requested him to produce. Of course, it could not be with the least desire of concealment that he objected to the production of that correspondence, because it had already been published; but he thought its production a precedent that
706
was open to great objection. In the first place, it was not a correspondence of a public nature—it consisted of communications which had passed between himself and another Member of the Government, and which the latter had thought fit, for his own satisfaction, to make public; but it was not in the nature of such an official correspondence as could reasonably be called for by a Member of that House. As for the substance of that correspondence, it was a matter which could more fitly be dealt with in the other House; but there it was not thought worthy of occupying attention, save in the way of a passing jest on the part of an Irish Member. Now, no doubt, he had the highest admiration and the greatest personal regard for his noble Friend who was the representative of the Government in the House of Commons; but that was no reason why he should bind himself to adopt his opinions upon all subjects, or the reasons by which he arrived at the same conclusions with himself upon public matters in which they concurred. If, indeed, they had differed in their opinion as to the measure then under consideration, that would have been a serious matter; but there was no cause for wonder in the circumstance that they should have differed in their reasons for the same mutual conclusion. He had no doubt that the noble Earl opposite and his alter ego in the other House, had not always agreed upon all matters, and indeed upon this very subject; and with reference to one of the gentlemen in question, he thought there had been some little difference of opinion between them. The subject under consideration at that time was the preservation of the temporalities of the Irish Church. His noble Friend and be perfectly agreed in desiring to preserve those temporalities. His reason for desiring to do so was the piety, learning, and exemplary conduct, and the legal right of the parties interested. He did not think it was any reason for the preservation of the temporalities of the Irish Church whether the Roman Catholic priests were disloyal or not, or whether or not they were engaged in a Jesuitical conspiracy against the liberties of mankind. That was not a reason which influenced him. It might have influenced his noble Friend, as well as others; but at least they agreed—cordially agreed —in the result at which they both arrived, and that was as much as could be expected from the Members of any Government. He did not know that there was anything else

707
worth answering in the speech of the noble Earl. He had told him that it was the intention of the Government to adhere to the course which hon. and learned Gentlemen elsewhere never thought of impugning—namely, the non-prosecution of these priests. He said nothing of the propriety of their prosecution at the time; but now nobody ever thought of such a step. Four months ago he expressed his opinion upon the subject in that House, and he saw nothing in the Report of the Committee of the House of Commons—who, by the way, were the proper parties to deal with the matter—which should at all change the position occupied by the Government. As there seemed to be a disposition on the opposite side of the House to suppose that there was an unfair leaning, on the part of the Government, towards the Roman Catholic priests and party in Ireland, he again rejected, with the utmost disdain, the notion that there was any foundation for such a charge. He should never be afraid to do justice to or upon a priest because he was a priest, nor should he allow himself to be influenced by such considerations as those to which the noble Earl had adverted. He hoped, that, although he professed to be as sincere a friend of the Protestant Church as the noble Earl or any one else could be, his own private religious convictions and feelings would not be incompatible with the utmost love and charity for his Roman Catholic fellow-subjects. He had always maintained that sentiment, and would always endeavour to maintain it, despite the groundless and absurd imputations which might be thrown out against him.
The EARL of DERBYsaid, that with respect to the correspondence which formed the ground of his noble Friend's Motion, he apprehended that that subject had been introduced by his noble Friend rather for the purpose of placing himself and the House in order in discussing the matter, than from any desire that their Lordships should obtain papers which they already possessed, and with the contents of which they must already be familiar. The production of the papers was not necessary to show that between the Members of Her Majesty's Government, and more especially between the noble Ear lat its head, and the noble Lord the leader of the other House, there prevailed a very wide difference of opinion, however they might act together, on the particular question to which the noble Earl had referred. Nevertheless he should say that that corre-
708
spondence was one of the most singular that it had ever been his lot to behold. It was not very usual to see Gentlemen resigning office on account of the language held by the principal Member of the Government in one House; and it was still less common, after their resignations had been tendered, to see the First Lord of the Treasury repudiating, and rejecting, and apologising for the language of his Colleague, and humbly entreating those Gentlemen that, inasmuch as he and other Members of the Cabinet did not share in the opinions of his noble Colleague—humbly entreating them to be kind enough to withdraw their resignations. He was happy to think that that was not an ordinary, and he should further say that he did not think it was a creditable, correspondence. But with respect to its production he should say, that as they had all had an opportunity of reading it in the newspapers, he considered that that was a matter of the most entire indifference; and he presumed that his noble Friend had no desire to press his Motion. He should not have risen at all upon that occasion had it not been that he felt it incumbent on him to follow the noble Earl in some parts of the extraordinary statement he had made, and he hoped he might be permitted to add, of the not less extraordinary arguments by which he had supported that statement. He rejoiced to find that Her Majesty's Government had at length thought it right to assign the reasons for their not having prosecuted not only the two priests, but also the other rioters included in the informations which had been taken at the time. His noble Friend, on a former occasion, when he had moved for the production of the papers in the Six-mile Bridge case, had abstained from entering into the merits of the question; and to the best of his (the Earl of Derby's) recollection Her Majesty's Ministers had at that time invited a discussion of the subject at a future day, after the papers should have been submitted to Parliament. There was a circumstance which gave peculiar fitness to the present moment for entering into that discussion; and that circumstance was the fact, that whereas there might have been previously some question how far the priests had, in point of fact, been guilty of the offence imputed to them, that imputation had received a strong corroboration from the fact that the transactions connected with the election in question having been referred to a separate and

709
wholly distinct tribunal, that tribunal receiving evidence on oath, had actually gone out of their way for the purpose of declaring that the priests in question had been guilty of the offence of inciting the people to riot at the last election for the county of Clare. Fortified, therefore, by the evidence taken before that Committee, and the judgment at which they had arrived, his noble Friend came forward, and, adverting to the previous course pursued by the Government, impugned the justice, the policy, and propriety of that course. He must be permitted further to say, that, notwithstanding the noble Earl's contemptuous language about the disdain with which he treated a certain assumption— he must be permitted to say—and the noble Earl must be perfectly aware that among a very large portion of Her Majesty's subjects there prevailed a belief—a belief which he confessed was not wholly unparticipated in by himself—that there existed on the part of some Members of Her Majesty's Government a desire to lean unduly in favour of acts committed by the Roman Catholic priests, and the Roman Catholic population of Ireland, who were under the influence of these priests—to look with extreme indulgence on any excesses into which they might be led, and to carry on that most dangerous of all dangerous experiments, the experiment of conducting the administration of Irish affairs through the Roman Catholic priests. Even at the risk of exposing himself to the disdain and contempt of the noble Earl, he should frankly say that he believed that was the leaning and tendency of no inconsiderable portion of the Members of the Government, and if the noble Earl compelled him to say so, he should include in the number the noble Earl himself. The noble Earl had entered into what he had called a narrative of the proceedings connected with the trial of the soldiers in that case, and the non-trial of the priests, and the noble Earl had told them that he would he able to prove that he had at all times been as ready to do justice on a priest as by a priest. He wished the noble Earl had been able to show that he had at all times been equally ready to do justice upon priests. But he (the Earl of Derby) would venture to say that the course which had been pursued under the authority of Her Majesty's Government in this case was inconsistent with that declaration, although he did not hesitate to add that he believed the noble Earl had sincerely stated that it
710
was his wish to act impartially with regard to all classes of people in Ireland. The noble Earl had told them that the day before he had made his statement to the House upon that subject, there had been a consultation in the Cabinet with respect to those prosecutions, and that they had come to the unanimous determination that it was right to prosecute the priests, and, together with them, as he (the Earl of Derby) presumed, the other rioters who had been involved with them in the transaction. But the case had, according to the noble Earl, been referred to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, and that noble Earl, in the exercise of that discretion which nobody would seek to withdraw from one in his high position, had thought fit to pursue a course of his own in the matter. Now, if they were to believe, as, of course, they did, the Attorney General of Ireland, the course of not prosecuting the priests was taken, not only not under the authority, but even without the knowledge, of the Lord Lieutenant; for he declared in the court, on the trial of the soldiers, that for the course which had been adopted he was himself individually and solely responsible; that he acted on his own authority and discretion; and that no human being, up to that moment, had known of the course he was about to take. He (the Earl of Derby) had great respect for the discretion of an officer so responsible as the Lord Lieutenant; but he must he allowed to comment freely on the discretion of the Attorney General. He must be allowed to say, that he did not think it right that the responsibility which had been claimed for himself by the Attorney General, should be thrown upon another quarter; neither did he think it right that, after the Minister, having taken the unanimous opinion of the Cabinet, had announced to Parliament the intention of pursuing a particular course, the adviser of the Crown in Ireland, on his own discretion, should set aside the unanimous decision of the Cabinet; and, least of all, that that decision having been so set aside, the noble Earl at the head of the Government should not come down to Parliament and take the first opportunity of telling them that his pledge had not been acted upon, and would not be acted upon, and giving them the reason why. Before proceeding further, however, he should observe, that the noble Earl had certainly surprised him when he had said that the late Attorney General for Ireland had commented on the course which had been

711
pursued by the Government in terms of unusual acrimony. He was not aware any terms of unusual acrimony had been used by his right hon. and learned Friend. [The Earl of ABERDEEN here made an observation.] He should be glad to find that the noble Earl disclaimed any intention of imputing any such language to his right hon. and learned Friend; and he was sure that any one who knew that Gentleman must be aware that in his whole nature and character there was not a single particle of acrimony, and that no one had ever heard him use a single unkind expression with regard to any human being. But the noble Earl had said that the course of the Government in that matter had been embarrassed by the proceedings of their predecessors. Now, he (the Earl of Derby) was at a loss to conceive any ground for such a statement, and he should observe, that the noble Earl had subsequently corrected himself and had told them that the result of these proceedings had been to leave matters precisely on the same footing as they originally were. The noble Earl had commented on the course which had been pursued by the late Attorney General in making application to the Court of Queen's Bench to quash the verdict of the coroner's jury against the magistrate and the soldiers. Now, the fact was, that there was only one opinion that the finding of the inquisition in that case was contrary to law as well as to the evidence; but the Court declined to accede to that application, and they declined, not upon the ground that the evidence was or was not sufficient, but solely upon the ground that they had no jurisdiction to interfere in a ease which did not involve any flagrant violation of the duty of the coroner. Under all the circumstances of the case he did not find fault with the Government for having sent up to the grand jury the bills against the magistrate and the soldiers; for perhaps, considering all the circumstances of Ireland, and considering, moreover, that if the Government had not taken it upon themselves, the prosecution might have fallen into the hands of parties who would have been less scrupulous; but he felt bound to say, that their subsequent course of proceeding was altogether indefensible, and, moreover, that that course of proceeding at the time, and under the circumstances, combined with their appointment of the law officers of the Crown, had had a tendency to confirm the belief to which he had adverted, that the Roman
712
Catholic priests were a set of "chartered libertines," who might take any course which they might think fit, without any fear of being visited with the consequences which would attach to the rest of their fellow-subjects. The noble Earl had said that the informations against the priests and the other rioters had not been taken until after the verdict against the magistrate and the soldiers had been found by the coroner's jury; and he had added, that those informations had been got up as a sort of cross case, for the purpose of obstructing the administration of justice. But the real reason for not having taken the informations at an earlier period, was directly the reverse of that which had been stated by the noble Earl. The real reason for that course was, that it was thought desirable that nothing should be done to prejudice the finding of the jury before the conclusion of their labours. Let the circumstances of the case be remembered. Let it be remembered that in that case there had been a very severely contested election; and let it be remembered that at that election the main question on which the whole proceedings had turned, had been the power which was or was not to be exercised in Parliament by the Roman Catholic priests, through their "representatives" in the House of Commons. He said, through their "representatives," because one of the Gentlemen who had been returned under their influence was supposed to have stated, with more candour than discretion, that in point of fact, in the case of Roman Catholic constituencies, when a writ was sent down for the election of a Member, that writ was, in point of fact, addressed to the only real and true constituency, the bishops and clergy of the Roman Catholic Church. In the course of the election proceedings, riots and disturbances took place; voters going to the poll were attacked by large mobs; the soldiers who had been sent to protect the voters were treated with disgraceful violence, and received serious injuries in consequence; it was alleged, and not denied, that at the head of the mobs who so attacked the Queen's troops were two Roman Catholic priests, who by their gestures and voices incited the mob to violence; that in consequence of the violence so excited by these Roman Catholic priests, a most lamentable loss of life took place, for, the soldiers having fired in self-defence, the result was that a considerable number of persons were shot; and the case having necessarily come

713
before a coroner's jury, that jury returned an extraordinary and monstrous verdict of murder against the soldiers. The noble Earl had promised to tell their Lordships the reasons why the original intention of the Government with regard to prosecuting the priests and the other rioters had not been carried out; but the fact was, that the noble Earl had confined himself to the reasons why they had not prosecuted one particular priest. And here, before going further, he begged to protest against the monstrous doctrine which the noble Earl had promulgated—namely, that if once the name of a person was placed, necessarily or unnecessarily, on the back of a bill, and went before a grand jury as a witness, that person, whatever might have been the crimes which he had committed, was to be held for ever after indemnified from the consequences of those crimes. But he had no hesitation in expressing his belief that the doctrine which had been laid down by a high authority, with respect to the duties of soldiers engaged in enforcing the law, rendered it necessary that the real character of these duties should receive some further explanation, and that soldiers ought not to be exposed to the risk of being dismissed, on the one hand, for disobeying the orders of their officers; while they were exposed, on the other hand, to the risk of being found guilty of murder if they obeyed those orders. Informations, as he had already stated, had been taken against two Roman Catholic priests, and seven or eight other persons, for their conduct during that riot. Why, he would ask, had not those priests been prosecuted? The noble Earl had told them that proceedings could not be taken against one of those priests, because he had appeared before the grand jury as one of the witnesses against the soldiers, and it would be most unfair to bring himself afterwards before the same jury. But it frequently occurred in our courts of justice that a man who appeared as a witness against another, was afterwards put himself on his trial. He would ask the noble Earl whether he was prepared to maintain that if the companion of a burglar was shot by a person whose house was attacked, the burglar who escaped with his life might evade the justice of the law by calling in a policeman, charging the owner of the house with murder, and afterwards appearing as a witness against him? The noble Earl could not surely put forward so extravagant a doctrine. But why had not the
714
second priest, who had not been summoned at all before the grand jury, been prosecuted by the Government? That second priest, the Rev. Mr. Clune, had, according to the informations which had been sworn against him, instigated the mob who had been engaged in the riot. [The noble Earl here read passages from the informations in proof of this statement.] He would next proceed to the evidence in the case of the Rev. Mr. Burke. [The noble Earl then proceeded to read several extracts from the informations which had been sworn in the case of the Rev. Mr. Burke, tending to show that that gentleman during the late Clare election had incited the mob to drag a party of voters off the cars upon which they were seated.] Now such were the informations which had been sworn against those two clergymen —informations which clearly proved, if any credence was to be given to the parties by whom they were sworn, that those two gentlemen were at the head of the whole disturbance which had led to that lamentable contest in which so many lives had; been sacrificed. But there were also several other persons against whom informations had been sworn as having been implicated in the disturbance to which reference had so frequently been made. He would, however, mention the name of only one of those parties—a person named M'Grath. It was alleged in the informations that several attempts had been made by M'Grath to pull the voters off the cars upon which they were being conducted to the polling booths, and that a knife had been seen in his hand at the time. i Now, while the late Government were in office information had been given that M'Grath had been preparing to leave the country, in order to escape the prosecution which he knew to be impending over him. This intention had, however, been discovered; he had been placed in custody, and in custody he had remained until the time of the Clare assizes. What was the course which was subsequently pursued with respect to this person? No steps whatever were taken to proceed upon the informations which had been served against him; but, as in the case of the priest Burke, he was adduced as a witness against those soldiers who were indicted for murder, and had thus been made the instrument of bringing innocent men into peril. He (the Earl of Derby) must say that he altogether repudiated the doctrine which had been advanced by the noble Earl op-

715
posite, namely, that those parties having been brought up as witnesses against the soldiers, were entitled to obtain impunity with reference to the counter prosecution which ought to have been carried on against themselves. He should now advert to the course which had been adopted with respect to the soldiers and the magistrate. He must say that, it having been determined in the first instance to prosecute the priests in question, the proceedings which had been subsequently taken were the most improper and the most entirely subversive of justice of which it had ever been his lot to hear. The bill which had been sent up in the case of the soldiers to the grand jury had been ignored —and what course had the Attorney General pursued? Had he at once made application to stop all further proceedings in the case? Not at all. The course which, in his (the Earl of Derby's) humble judgment, that learned Gentleman ought to have adopted, was to apply for the immediate release of those parties against whom no bills had been found by the grand jury, and to proceed with the prosecution of the criminal information which had been filed against those parties, whose guilt might be to a great extent inferred from the very fact that the grand jury had ignored the bills against the soldiers for murder, thereby in effect declaring that there was a justification for their conduct, which could only be established by the supposition that the other parties implicated in the transaction were, to some extent, guilty of the proceedings which had been laid to their charge. Well, the Attorney General had, however, carried on the proceedings until the following day, and upon that day he had ordered the soldiers to be brought up, under escort, through the streets of Ennis, which were crowded with an excited mob, to take their trial. He empannelled a jury—he had, in fact, one of the soldiers placed upon his trial, and had then made a lengthened address, the substance of which he (the Earl of Derby) should advert to very briefly. Up to the last moment neither the soldiers nor the magistrate were aware that there was not going to be a bond fide prosecution. The Attorney General having opened the case, had thought fit, upon the occasion in question, in the first place to repudiate altogether the evidence which had been given at the coroner's inquest, announcing that upon that evidence he could have no chance of
716
obtaining a conviction, and consequently that the bill which had been sent up to the grand jury had been properly ignored —the learned Gentleman then proceeded to make a lengthened speech, in which there was no topic introduced which was not calculated to aggravate and inflame the feelings of the people; in which there was hardly a charge he did not make against the soldiers, although he had no intention whatsoever of attempting to substantiate those charges by evidence. He (the Earl of Derby) must say that the course which had been taken by the hon. and learned Gentleman upon that occasion was one which, in his opinion, was most unprecedented. Those very men, who for months before were obliged to be guarded by policemen against the violence of the mob, were placed in the dock, while that very mob were listening to the violent and inflammatory harangue of the Attorney General for Ireland. The conduct of that hon. and learned Gentleman was such as he (the Earl of Derby) believed was unheard of in law, unheard of in the course of any proceedings in connexion with which justice was pretended to on dispensed. That the learned Gentleman should have made the attack which he did make upon men against whom he had no evidence to produce, upon which to substantiate their guilt—against men who had no means of making a reply—that he should have declared, upon the frivolous and absurd pretext that one of these priests had been sent as a witness before the grand jury, that neither of those priests, who had been guilty of outrage and of violence which had led to the slaughter of several of their fellow-subjects, should be prosecuted—was to take a course which was highly injurious to the maintenance of confidence upon the part of Her Majesty's subjects in the due and impartial administration of justice. It was a course which would tend to induce the people of this country to believe that there was one law for those whe stood up in defence of their rights and for the protection of their lives and properties, and another, much more lenient, for those who, under the abuse of the disgraceful and perverted authority of their spiritual guides, were led into acts of violence, for the purpose of endeavouring to prevent and to overthrow the due administration of the laws. The noble Earl opposite and his Colleagues might take what precautions they pleased for securing a peaceable election for the county of Clare; but let

717
them depend upon it that the precautions which with their best intentions they might be able to devise, or which with their utmost vigour they might have the power successfully to carry into effect, would be as nothing when, upon the other side, there remained to be thrown into the balance facts to demonstrate that the perpetrators of previous outrage and previous violence had been allowed to escape with impunity. He should not, he felt, be discharging his duty as an independent Peer of Parliament, if he did not say, that so long as the noble Earl opposite and his Colleagues acted under such counsel as that which had been given to them by their law advisers in Ireland with reference to the course taken at the trial of the soldiers at Ennis—so long-as they continued to justify the line of conduct which had been adopted by their Attorney General upon that occasion, the declarations which might be made in that House or elsewhere, however sincere or energetic they might be, would be of no avail, because they would be contradicted by the outrageous conduct of the noble Earl's supporters.
The LORD CHANCELLORsaid, that something had transpired during the present debate which could not but be satisfactory to himself and to his Colleagues. It would be recollected that when the noble Earl who introduced this Motion brought the subject forward on a former occasion, he made it a charge that the Attorney General for Ireland had so far neglected his duty as to send up a bill to the grand jury for the purpose of raising a prosecution against those soldiers to whom allusion had been so frequently made. That was the very ground of complaint. Now, they had had it from the noble Earl who had just sat down, that so far from that being a just subject of complaint, it was the only course which, consistently with his duty the Attorney General could take, and that he was entirely absolved from all charge for what he did. That admission was at all events satisfactory to himself (the Lord Chancellor) and must be so to his Colleagues. He thought the noble Earl could not have had any legal adviser at his side when he attributed blame to the Attorney General for Ireland for having taken the course he did upon the occasion of these prosecutions. The noble Earl seemed to think that it was a scandalous thing when the grand jury ignored the bill, that the Attorney General did not let the matter drop, and order the men to be discharged,
718
instead of having a jury empannelled. But it was necessary that the men should be arraigned, and put in charge, and then be acquitted. If a nolle prosequi had been entered, they would have had an indictment constantly hanging over their heads; no other course, therefore, could have been taken which would have relieved the men from all future difficulty—in short, the step which had been taken by the Attorney General was the only one which would have secured to the soldiers the privilege of being able to put forward the plea of autrefois acquits in bar of any subsequent proceedings. It was of course necessary that the accused should be brought to the court house for trial under proper guards. The noble Earl went on to say, that the Attorney General had made an unfair and inflammatory speech upon the occasion of the trial in question: that was, of course, matter of opinion depending on the real circumstances of the case. If the Attorney General had made a speech of the nature attributed to him by the noble Earl, he (the Lord Chancellor) could only say, that if that learned officer said anything in his. address calculated to excite the mob, he did what was not within his duty. But he (the Lord Chancellor) could not believe that any man, with the education. and feeling of a barrister and a gentleman, could consent to make himself a tool to anything so vile as that of exciting outrage and violence, more especially when he was engaged in discharging the functions of a lawyer and an officer of the Crown. The noble Earl had said it was very important that the duty and position of soldiers on such an occasion, should be distinctly and authoritatively explained. He (the Lord! Chancellor) could not flatter, himself with the notion that anything he could say would be authoritative on the subject. He did not think that it was necessary that the duty of a soldier on such an occasion should be explained distinctly and authoritatively; because for half a century and more the position in which a soldier stood, had been distinctly understood and authoritatively explained. For such purpose there was no distinction between a soldier and a civilian. It was the duty, in case of a riot, for every one of Her Majesty's subjects to exert himself singly, or in combination, to stop that riot effectually with the least possible violence. That applied equally to soldiers as to all other persons placed in a position that enabled them to stop a riot. What effect had that upon

719
the position of soldiers? It imposed it upon them, or rather upon those who commanded them, as an imperative duty, that they should interfere on such an occasion. But it was an imperative duty also to stop a riot at the least possible sacrifice of the lives or limbs of those around them. It was, therefore, peculiarly the duty of the soldier to take care and be guided by that feeling, because in consequence of the efficiency of the weapons placed at his disposal, it was especially necessary that he should act most guardedly and with the greatest care not to do injury to life or limb. That seemed to him to be as good an explanation of the duty of the soldier as the nature of the case would possibly admit. Cases might be suggested where a soldier, acting under the orders of his officer, might, in the discharge of his duty in obeying those orders, and in reference to his duty as a citizen, be placed in a dilemma, because there must be cases where legislation was helpless to give redress to the soldier. It was impossible to define the limit when the orders of a commanding officer were or were not fit to be obeyed. It was the duty of the soldier to obey his officer, and to do that with the least possible cost of life or limb. It being clear that the soldiers were properly prosecuted, although they had only discharged their duty, it must also be admitted that it was perfectly right on the part of the Irish Government to send up the bills to the grand jury. If that course had not been taken, the prosecution would have been left in the hands of those who would have conducted it in a less satisfactory manner. It was right, therefore, that the Attorney General should take it in his own hands. That being so, the Attorney General found himself in this position:—In order to prosecute, it was necessary to send up to the grand jury those witnesses who could give the completest and most satisfactory testimony. If he had not sent up the priest Burke, who was the principal witness, before the coroner's jury, there would have been raised an outcry that the Attorney General had left out the only testimony that would have been effectual for the prosecution. With regard to the question of prosecuting the priests, the fact of Mr. Burke having appeared as a witness, would not undoubtedly have rendered a subsequent prosecution against him an illegal proceeding; but the question was one of expediency. Was it expedient to institute a prosecution against a man whom
720
the Attorney General himself had compelled to go before the grand jury to state the whole evidence respecting the riot? The Attorney General thought not. And he (the Lord Chancellor) thought the Attorney General had good reason for the conclusion at which he had arrived. Under all the circumstances, therefore, a resolution was arrived at that it was better to withhold any prosecution altogether. He did not believe anything new had come out before the Committee of the House of Commons that would make it a fit case for a prosecution. If there had been any such new facts, the Committee would themselves have recommended a prosecution. No such course had been taken; and he could not but think that it would place the Government in a very strange predicament indeed if, not having thought it fit to prosecute at the time when the prosecutions were going on in their natural course, they should now step in, and, without any new light, do that now which they did not think it fit to do when the matter was under investigation. Under these circumstances, the answer to he given to the noble Earl was, that there was no intention to prosecute these priests. That was the answer which his noble Friend (the Earl of Aberdeen) had given, and which was quite consistent with the feelings of every Member of Her Majesty's Government. But if any case not surrounded by all the embarrassments which were present in this case should ever occur, then, indeed, the noble Earl (the Earl of Cardigan) would find that the Government would be perfectly willing to prosecute priest, peasant, or soldier, where they had a good cause against him.
The EARL of DERBYexplained: What he had stated was, that the report made by the House of Commons was not a reason why a prosecution should now be instituted, but afforded strong presumptive proof that prosecutions ought to have been instituted against them.
The EARL of EGLINTONsaid, he was not sufficiently versed in legal matters to know whether the law, as it had been laid down by the noble and learned Lord who had just sat down, was correct or not. He would take it for granted, however, that it was necessary, as the noble and learned Lord had stated, that both the soldiers and the magistrate should have been brought through the crowded streets of the town of Ennis to the court house; nevertheless, he would venture to say that it was by no

721
means a necessary proceeding upon the part of the Attorney General to arraign those parties; that it was not necessary for him to have gone into the prosecution; and, further, that it was by no means necessary for him to have spoken as he had done against men who had it not in their power to say one word in reply. Their Lordships had learned from the speech of his noble Friend near him, that, in addition to the two priests against whom informations had been sworn, there were several other persons, also, against whom similar accusations had been made. Now, as soon as he (the Earl of Eglinton) heard of the affray at Six-mile Bridge, he, in conjunction with his right hon. and learned Friend the late Attorney General for Ireland, directed one of the most able solicitors in that country, Sir Matthew Barring-ton, to attend the inquest. The result of that learned gentleman's investigation was, that he had recommended to the Attorney General that informations should be sworn against nine of the rioters, and against the two priests whose names had been mentioned—not against these priests as priests, but because they, in the opinion of Sir Matthew Barrington, had been two of the ringleaders in that disturbance. There was one mistake in the statement of the noble Earl opposite which he wished to correct—namely, that his right hon. Friend the late Attorney General for Ireland had concurred in the propriety of taking no steps against those priests. He (the Earl of Eglinton), however, begged to state that his hon. and learned Friend had upon every occasion stated it as his opinion, not only that the priests should have been prosecuted, but that the present Attorney General for Ireland had acted wrong in not taking that course. He should say for himself, that he considered it the duty of the Government of which he was a member, or any other Government, to have prosecuted the rioters who had been engaged in the affray at Six-mile Bridge; and he should confess that, in his opinion, it would redound much to the happiness of Ireland if the theory which the noble Earl opposite had enunciated that evening were carried vigorously into effect.
LORD CAMPBELLthought it was his duty, occupying the position which he did, to express his opinion on the subject before the House, and he would do so with the utmost impartiality. First, in reference to the conduct of the late Attorney General. For him he had the most sincere re-
722
gard, and the highest admiration; he believed he was a consummate lawyer, an honourable man, and an amiable member of society; but, at the same time, he must say that he had committed a great mistake in the treatment of this case as Attorney General. When he found there was no evidence to support the finding of the coroner's jury, he ought at once to have entered a nolle prosequi. That was a prerogative of the Crown which he had a right to exercise; and, had he done so, the soldiers would have been freed from all liability whatsoever. He (Lord Campbell) believed that he mistook the right course when he applied to the Queen's Bench to quash the finding of the jury, because it had no jurisdiction in the case. He had had some correspondence with the Irish Judges on the subject, and had searched Westminster Hall for precedents, but could find none giving to the Court that jurisdiction. When there was no imputation on the coroner, and no want of jurisdiction alleged in the coroner's jury, it was quite clear that the Court had no right to quash the investigation on the ground that the evidence was insufficient. He could not blame the present Attorney General, when he entered office, for not entering a nolle prosequi, because that would have been a rather invidious course for him to take, following, as he did, a man who was so much respected. He thought it was quite right that one of the soldiers should be arraigned in the face of the country, and that the Attorney General should, on his own responsibility, justify the course which he had pursued. He could not believe it possible that any counsel, whatever his political opinions, should have used language so degrading as that mentioned by the noble Earl opposite.
The EARL of CLANCARTYcomplained of the antagonistic principles which seemed to be entertained by the heads of the Government. The noble Lord the leader of the House of Commons, on a recent occasion, professed to have no confidence in the Church of Rome; but the noble Earl opposite said he entirely differed from his Colleague in that respect. Let their Lordships consider what would have been the result of that want of unity of action if a state of things had arisen this year analogous to that which, in 1850, rendered the Ecclesiastical Titles Bill necessary. What would have taken place if the preponderance of opinion in the Government had been favourable to reposing entire confi-

723
dence in Rome? Would there have been any vindication of the Queen's supremacy? That, he apprehended, was a serious question for the consideration of the people of England.
The DUKE of NEWCASTLEsaid, the noble Earl had entirely misrepresented what had passed on the subject to which he referred. The noble Earl said the difference between the noble Earl at the head of the Government and the noble Lord the leader of the Government in the other House was this—that the noble Lord said he had no confidence in the Church of Rome, and that the noble Earl expressed a contrary opinion. Now, no such position was maintained by the one, or denied by the other. All that took place was this: certain Gentlemen took offence at some expressions of his noble Friend in the other House (Lord John Russell), while stating particular reasons, among others, for objecting to a Motion then before the House; and his noble Friend at the head of the Government (the Earl of Aberdeen) on being asked whether he concurred, intimated to those Gentlemen that he did not participate in all the reasons suggested by the noble Lord for the course he had adopted. That was, in fact, the only difference between the noble Lord and the noble Earl. There was no question of confidence or want of confidence in the Church of Rome. That was an entire fabrication. As to the more immediate question before the House, he considered that there must be in every country, and more especially in Ireland, a very great latitude and considerable discretion allowed to the law officers of the Crown in State prosecutions of this nature. Nothing could be more prejudicial to the due administration of justice in Ireland than for the Attorney General to follow up a prosecution against any priest or layman, and to signally fail in the end, as, he contended, he must have done in the case against the priest named Clune, and therefore he had done quite right in avoiding it. He (the Duke of Newcastle) should feel unworthy of the friendship of the hon. and learned Gentleman who now held the office of Attorney General in Ireland if he did not protest against the language with regard to him that had been used by the noble Earl who lately occupied the important position of Prime Minister. The noble Earl had made imputations founded on a speech which he had not read. If he had intended to heap upon him imputations so strong, he was bound to have brought
724
forward his proof, instead of confining himself to a general and vague declaration that the speech of the hon. and learned Member was an incentive to disturbance. He would not stand there while the late Attorney General was praised for his conduct, and hear unmerited obloquy and abuse directed to one who was at least worthy of being his successor in office, and who yielded to him in no respect, whether in his attributes as a lawyer, in his character as a gentleman, or in the amiability of his conduct. With respect to the charges which had been made against the Attorney General, and which he had shown were not founded in truth, he might mention that, not long ago, he often heard repeated, by certain parties, that it was impossible to have complete justice in Ireland now that Mr. Brewster, the Orangeman, was Attorney General; but he (the Duke of Newcastle) believed that such an imputation was made without the slightest foundation, for Mr. Brewster was not an Orangeman. He entertained a very high opinion of that learned Gentleman, and, more particularly so, in regard to the trial which took place, for he received directions from the noble Earl at the head of the late Government in Ireland to proceed with the case; but at the very moment of going into court, he, upon his own responsibility, determined to abandon the proceedings, and in doing so disobey the order which he had received. The course which he then pursued had been approved of. The noble Lords opposite had thrown out insinuations, and had aspersed the characters of the Members of the Government; but he challenged them to prove their assertions. He did not hesitate to say, for himself, that he leaned towards no Irish party; but he would fearlessly say that he should not be afraid of being just towards the priests. He thought a satisfactory answer had been given to the aspersions which had been cast against the Government. Should the proof of them be attempted, he was quite prepared to assert that there would be a failure in substantiating them. He would boldly say, and challenge denial by the noble Lords opposite, that Ireland was now in a better state than ever before known. Whether they turned their attention to the religious or political feelings of the people, it would be found that there was not the slightest manifestation of any apprehension that the law would not be carried out by the present Government in all its integrity and impartiality; and in support of the feel-

725
ing now existing, that the present Government had acted, and intended to act, with the greatest impartiality towards all classes in that country, he would refer to the elections which had taken place since the accession to office of the present Government; and he did this the more freely because the question before their Lordships was one respecting an election in Ireland. There was no appearance on the part of the Roman Catholic party to oppose the general policy of the Government—there was no appearance on the part of the priests to do so. They were not inclined to take more liberties now than they took when the noble Earl (the Earl of Derby) was at the head of the Administration. He boldly repeated, that the law in Ireland had been impartially administered, and that that would be continued so long as the present Government was carried on by the noble Earl (the Earl of Aberdeen).
LORD REDESDALEsaid, he thought the question, affecting as it did the conduct of so many persons, was one of the deepest importance. The noble Duke (the Duke of Newcastle) said that there was not sufficient evidence to support and carry on a prosecution against Mr. Clune, the Roman Catholic priest; but he (Lord Redesdale) would show, by referring to the Report made by the Committee of the House of Commons, that there was sufficient evidence. The Report declared that Mr. Clune had greatly excited the people to take part in the riots at the last election for the county of Clare, and that he had taken part in the proceedings himself. That was the finding of the Committee with regard to Mr. Clune. Surely that evidence was equally open to the law officers of the Crown. Then, as to Mr. Burke's conduct, it was also proved before the Committee that he had taken part in the riots. He believed that one reason given for not prosecuting him was, because he had brought forward a false charge of murder against those parties who had acted, and were desirous of acting, in accordance with their duty. That was a very unfortunate fact to admit. He believed that it was the unanimous feeling of the Committee that Mr. Burke should be prosecuted.
The DUKE of NEWCASTLEsaid, he had not had the power to watch all the proceedings of the case, but he knew that the Committee was not unanimous in considering Mr. Burke guilty of the charges made against him. He begged to observe
726
that there was a very great difference of opinion existing in the minds of the Committee. He (the Duke of Newcastle) objected to a Report of the Committee of the House of Commons being referred to in their Lordships' House. It was not a document which ought to be brought forward to support a charge of this kind, for it was impossible to say how the conclusions in the Report were arrived at.
The EARL of CARDIGANreplied. The noble Earl at the head of the Government had informed their Lordships that he entertained one opinion at one time, and that he had afterwards changed it, but for what reason it did not appear. With regard to the insinuation which the noble Earl had thrown out—that the Motion had been made for the purpose of creating disturbance at the ensuing election for Clare—he (the Earl of Cardigan) thought it a most unfair insinuation. It was an accusation which had no foundation. That he had brought forward the Motion at a time when it was likely to endanger the peace of the country was not a fact. It was not his duty to inquire whether an election was about to take place or not, but it was his duty to ask, in his place in Parliament, whether certain pledges which had been given by the Prime Minister of this country some months since, in his place in that House, were to be kept or abandoned. He (the Earl of Cardigan) believed the soldiers had been most unfairly treated, although it had been promised that all parties should be dealt with in justice and impartiality. He did not believe that the explanations which had been given would be satisfactory to the country generally—certainly they would not be to the military. He would, however, withdraw his Motion.
Motion, by leave of the House, withdrawn.
House adjourned to Monday next.