Sitting of 6 March 1855

MINUTES.
NEW WRIT for Portsmouth v. Viscount Monck, Commissioner of the Treasury.
NEW MEMBER SWORN for Halifax—Right Hon. Sir Charles Wood, bt.; for Northampton Borough, Right Hon. Robert Vernon Smith; for New Radnor, Right Hon. Sir George Cornewall Lewis, bt.
1° Lunacy Regulation Act Amendment.

PAUPER CHILDREN—QUESTION.
MR. MILESsaid he begged to ask the right hon. gentlemen the President of the Poor Law Board whether any communication had taken place between the President of the Privy Council and himself relative to the education of children receiving outdoor relief; and if so, whether there was any objection to lay such correspondence before the House?
MR. BAINESsaid he had no objection to lay the correspondence on the table.
MR. MILESsaid he could now ask the right hon. gentleman whether any communication had taken place between himself and the Emigration Commissioners relative to the Act passed by the New

189
South Wales Legislature (16 Vic., cap. 42, sec. 7 & 8), whereby the Emigration Commissioners are declared competent to engage any boy or girl of and above the age of thirteen, from any parish or board of guardians, the parents or guardians of whom shall be willing to contribute towards their passage to the colony, the colony paying a sum not exceeding 8l. sterling towards the passage money; such children, upon their arrival at the colony, to be apprenticed to proper employers under certain conditions.
MR. BAINESsaid that a correspondence had taken place on the subject referred to, and he had no objection to its production.

THE CRIMEAN MEDAL—QUESTION.
MR. OWEN STANLEYsaid he begged to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, or the hon. gentleman the Under Secretary for War, if it was intended that the Crimean medal shall confer two years' additional service, or any peculiar advantages similar to those conferred by the Waterloo medal in 1815?
VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid that, undoubtedly, the actions in the Crimea were actions in which the brave troops of this country displayed as much valour as ever was evinced on any former occasion; but, although a medal had been conferred, it was not intended to accompany it with the privilege of counting these actions as two years' service. The hon. Member must be aware that battles were fought in the Peninsula, in which the success was as great and complete as that obtained at Alma and Inkerman, but in respect to which no such privileges were conferred. The battle of Waterloo was an event of a totally different character. It put an end to a long war; it decided the fate of Europe; and was not a precedent for anything connected with the actions which have been fought in the Crimea.

ADMINISTRATION OF THE ARMY— QUESTION.
MR. HUTTsaid, that seeing, by official correspondence, that when the Duke of Newcastle found it necessary to recall Lord Lucan from the command of the British cavalry in the Crimea, he was compelled to obtain the interposition of Lord Hardinge for that purpose, he wished to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, among the improvements in the administration of the army which he pro-
190
mised to the House on his accession to office, he proposed to empower the Secretary for War to effect such changes without the intervention of the Horse Guards?
VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, that no change was intended to be effected in the military subordination of the army, and therefore the Commander in Chief would be the authority whose orders and directions would either appoint or withdraw officers from the staff; but the actions of the Commander in Chief would necessarily be subjected to the decision of the Government on matters of sufficient importance to require that decision, and their decision would be communicated to the Commander in Chief by the Secretary of State for the War Department.

THE CITY OF LONDON CORPORATION COMMISSION—QUESTION.
MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, the report of the Royal Commission on the subject of the corporation of the city of London had now been for some time in possession of the House and the country. He wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for the Home Department, whether he had had an opportunity of considering the report; and, if so, whether it was the intention of the Government to propose any measure during the present Session?
SIR GEORGE GREYreplied, that a Bill was in preparation founded on the recommendations contained in the Report of the Commissioners for the reform of the Corporation of London; but it was desirable that the House should, in the first place, consider the Bills relating to the metropolis generally, which had been introduced by his right hon. Friend (Sir B. Hall). He hoped, however, to be able to bring in a Bill for the reform of the corporation in the course of the present Session.

THE CAPE—THE KAFIRS—QUESTION.
MR. LIDDELLasked whether the Government had received any official information from British Kaffraria which was likely to cause the apprehension of another Kafir war?
SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, that at the date of the last despatches from the Governor of the Cape of Good Hope, no act of hostility had taken place. Considerable uneasiness and alarm existed on the eastern frontier on account of the supposed hostile intentions of the Kafirs and

191
the Fingoes, who had combined together with no friendly intention towards the settlers. In the last dispatch, dated the 30th December, the Governor said, the latest accounts he had received were of a more satisfactory and cheering character, and he was on the point of going to the frontier to hold communication with the chiefs of the Kafirs and Fingoes, from which he hoped beneficial results would follow.

THE RECORDERSHIP OF BRIGHTON.
MR. CRAUFURDsaid, he rose to move for the appointment of a Select Committee to take into consideration the case of the appointment of Edwin James, Q.C., to the office of Recorder of Brighton, the said Edwin James having been refused admittance to the Bench of the Inner Temple on account of his conduct in respect of certain transactions connected with the election for the borough of Horsham in 1847. He felt that, in undertaking to bring forward this question, he had entered upon a task of serious moment and of a very painful nature. It was not the less painful that Mr. James was a member of the same profession as himself, of the same inn, and of the same circuit. He was not actuated, however, by any personal motives. He had no acquaintance with Mr. James beyond the casual intercourse incidental to their meeting on circuit. He could bear testimony to that gentleman's eminent abilities, high legal attainments, and forensic talent, having often witnessed the ingenuity and skill with which he conducted the cases of his clients. But this appointment was of a judicial character, the holder of which should be above the slightest breath of suspicion. The question which he was about to bring under the notice of the House was one which ought not to be introduced on light grounds, but he felt satisfied, from the information in his possession, that if the House would grant him a Committee he should be able fully to prove his case. About a fortnight ago he asked the noble Lord at the head of the Government whether the new recordership of Brighton had been conferred upon a Queen's counsel who had been refused admittance to the bench of his inn? The noble Lord said it was not true that a gentleman had been appointed to the office referred to who had been refused admittance in the way stated. The learned person whom he had appointed had not been so refused. He had selected from amongst the candidates who had been
192
presented to him the individual who, according to the testimony of high legal authorities, appeared to him to be the best qualified. He had no personal knowledge of any of the candidates, but selected the one who brought the highest testimony from legal authorities of professional competency, and he had no reason to think he had erred in making the appointment. The noble Lord qualified his answer, and said that Mr. James had not been refused in the manner he (Mr. Craufurd) had stated, that he had not been "so" refused. It might, perhaps, be argued, in the strict sense of the word, that the learned gentleman was not refused, inasmuch as he was not proposed; but that amounted to a mere quibble, for in point of practice he had been refused admittance. Complaints were made to the benchers against him; he was called upon to explain, and, after explaining, was not admitted to the bench of his inn, as was usual in the case of counsel receiving a silk gown. The case he had to submit to the House had reference to the Horsham election in 1847. The successful candidate at that election was the son of the then Attorney General (Mr. Jervis). Mr. James, having property in the neighbourhood, took a very active part in the election. A petition was presented against the return of Mr. John Jervis, on the grounds of treating and bribery. When the Committee appointed to try the petition assembled, the counsel for Mr. Jervis admitted the treating, and at the same time submitted to a Resolution declaring the election void, and suggested that the petitioner ought to be satisfied and withdraw the charge of bribery. Perhaps the Committee shrank from going into evidence which would have proved a distinguished Whig Attorney General to have been guilty of gross bribery. The Committee, however, required some proof of the treating—some explanation to satisfy their consciences that they might abstain from reporting on the extraordinary conduct of withdrawing the charges of bribery when they were so notorious. If the Committee had gone a step further, they would have ascertained that by some collusion the charges had been withdrawn on condition that the election should be void. One gentleman who was examined stated his readiness to give the names of certain parties, but the Committee decided that they would not call upon him to do so, and they reported that the circumstances did not call for a special Report. If the

193
Committee had examined into the matter, they would have found that one of the parties engaged in the compromise had rendered himself liable to the payment of 1,500 l., and Mr. James undertook to pay that sum if the other party failed to do so, towards the costs of the petition if the bribery charges were withdrawn. Those charges were withdrawn, but the money had never been paid. It was an illegal contract, and consequently could not be enforced, but it was, nevertheless, an honourable engagement which Mr. James had never fulfilled. A complaint to the benchers against Mr. James for having failed to pay that money was not entertained, because Mr. James had not acted in his professional capacity, either for the member or the petitioner. Actions were, however, tried at the assizes at Lewes, both against Mr. James and the Attorney General, Sir John Jervis. The action against Mr. James resulted in a verdict for the defendant, owing to the exclusion of some evidence by a ruling of the Judge, to which a bill of exceptions was tendered. That bill of exceptions was never argued. As to the reasons of that, hon. Members could form their own surmises. The other action was, after the examination of some witnesses, abandoned. When the House was professing to be in earnest in suppressing bribery, and when Her Majesty's Government were bringing forward Bills to effect that suppression, and to punish those who were guilty of bribery, it behoved the House to be particularly careful in seeing that the offence was not connived at when committed by persons holding high stations in society. He thought the House was not in earnest, or they would not object to the assertions he made, and which were capable of proof. He believed it could be shown that there had been gross bribery on the one hand, and protection of bribery on the other. Subsequently to those transactions, Mr. James was promoted by being called within the bar, and the then Attorney General—Sir John Jervis—was advanced to the bench. When Mr. James applied to be made a bencher, he was called upon to explain the circumstances as to his having contracted the obligation to pay the sum of 1,500 l. provided the charge of bribery were withdrawn, and why, having entered into that arrangement, he had not performed it? But up to this moment he had not explained it. He (Mr. Craufurd) had precedents in favour of the course he
194
was now pursuing. There was the case of Mr. Stonor, in which unparalleled cruelty was practised upon a professional man. That gentleman, after having left this country, on being appointed to a Judgeship in one of our colonies, was abandoned by the Government who had appointed him, although he had produced the highest possible testimonies in answer to the charges that were made against him. He admitted that that was a case of extreme hardship, but he could not understand in what way the Government could defend the appointment of Mr. James after having treated Mr. Stonor in the way they had done, and which, he believed, had been his complete ruin for life. Well, Mr. James applied to be admitted a bencher of the Inner Temple. Now, he had always understood that the benchers were the custodes of the character of the bar. If, therefore, those hon. Members who were benchers wished to uphold that doctrine, they would support the principle for which he was contending. In the case of Mr. Whittle Harvey, the question was raised whether the benchers had the power of refusing admission to the bar; and it was, in that case, stated that the question rested wholly with them, and that they had the right to refuse admission to the bar to whomsoever they might think unworthy. If this were so, then still more ought they to exercise that right in regard to the admission of a member of their own body. He had himself frequently complained, both in writing and in public, that the benchers had not acted fairly towards the public in neglecting to exercise their powers of rejection. If they were justly open to that charge, it made his argument the stronger when a case occurred in which they did exercise their jurisdiction, and it afforded a greater reason for supporting them in their decision. This was not the first case in which he had tried the experiment as to whether there was any sincerity on the part of the Government to put down bribery and corruption at elections. In 1853 he moved for the production of papers in the case of the Canterbury election, when an attorney was accused of having been guilty of subornation of perjury, and those papers were refused upon the usual excuse that, as the Commissioners of inquiry into that case had not chosen to take notice of the fact, the House was not called upon to interfere. In bringing forward this Motion he had not sought to attack any one individual, but he felt it his duty, in a case in-

195
volving bribery and a breach of the privileges of the House, not to suffer it to pass unnoticed. However painful and distressing it might be to have even the suspicion of personal motives entertained against him, still the duty he owed to the public interest was paramount to all other considerations; and if there existed any sincere desire to put down bribery, the case of the appointment to a newly-created recordership of a gentleman who was believed to have participated in a gross instance of bribery ought to command the deliberation of the House. It was most important to bring matters of this nature before the House, so as to ascertain whether judicial appointments were to be the reward of honourable and straightforward conduct in the profession, or whether mere ability and forensic talent, combined with a political connection with the Government, were to carry the day. One would suppose that a newly-appointed recorder would have been most anxious to study the convenience of the public and of the court over which he presided; but what was the case in this instance? The Brighton sessions, which commenced last week, were exceedingly heavy, lasting beyond the first day—but on the assembling of the court on the second morning, much to the astonishment of every one, a Deputy appeared in place of the Recorder, who had returned to town to attend the Cambridge Election Committee. Now, although recorders were undoubtedly empowered to appoint a Deputy in the case of illness or unavoidable absence, he put it to the House whether this was such a case of unavoidable absence as would justify the proceeding? The noble Lord (Viscount Palmerston) in answering his (Mr. Craufurd's) question on this subject the other day, left the impression that he had made a wanton attack, and that he was not correct in stating that Mr. James had been refused admittance as a bencher. But the noble Lord inserted a qualification in his reply, which made it incumbent that he (Mr. Craufurd) should proceed with the case; and, if the House thought proper to grant a Committee, he should be prepared to prove statements involving the bona fides of the Government in reference to questions of bribery, and with regard to appointments to judicial offices.
SIR JOSHUA WALMSLEYseconded the Motion.
THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, that he trusted the House would not re-
196
quire many observations from him to satisfy it that this Motion ought to be rejected. He was bound to assume, and did assume, that the hon. and learned Gentleman who had made it, had brought forward this proposition from the purest and loftiest motives; but he could not help noticing what he considered the want of taste shown in the manner in which the hon. and learned Gentleman had brought forward his proposition. He had thought right to travel out of the record, and, not content with attacking Mr. James, he had seized the opportunity while alluding to transactions which took place some time since, to direct his attack also against another. He had told the House that if certain proceedings had been carried to the extent they ought to have been, the effect might have been to criminate a Gentleman whom he termed "a distinguished Whig Attorney General." That distinguished individual was now a Member of the judicial bench in one of its highest positions, and was not there to answer for himself. Eight years had passed since the transactions in question, and the hon. and learned Gentleman had thought fit to attack that eminent and distinguished individual at the time when he perfectly well knew that he could not defend himself. Not only this, but besides attempting to make out a case against Mr. James, he went further, and referred to the accidental absence of that Gentleman last week from Brighton, as if that, except to create a prejudice, had anything to do with the matter before the House. He would ask any hon. Gentleman who had heard this statement whether the case against Mr. James was worthy of a moment's consideration. Now, what were the real facts of the case. It appeared that in 1847 Mr. James, being a resident in the neighbourhood of Horsham, took an interest in an election for that place, and having been active on behalf of an hon. Gentleman who was returned, he was a party to some compromise in an Election Committee. In that, of course, the House would at once perceive, he acted in his private, not in his professional, capacity. If in doing so he did anything which made him amenable to the House, there were abundant means of investigating the matter long ago, and he (the Attorney General) did not know why the hon. and learned Gentleman, who had for some time been a Member of that House, waited until Mr. James was appointed Recorder of Brighton, and then raked up this stale

197
story for the purpose of prejudicing him. It appeared that Mr. James entered into some arrangement, which the party principally interested did not think proper to ratify, alleging that Mr. James had gone beyond the limits of the discretion vested in him, Mr. James having acted, as he had always alleged, bonâ fide in the belief that he was only carrying out that which he was authorised to do. There was a third party, who alleged that he had a grievance against Mr. James, and called upon him to fulfil the conditions. Mr. James replied, "You knew all the time that I was acting only on the part of another person, and you have no right to look to me personally for the fulfilment of the agreement." This person, it was, who brought the matter before the benchers of the Inner Temple. The benchers were of opinion that it was not a case in which they were called upon to adjudicate, and they let the matter remain where it was. Afterwards Mr. James was made a Queen's Counsel, and it was said that he was rejected by the benchers on account of what took place with reference to the election at Horsham. Now, he never was rejected at all, and if he had been it would have been nothing to the present purpose. When a Gentleman, having become one of Her Majesty's Counsel, offered himself for election as a member of the bench, it was not a matter in which his personal conduct was made a subject of question, or upon which a division took place in which the majority bound the minority. The benchers of the Inner Temple maintained their indisputable right to exercise a power of selection without being accountable to any one, and in this the Judges had held them to be right. Instead of being a question of the majority binding the minority they proceeded on the principle of a club, and, there being about forty benchers, four black balls excluded. Was he to be told that, because a gentleman found that he was objected to by three or four individuals, and chose to withdraw, that was to be a bar to his professional advancement under any circumstances? The proposition was monstrous. He thought it was in point of fairness and honour incumbent upon the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Craufurd) to have informed the House how the benchers of the Inner Temple proceeded in cases like the present. Now, he would ask was it either fair or just that a man's character and chance of professional advancement were to be blasted by a Motion
198
of this description, and that the House should not be told under what circumstances the election really took place? If the hon. and learned Gentleman thought it necessary, under his deep sense of public duty, to make an attack upon an individual, which, to say the least, did not savour much of liberality and generosity, he was at least bound to state all the circumstances, and keep nothing back. Under these circumstances, the fact of Mr. James not having been elected a bencher might be a subject of regret to himself and to his friends, but it afforded no reason why he should be excluded from his fair chance of advancement in his profession. He (the Attorney General) knew at that moment two or three gentlemen who had been raised to the dignity of Queen's counsel, but had not been elected benchers of the Inner Temple, although no charge whatever could be adduced against their personal characters. It would merely appear that they did not happen to be popular men, and it was perhaps considered that they might be obnoxious to other gentlemen who were already benchers. Every Queen's counsel took his chance of the ballot on those occasions, just as gentlemen did when they sought admission to a club. That was the case with Mr. James, and let the House remember that there had been no adjudication and no decision affecting him. When the hon. Gentleman said that the benchers of the Inner Temple were the custodes morum of the profession, he failed to distinguish between cases in which they acted in that capacity, and when they acted as members of a society, admitting or excluding whom they pleased. The charge was made, but the benchers decided that it was not a proper one for them to decide. If there had been a public decision, excluding Mr. James upon the ground that there was anything affecting his personal honour, that would have been a serious objection to his appointment. But these proceedings were no more made known to the world and to the Government than were the elections and decisions of private clubs, and it was utterly unknown to the Government that Mr. James had been rejected by the benchers of the Inner Temple, still less that he had been rejected for a particular reason now specified. How the hon. and learned Gentleman had obtained that information, he (the Attorney General) did not know; but he now made it a charge against the Government that they had appointed Mr.

199
James after he had been rejected by the bench of the Inner Temple because he was mixed up in this election case, and he then called upon the House to assist him in a personal attack upon Mr. James, which, if carried, would be fatal to that Gentleman's professional prospects, on the ground that the House was anxious to put down bribery. Was that fair, or was it honourable? The hon. and learned Gentleman did not prefer it as a charge, but, feeling how rotten was his case, he introduced this matter of bribery. Then he told the House that certain actions were tried, that one failed because certain evidence was rejected by the Judge, and that a Bill of exceptions was tendered but was not gone on with. Then said the hon. and learned Gentleman, "We can form our own private surmises how the Bill of exceptions came not to be proceeded with." He (the Attorney General) could form a surmise, and, he trusted, a more charitable one than that of the hon. and learned Gentleman. His surmise was that it was not gone on with because it was found not to be tenable. Then there was the other action, in which one of our highest judicial functionaries was concerned. The hon. and learned Gentleman did not care for a person being absent. He scattered imputations broadcast, and then told the House that he was actuated by the highest and purest motives. He (the Attorney General) was perfectly satisfied that the House would feel that this was a matter which ought not to be further entertained. The hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Craufurd) did not appear to be anxious to do justice to absent men; but he (the Attorney General) was. One of the competitors for this office, and one whose claims were well worthy to be taken into consideration, was Mr. Clarkson. As soon as Mr. Clarkson heard of this proceeding of the hon. and learned Member for Ayr, he came to him (the Attorney General) and said:—"You have known me a great many years, and were good enough to give me a testimonial for this office. You know me too well to suppose I have anything to do with this Motion." He (the Attorney General) was afraid that it would not be cautious in him to mention the reply which he made. He hoped the House, however, would mark its sense of this proposition by unanimously rejecting it; and he even trusted the hon. Gentleman who seconded the Motion would not go into the lobby with the hon. and learned Gentleman.
MR. I. BUTTsaid, the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Ayr had thought fit to declare that the House had rejected his Motion for papers, which, if produced, would have established a charge of subornation of perjury against a respectable solicitor. The candidate for Canterbury, on behalf of whom that solicitor had acted, was his (Mr. Butt's) intimate friend, and, when the hon. and learned Gentleman made that charge on a former occasion, he (Mr. Butt) replied to it, and he was now surprised that the imputation should be repeated after the House had decided that an ample vindication of the accused party had been given.
MR. ATHERTONsaid, he thought that it was only justice to Mr. James that some other member of the profession, and one upon the bench of the Inner Temple, should confirm the statement of the hon. and learned Attorney General as to the qualifications and character of Mr. James, and also as to the practice of the bench of the Inner Temple. Although the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Craufurd) referred in his Motion to the transactions at Horsham, it was not, either by its terms or upon any fair construction, a Motion asking the House to grant a Committee, on the ground of Mr. James having been concerned in those proceedings. On the contrary, the only meaning which any one could arrive at from the speech of the hon. and learned Member was, that the hon. and learned Member asked for the Committee on the ground that certain transactions occurred some years ago at Horsham, upon which a competent tribunal of forensic morals—the bench of the Inner Temple—had pronounced a judgment adverse to and damnatory of Mr. James. The hon. and learned Gentleman (the Attorney General) had stated most correctly that it was no imputation at all—that it was not the slightest censure, by implication the most remote and shadowy, upon any gentleman, a member of the Inner Temple, who might receive a silk gown, that he was not forthwith elected a member of the bench. Of late years there had been many instances of gentlemen upon whose character, private and professional, not the slightest imputation could be cast, who had become Queen's counsel, but whom, for some reason, the benchers, exercising their absolute discretion, had declined to take into the bench. Upon this matter the bench, though a complaint was made, had pronounced no

201
decision. If this Motion were entertained, the House would, in addition to the enormous amount of public and private business they had to despatch, be setting themselves up by their Select Committees as inquisitors and censors into the substance or shadow of every supposition which might result either from the idleness or malice of any individual.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, he wished to repeat what he had stated on a former occasion that, when he was called upon to fill up the appointment in question, a great many applications were made, and he felt it his duty to ascertain which of the candidates, from professional standing and legal attainments, was best qualified for the office. He accordingly made inquiries, the result of which was that he arrived at the conclusion that Mr. James was, on the whole, from his position at the bar, and from the testimonials of his legal acquirements, the most competent person for the position. That gentleman had further in his favour the fact that a large number of the town-council of Brighton had signed a paper expressing a desire that Mr. James should be appointed the Recorder of that town. He (Lord Palmerston) had no personal knowledge of any of the candidates—had never seen any of them, and had no other motive in selecting Mr. James than to perform his duty to the best of his ability. As to the particular circumstances connected with the admission or non-admission of the learned Gentleman to the bench of the Inner Temple, he (Lord Palmerston) never heard of it until the hon. and learned Member gave notice of his question. Upon seeing that notice, he inquired and found what he stated in reply to the question, that Mr. James had not been rejected as a bencher because he had never been proposed.
SIR JAMES DUKEsaid, he willingly bore testimony, as a friend of Mr. James, to that gentleman's high character.
MR. CRAUFURDin reply, said he could not reconcile the sneers of the hon. and learned Gentleman (the Attorney General) with his professed defence of Mr. James. The hon. and learned Gentleman had sneered at his having felt it to be a public duty to bring forward this Motion, and insinuated that he was actuated by private motives, and more, that he was the mouthpiece of some disappointed candidate.
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: I never insinuated any such thing; on the con-
202
trary, I attributed to the hon. and learned Gentleman none but the highest and purest motives, and I also stated that there was not one of the candidates who did not repudiate the Motion.
MR. CRAUFURDsaid, he had understood the hon. and learned Attorney General to maintain that the benchers of the Inner Temple, who acted upon some occasions as custodes morum, had an arbitrary power of electing whom they pleased, as a mere private club; and that was very different from his notion of their position. But if the charges which he (Mr. Craufurd) had brought forward were unfounded, he trusted the House would at least believe that he had acted from a conscientious conviction; and, at any rate, the objectionable circumstances having been explained away, and the charges not being sustained, the result would be all that the friends of Mr. James could desire. But the Attorney General had not denied that the Recorder of Brighton was called upon to explain the charges against him, and it was notorious in the profession that such an inquiry did take place before the benchers. He (Mr. Craufurd) considered that the case he had made out was not yet answered, except by the sneers of the hon. and learned Attorney General.
SIR JOSHUA WALMSLEYsaid, he wished to explain, at the same time, the reason why he had seconded this Motion. He had reason to think that the House, and especially the person who had been accused of improper practices, would rejoice that he had done so, because it had given the Attorney General and other persons an opportunity of vindicating that gentleman, whom he (Sir J. Walmsley) believed to have been injured by the statements which had been made. He had seconded the Motion upon the impulse of the moment, and at the request of the hon. and learned Member for Ayr; but, after the statements which he had heard, he certainly could not feel it consistent with his duty to vote for the Motion.
Motion negatived.
MR. I. BUTTsaid, that no division having taken place, he should move that everything connected with this matter be expunged from the Journals of the House. There was a precedent for doing so in 1832, when the late Mr. Cobbett brought certain charges against Sir Robert Peel. Immediately after they had been negatived by the House, the House passed such a Resolution as he (Mr. Butt) now proposed;

203
and if ever there was an occasion on which the House ought to teach the lesson that its proceedings were not to be used as the vehicle of imputations on private character, this was such an occasion. He rested this proposition upon the wording of the hon. and learned Gentleman's Resolution. If the hon. and learned. Gentleman (Mr. Craufurd) had contented himself with moving that an inquiry be instituted into the circumstances of Mr. Edwin James's appointment, it would be different; but his Resolution was worded thus: "The said Edwin James having been refused admission to the bench of the Inner Temple on account of his conduct in respect of certain transactions connected with the election for the borough of Horsham in 1847." He, therefore, asked the House not to allow their Journals to be referred to twenty years hence as a proof that there were circumstances in the conduct of Mr. James which the House of Commons thought it necessary to inquire into.
MR. CRAUFURDsaid, he objected to the Motion. What he had stated was, that if a Committee were granted he should be prepared to prove the statements he had made; but when he found that even the hon. Gentleman left him who had seconded his Motion, he could not put the House to the trouble of dividing. The House having refused to grant an inquiry—a refusal equally unjust to himself and to the learned Gentleman whose name was involved in it—he (Mr. Craufurd) must still object to any such Motion as that his Resolution should not be placed on the Journals.
Motion agreed to.

MASTERS AND OPERATIVES.
MR. MACKINNONsaid, he wished to call the attention of the House to the inconvenience now felt in this country from the want of equitable tribunals by means of which any differences between masters and operatives might be satisfactorily adjusted, and from which other advantages might be gained in disputed claims. He begged to move that an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the necessary information as to the Conseils des Prud'hommes in France, might be obtained by a Commission or otherwise. The subject was one which, in his opinion, was of the utmost importance, and a very strong feeling existed throughout the country in
204
favour of the establishment of councils of arbitration. There was one club in London alone, consisting of, he believed, 16,000 members, and there were other clubs in various parts of the country which had been established for the purpose of advocating the establishment of equitable tribunals, by means of which disputes might be adjusted without incurring legal expenses. It might be said that the principle of such tribunals was not recognised by the law, but he could not admit such assertion, for by the 39 & 40 Geo. III. power was given to settle certain cases by arbitration, and to make the decision thus arrived at legal. About thirty years back a Committee, consisting of some of the most influential Members of that House, had agreed to a Resolution, that "the principle of settling disputes by arbitration was not against the law of the land, and that it was attended with good results to the parties concerned." It appeared, therefore, that there was nothing in the establishment of councils of arbitration opposed to any principle of law, and, in his opinion, such tribunals would be highly beneficial generally, and more particularly so in two instances. They would, in the first place, be of the greatest benefit in settling disputes concerning patents and designs, but, what was of still more importance, they might conduce to the prevention of such strikes as had lately occurred at Preston, Leeds, and other manufacturing districts, and which might at some period be productive of great danger. He would adduce one instance in the case of a disputed patent which would explain to the House the advantage of these councils of arbitration. He would take the case of a person in poor circumstances who, by his industry and ingenuity, had succeeded in perfecting a valuable invention. To secure the advantages of his own skill he was obliged to take out a patent, and the expense of so doing might, perhaps, consume all his means. When, however, he was beginning to reap the reward of his ingenuity, another person might make some slight alteration in the invention, take out a new patent, and the original inventor, not having the means of defraying law expenses, might be deprived of the just reward a his skill. He should wish to see established councils of arbitration, consisting of masters and workpeople, the masters to be elected by the workpeople, and the workpeople to be elected by the masters, for he thought that a body so

205
constituted would be better adapted to settle disputes concerning patents than the ordinary courts of law, and it would at the same time be of great advantage in settling disputes which might occur between masters and workpeople, which, if not settled, might lead to strikes similar to those which had lately taken place. He had had the opportunity of observing in France the working of the Conseils des Prud' hommes, and he was satisfied in his own mind, that those tribunals had greatly conduced to the prosperity of that country. Those tribunals were first established in the year 1806. At that period the Emperor Napoleon, on his way to Milan, passed through Lyons, and the manufacturing population of that town waited upon him, and requested him to establish a tribunal of that description for the adjustment of disputes between masters and workmen. Napoleon took the matter into consideration, and issued a decree establishing a Conseils des Prud' hommes. This tribunal worked perfectly well in France; it had kept up a good feeling between the master and the workmen, and had fully answered the object for which it was established. Now, there might be objections to the establishment of such a tribunal in this country, though he did not think there were; but what he would ask the Government to agree to was, the appointment of a Committee of the House to investigate the subject. As it was worded upon the notice paper, his Motion was for the appointment of a Commission, but he thought the best course would be for him to conclude by moving for a Select Committee to see how far the establishment in this country of Conseils des Prud' hommes, or councils of arbitration, would be attended with benefit to the people of this country.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a Select Committee be appointed, to inquire into the operations of the 'Conseils des Prud' hommes' in France."
SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, there could be no doubt as to the importance of any measure which could be adopted by which differences between masters and men could be satisfactorily arranged. He did not, however, think that there was any necessity for the appointment of a Committee or Commission to inquire into the subject referred to by the hon. Member, as the fullest and most complete information existed with reference to these institutions in an official edition of the French laws, which he should be happy to place at the
206
disposal of the hon. Member, if he had not already seen it. With respect to any further information which might be required, it could be easily obtained through his noble Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, who would make application to the French Government, if such a course were considered necessary. Looking to the jurisdiction exercised by these bodies, he thought that they would be ill suited to the manufacturing and trading population of this country. He was perfectly willing to lay before the House all the information the Government possessed upon the subject, and he trusted that that would satisfy the hon. Member.
MR. INGHAMsaid, he wished to refer to a court of arbitration of this kind which had been established in Sunderland and had worked very satisfactorily. He thought it would be very desirable if the Secretary of State for the Home Department would endeavour to give something like a legal constitution to those courts which had been voluntarily established in various places, so as to give authority to their judgments.
MR. WILKINSONsaid, he had no objection to voluntary arbitration, but he objected to giving such tribunals any legal power to arbitrate on the rate of wages, or anything of that sort. Unless a court of arbitration had legal jurisdiction it would be inoperative, and if such powers were given it, there might be injurious interference in matters that should find their level in the market.
LORD ROBERT GROSVENORsaid, that, at a very large meeting held last year in the manufacturing districts, the establishment of some court of this nature was approved of almost unanimously. He did not believe the courts in France, which had been alluded to, had any arbitrary power to settle the wages of any particular trade in any given district; they had only power over such things as were specially referred to them. He hoped the subject would not be lost sight of. They must not suppose, because a strike commenced in November, and was over in December, that it was all done with. It was put an end to then only to be renewed on a more favourable occasion, and left much ill-feeling. He thought the subject well deserved the attention of the Government, and he hoped that at all events the hon. Member (Mr Mackinnon) would not let it rest, but when he got the information would bring in a Bill on the subject.
MR. MACKINNONsaid, he wished to understand the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department aright, and to know what he was to expect if he withdrew his Motion. He understood the right hon. Gentleman to ask him to wait until he could procure the information he had stated, and that then the Government would grant him a Committee if he (Mr. Mackinnon) thought it necessary. There would be no great probability of the House passing a Bill unless the matter were first referred to a Select Committee.
SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, he had not made any promise that a Committee would be granted. The object of this Motion was to ascertain the state of the law of France, and the operation of that law. He doubted whether a Commitee would afford the best means of obtaining information, which must all come from France. When the hon. Member obtained the information he desired he would be competent to move for the appointment of a Committee if he thought it necessary, but he (Sir G. Grey) could not at present pledge himself to support the appointment of a Select Committee.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

BURIAL GROUNDS.
MR. APSLEY PELLATTsaid, he rose to move for a Select Committee, to inquire into the operation of the Acts regulating interments in parochial burial-grounds and proprietary and other cemeteries. The operation of recent legislation on this subject, in the metropolis, had been to compel the poorer classes to pay advanced burial fees, so that they were obliged to go to parochial boards for assistance.
Notice taken that forty Members were not present; House counted; and forty Members not being present,
The House adjourned at seven o'clock.

ARMY IN THE CRIMEA—THE CAVALRY CHARGE AT BALAKLAVA.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: My Lords, I must trouble your Lordships by presenting myself before you on a personal matter.
EARL GRANVILLE: My Lords, if the subject is the one on which I suppose the noble Earl is going to speak, may I request him to defer his observations until my noble Friend the Secretary of War and the Commander in Chief have taken their places?
THE EARL OF LUCAN: My Lords, I find myself compelled to present myself before your Lordships on a case personal to myself. As I informed your Lordships, that immediately on my arrival in England I applied to the General Commanding in Chief to have my conduct subjected to an investigation by a court-martial—
EARL GREY: I beg the noble Earl's pardon, but I rise to order. I feel that this is a very inconvenient course of proceeding. The noble Earl wishes to read a document without any question being before the House. If the noble Earl wishes to place the document before your Lordships, the regular course will be to move for its production; and the noble Earl can then raise any question upon it he thinks proper. The course the noble Earl now proposes to pursue is quite contrary to the rules of both Houses of Parliament.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: I believe the course which I am about to pursue is per-
158
fectly regular, inasmuch as I intend to move that the letters which I am about to read should be printed.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: If the noble Earl means to move for papers without any discussion, there is no objection; but if the noble Earl intends to comment on them before they are laid upon the table, it is irregular. I am sure that the noble Earl's discretion will suggest to him that the present is not the proper course to pursue.
LORD PANMURE: I have these papers with me ready to lay upon the table, and they will be in your Lordships' hands to-morrow morning; but the noble Earl can, if he thinks fit, read them now. I had the honour of seeing the noble Earl on Friday afternoon last, but did not receive from him any intimation of his intention to read any further letters to your Lordships.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: It is undoubtedly trne that I was with the noble Lord on Friday afternoon, but the papers I am now going to read I did not then know the existence of, and therefore should have found some difficulty in referring to them. I suppose the noble Lord will have no objection to my reading a note I received from him yesterday. I desire to do so, because it charges me with producing an incomplete correspondence. The noble Lord says—
"My dear Lord,—As I perceive that you read an incomplete correspondence on Friday in the House of Lords, I think it right to forward you a copy of Lord Raglan's despatch of the 16th of December, 1854, addressed to the Duke of Newcastle. Yours faithfully, "PANMURE.
"March 5, 1855."
And why was the correspondence incomplete? Because I did not know of the existence of such a letter as the one forwarded to me, and because, for reasons best known to the Government—or, more properly speaking, to the late Government and the noble Lord—papers which should have been made public long ago, were kept back until yesterday afternoon. Now, my Lords, I hold the letter in my hand, and as I do not intend to offer a single word of comment upon it, I shall certainly read it, unless I am stopped by your Lordships' House, and for this reason, because I think that I should not be acting fairly by the Government, or by Lord Raglan, if I did not take the earliest opportunity of putting your Lordships and the public in possession

159
of the whole of the facts of the case. The noble Marquess (the Marquess of Lansdowne), to whom there is no Peer more ready than I am to yield deference, says that so long as "I refrain from any comments I am justified in reading this letter." I shall take advantage of this admission.—
"Before Sebastopol, Dec. 16, 1854.
"My Lord Duke,—I regret to be under the Necessity of forwarding to your Grace the Copy of a Letter which has been addressed to me by Lieutenant General the Earl of Lucan.
"When I received it I placed it in the Hands of Brigadier General Airey, the Quartermaster General, and requested him to suggest to his Lordship to withdraw the Communication, considering that it would not lead to his Advantage in the slightest Degree; but Lord Lucan having declined to take the Step recommended, I have but One Course to pursue, that of laying the Letter before your Grace, and submitting to you such Observations upon it as I am bound in Justice to myself to put you in possession of.
"Lieutenant General the Earl of Lucan complains, that in my Despatch to your Grace of the 28th of October I stated that 'from some Mis-'conception of the Instruction to advance the 'Lieutenant General considered that he was bound 'to attack at all Hazards.' His Lordship conceives this Statement to be a grave Charge, and an Imputation reflecting seriously on his professional Character, and he deems it incumbent upon him to state those Facts which he cannot doubt must clear him from what he respectfully submits is altogether unmerited.
"I have referred to my Despatch, and far from being willing to recall one Word of it, I am prepared to declare, that not only did the Lieutenant General misconceive the written Instruction that was sent him, but that there was nothing in that Instruction which called upon him to attack at all Hazards, or to undertake the Operation which led to such a brilliant Display of Gallantry on the Part of the Light Brigade, and unhappily at the same Time occasioned such lamentable Casualties in every Regiment composing it.
"In his Lordship's Letter he is wholly silent with respect to a previous Order which had been sent him. He merely says that the Cavalry was formed to support an intended Movement of the Infantry.
"This previous Order was in the following Words: 'The Cavalry to advance, and take ad-'vantage of any Opportunity to recover the 'Heights. They will be supported by Infantry, 'which has been ordered to advance on Two 'Fronts.'
"This Order did not seem to me to have been attended to, and therefore it was that the Instruction by Captain Nolan was forwarded to him. Lord Lucan must have read the First Order with very little Attention, for he now states that the Cavalry was formed to support the Infantry; whereas he was told by Brigadier General Airey, 'that the Cavalry was to advance, and take ad' vantage of any Opportunity to recover the 'Heights, and that they would be supported by 'Infantry;' not that they were to support the Infantry; and so little had he sought to do as he had been directed, that he had no Men in ad-
160
vance of his main Body, made no Attempt to regain the Heights, and was so little informed of the Position of the Enemy, that he asked Captain Nolan 'where and what he was to attack, as 'neither Enemy nor Guns were in sight.'
"This, your Grace will observe, is the Lieutenant General's own Admission. The Result of his Inattention to the First Order was, that it never occurred to him that the Second was connected with a Repetition of the First. He viewed it only as a positive Order to attack at all Hazards—the Word 'attack,' be it observed, was not made use of in General Airey's Note—an unseen Enemy, whose Position, Numbers, and Composition he was wholly unacquainted with, and whom, in consequence of a previous Order, he had taken no step whatever to watch.
"I undoubtedly had no Intention that he should make such an Attack; there was nothing in the Instruction to require it; and therefore I conceive I was fully justified in stating to your Grace what was the exact Truth, that the Charge arose from the Misconception of an Order for the Advance which Lord Lucan considered obliged him to attack at all Hazards.
"I wish I could say with his Lordship, that, having decided, against his Conviction, to make the Movement, he did all he could to render it as little perilous as possible. This indeed is far from being the Case, in my Judgment.
"He was told that the Horse Artillery might accompany the Cavalry. He did not bring it up. He was informed that the French Cavalry was on the Left. He did not invite their Co-operation. He had the whole of the Heavy Cavalry at his Disposal. He mentions having brought up only Two Regiments in support; and he omits all other Precautions, either from Want of due Consideration, or from the Supposition that the unseen Enemy was not in such great Force as he apprehended, notwithstanding that he was warned of it by Lord Cardigan, after the latter had received the Order to attack.
"I am much concerned, my Lord Duke, to have to submit these Observations to your Grace. I entertain no Wish to disparage the Earl of Lucan in your Opinion, or to cast a Slur upon his professional Reputation; but, having been accused by his Lordship of having stated of him what was unmerited in my Despatch, I have felt obliged to enter into the Subject, and trouble your Grace at more Length than I could have wished in vindication of a Report to your Grace in which I strictly confined myself to that which I knew to be true, and had indulged in no Observations whatever or in any Expression which could be viewed either as harsh or in any way grating to the Feelings of his Lordship.—I have, &c.
(Signed) "RAGLAN."
Now, my Lords, nearly at the same moment at which I received this letter, I received another letter from the General Commanding in Chief, in answer to an application which I had made to the noble Lord to allow my conduct to be investigated by a court-martial.
"Horse Guards, March 5, 1855.
"My Lord—I have had the honour to submit to the General Commanding in Chief your letter of the 2nd of March instant, reporting your arrival

161
in London, and requesting that your conduct in ordering the charge of the Light Cavalry Brigade at the action of Balaklava, on the 25th of October last, and writing the letter you addressed to Field Marshal Lord Raglan on the 30th of November, may be submitted to and investigated by a court-martial.
"I am directed by the General Commanding in Chief to state in reply that, after a careful review of the whole correspondence which has passed, he cannot recommend to Her Majesty that your Lordship's conduct in those transactions should be investigated by a court-martial. I have the honour to be, my Lord, your Lordship's most obedient servant, G. A. WETHERALL, A.G.
"Lieutenant General the Earl of Lucan."
My Lords, on seeing this letter of Lord Raglan's—with the existence of which I was uninformed until yesterday afternoon—my case appeared to be so entirely altered that I felt myself obliged to write to the General Commanding in Chief this letter, which has this day been delivered to the Adjutant General—
"Hanover Square, 5th March, 1855.
"Sir—I have the Honour to acknowledge the Receipt of your Letter informing me that the Commander in Chief cannot recommend that my Conduct should be investigated by a Court-martial.
"Until this day I have been kept uninformed of the Letter from Lord Raglan, which appears to have been addressed by his Lordship to the Minister of War when forwarding mine of the 30th November last.
"This Letter contains entirely new Matter, and is replete with new Charges, reflecting more seriously than before on my professional Judgment and Character.
"There is now imputed to me, and for the First Time, not only the Misconception of one Order, but Inattention to and Neglect of another Order; and, again, a total Incapacity to carry out any Instructions and to avail myself of the Means placed by his Lordship at my Disposal.
"Charges so grave and of a Character so exclusively professional cannot, I submit, be properly disposed of without a Military Investigation. I find myself, therefore, compelled to express my anxious Wish that the Commander in Chief will be induced kindly to reconsider his Decision, and consent to my whole Conduct on the Day of the Action of Balaklava, 25th October, 1854, being investigated by a Court-martial. I have, &c.
"(Signed) LUCAN, Lieutenant General, "The Adjutant General, &c. &c. &c."
Now, my Lords, I do not intend on this occasion, any more than I did the other night, to depart from the undertaking into which I entered; and therefore I shall now content myself with merely thanking your Lordships for the kind attention you have accorded to me.
Moved—
"That there be laid before this House Copies of any Letters or Papers relating to the Conduct of Lieutenant General the Earl of Lucan, com-
162
manding the Cavalry Division of the Army in the Crimea."
LORD PANMURE: My Lords, it is not my intention to make many remarks upon the painful position in which your Lordships' House is at present placed in having a matter which is entirely one of military discipline thus brought before you; and I trust that your Lordships will not make this an occasion on which points of discipline are to be discussed in this House. I wish merely to explain one point. The noble Earl says that this correspondence ought to have been laid upon your Lordships' table long ago. Now, when I was appealed to on a former occasion to produce this correspondence, I stated my reason for withholding it, which was, that the noble Earl was then on his passage home to this country, and would soon arrive here, and that if, after he reached England, he should desire that it should be produced before the House and the country, no man would be more unwilling to stand in the way of its being laid on the table than I should. That was my only reason for then objecting to the production of the correspondence; but I have brought it down to the House with me to-night, and now hold it in my hand, for the purpose of laying it on your Lordships' table.
Motion, by leave of the House, withdrawn.

CONTRABAND OF WAR.
LORD BERNERSsaid, he had given notice of a Motion for Returns of Lead and other articles contraband of War exported from the different Ports of Great Britain and Ireland to Foreign Ports since the declaration of War; and of the Imports into Great Britain and Ireland of Russian Produce in Neutral Vessels during the last year. The noble Lord said that he thought it his duty to move for these returns in consequence of representations made in the public prints, to the effect that not only munitions of war were sent from this country to Russia, but that they are so sent by authority of the Custom-house in London. He hoped, for the credit of the Government and honour of the country, that those statements might be authoritatively contradicted. He had traced a paragraph to one of the Hull papers, of the 2nd November last, headed "Shipment of Lead to St. Petersburg." It stated that fifty tons of lead had been entered for shipment from London, viâ

163
Hull, to Memel, to be taken thence to St. Petersburg; the paragraph went on to say, that the Custom-house authorities at Hull having refused to pass it, as being an important munition of war, a telegraphic message was sent from London authorising them to forward it, and it was accordingly done. He understood that any articles detained at any of Her Majesty's Custom-houses could not be forwarded without a Treasury warrant. Now, if any officer in the Custom-house or Treasury had given authority for such a transaction as this, it was proper that he should be known and called to account, whether his position was high or low, because it was contrary to the interests of the country, if not to the laws of the land, to proceed as we had been doing, and to send not only an immense amount of gold to the enemy, but even actual munitions of war. It had been stated to him by the editor of the Hull paper to which he alluded, that similar shipments had been going on through the summer months and up to the 30th of November, when the Order in Council appeared, and that in substance the paragraph in question was correct. From a return which he had received from the head of a large house in Liverpool, it appeared that shipments of lead to Memel went on to a great extent. The returns of Trade and Navigation proved that that was the case. Another return showed that the exports of iron and steel to foreign ports had considerably increased, as compared with 1853. The exportation of these articles to foreign countries involved very important national considerations, and the Government ought explicitly to avow the policy they intended to adopt towards nations with which we were at war, and likewise towards nations which regarded themselves as neutrals. Distinct information upon this head should be afforded to the commercial classes of this country, the precise instructions given to our admirals respecting the blockade of foreign ports should also be made known to them, and every officer commanding our cruisers should be fully apprised of the duty they were required to perform. Official returns showed that the importation of a variety of articles of foreign produce had considerably increased of late years; and this remark applied especially to the four great articles of Russian production. In 1854, a large increase in tallow took place. In hemp, flax, and hides, also, a considerable increase would be perceived
164
in the six months ending July, 1854, over the corresponding period of 1852. The following was the detail—

SIX MONTHS ENDING 5TH JULY.

1852.

1853.

1854.

Hemp cwt.

280,607

250,073

332,421

Hides, untanned cwt.

202,464

330,603

272,621

Hides, tanned,lbs.

1,075,207

3,604,769

2,041,580

Flax cwt.

410,876

627,173

643,835

Tallow cwt.

242,469

205,349

256,675

This showed a considerable increase on the first six months, but on the whole twelve months a decrease in tallow and flax, but increase of the import hemp and hides. The former being in twelve months ending 1852, 1,081,220 cwts.; 1854, 1,227,964 cwts.: of the latter, 1852, 550,365 cwts.; 1854, 601,199 cwts.: ditto, dressed, 1852, 2,090,077 lbs.; 1854, 4,180,315 lbs. Then, with respect to corn, it would be seen there was an increase in the year ending January, 1854, over 1853, in wheat alone, of about 1,900,000 quarters. In 1855, the quantity was 3,431,227 quarters, which was less than in the year 1854, but more by 400,000 quarters than 1853. A good deal had been said about the quantity which had been shipped from Odessa. All must recollect Admiral Dundas's despatch apologising for having attacked Odessa, and speaking in a tone of congratulation of having spared the buildings and the stores of corn and wine, stores which had afterwards served to feed the Russian troops in Odessa—an anti-national proceeding. From returns that had been rendered it appeared that the Russian produce taken by this country amounted to 9,600,000 l., being 38 per cent of the total exports of that country; that France took 8 per cent and Turkey 5 per cent;—so that we and our Allies took one-half of the whole Russian exports. This, he thought, was a sufficient argument for inducing our Government to resort to every means in their power for crippling the commercial traffic of Russia. He believed that there would be no objection to produce the returns relating to the exports from neutral ports; but, as he was informed that it would be impossible to furnish correct information with regard to the quantities of Russian produce imported into this country, he should not press that part of his Motion.
EARL GRANVILLEsaid, there would be no difficulty in acceding to the first

165
part of the return moved for, and, with regard to the second part, if the noble Lord would communicate with the President of the Board of Trade, it could be put into a different form, which would furnish all the information required. With regard to the export of lead from this country to Russia, he had to state that at the commencement of last year, when it seemed probable that a war would break out, a Royal proclamation was issued prohibiting the exportation from this country of arms, ammunition, naval and military stores, and machinery; at the same time the Treasury were empowered to grant licences for the export of those articles under certain circumstances. When war was declared, the subject was referred to a Committee of the Privy Council, by whom it was resolved to limit the prohibition to three classes of articles—namely arms, gunpowder (including brimstone and saltpetre), and marine boilers, engines, or the component parts thereof. East of Malta or north of London was at the same time fixed as the geographical limitation. In the month of October, in consequence of information received, additional restrictions were imposed, and the export of blue lias and cement was prohibited; and in the month of November the exportation of lead was also forbidden. It was with very great doubt that this last article was included in the prohibition, because, after all, it was probably of no great importance, for it was not likely that it could reach the Emperor of Russia from this country in quantities large enough to be of any particular service to him—and, indeed, it appeared that he had drawn the greater part of the lead which he had required from Spain, and that it passed through Prussia and other neutral States. Very early in the war application was made to the Court of Prussia to prohibit the transmission of articles contraband of war through that country to Russia, and an assurance was given that the Prussian Government would do their best to comply with the request—an assurance which he was afraid had not been very perfectly complied with. Lord John Russell, however, had lately informed Her Majesty's Government that the Prussian Government had renewed their assurance, on the subject of trade in the contraband of war passing through their dominions, and had expressed an intention of rendering more effectual the means in her power of preventing such traffic. With regard to the larger question as to the in-
166
tentions of the Government in reference to the trade of neutrals, all he had to state was that Her Majesty's Government had no intention of making any change in the Orders in Council passed last year. He believed that if there were any two points on which the Emperor of Russia reckoned for assistance in the war more than others, they were that there could be no cordial maritime co-operation between England and France, and also, that by insisting strictly on our former belligerent tactics we should very soon be involved in quarrels with the chief maritime neutral States of the world; and indeed, had we not made some very considerable concessions in our old interpretation of the rights of belligerents, there was very little doubt that the Emperor's expectations would have been realised on both points. He looked upon the Orders in Council of last year as a wise measure, both in point of policy and principle. Not a single observation against the course Her Majesty's Government had taken had been made in their Lordships' House; and only one in another place, where the hon. and learned Gentleman who made it was totally unsupported, and he hoped that no attempt would be made to revert to our ancient practice. In order to keep Russian produce altogether out of this country, it would be necessary to go much further back than our tactics of the last war, for even then the very simple process of selling it to a neutral would have put it entirely out of the reach of our cruisers either in neutral or in our own vessels. In fact, to meet the noble Lord's views we must revert to the Berlin and Milan decrees, which not even Napoleon's absolute power could carry completely into effect. He had not been able exactly to follow the noble Lord's statistics with regard to the alleged increase in the importation of Russian produce, but he could safely say that so far from the noble Lord's conclusions being correct, the Board of Trade returns for the last year showed that there had been a considerable decrease in the average amount of the importation of articles of Russian produce: in fact there had been a very marked decrease in every one of the articles. The noble Lord had mentioned hides as an article in the importation of which there had been a considerable increase; but he was informed that, in fact, the importation of hides from Russia and Prussia had completely ceased. He was not aware of any chief article of Rus-

167
sian produce so conveyed the import of which had not declined 40 per cent, and with respect to some articles the import had decreased 60 per cent. No doubt, in the Black Sea, the Baltic, and the White Sea the blockade, from various causes, had not been so effectually and continually carried out as it might be. For this there were obvious reasons in the Baltic and the White Sea, the Russian goods having been previously almost entirely paid for by merchants in this country or in France. With respect to the blockade in the Black Sea, it was contrary to the wish of the Government that the blockade should not be effectual; but it turned out to be impossible to establish such a blockade, and that was the reason why the imports from Russia to this country had been so great. However, the blockades, such as they were, had certainly effected serious damage to Russian commerce. It had been the opinion of an eminent French statesman, in reference to the Russian cotton goods exhibited in this country at the Great Exhibition, that they were so excellent that they threatened very seriously the preponderance which this country had obtained in respect to the manufacture of that article. He was not convinced as to the truth of that opinion; but he might add that the result of the blockade had been that the cotton manufacture in Russia had been stopped from the difficulty of getting fuel, owing to the blockade. If he wanted another proof of the injury inflicted on the foreign trade of Russia by the blockades, he would refer to an article recently published in the Révue des Deux Mondes, in which a French ex-Minister of Finance, Léon Faucher, described the disastrous effects upon the finances of Russia which the war must produce, and the dangerous expedients to which the Russian Government had already been forced, in order to meet the difficulties likely to be produced upon Russian credit in other parts of the world. This article was so severe that it had brought forth a semi-official reply in the St. Petersburg Gazette, in which, while some of the positions of the French writer were combated, an admission was made that it was incontestable that the Russian foreign trade was in a state of suffering. If the proposition to prohibit the introduction into this country of Russian produce were adopted in preference to a blockade, it would only have the effect of inflicting the maximum of injury on England and the minimum on the Russian Empire,
168
because, while England refused the goods, the rest of the world would receive them; the real effect of a blockade was, that though we deprived ourselves of Russian produce, we at the same time prevented the rest of the world from obtaining it, and destroyed almost the whole of the Russian foreign trade.
In answer to some further observations made by Lord BERNERS.
EARL GRANVILLEsaid, that certainly the importation of Russian articles was increased last year; but the amount of those articles coming from Russia and Prussia was very much decreased.
LORD COLCHESTERdid not clearly understand whether or not the export of lead was now prohibited. The noble Earl said it was, but he thought the noble Earl had not explained why, when the export of nitre was prohibited by the Orders in Council, the export of the material for making balls was not prohibited at the same time. He thought that if the present policy of England with regard to neutrals were carried out under all circumstances it would not be found to answer. In countries like France, Spain, or the United States of America, where there was a vast extent of seaboard, there could be no effectual blockade if trade were allowed in neutral vessels.
EARL GRANVILLEmade some observations, which were totally inaudible in the gallery.
In reply, LORD BERNERS again pressed the Ministers as to the authority given for the exports of the lead before alluded to, and was informed by Lord Granville that lead was not then contraband of war, the articles restricted only being sulphur, brimstone, and gunpowder, as well as boilers.
The EARL OF HARDWICKEsaid, it was of great importance that the war should be conducted with the utmost vigour; yet it appeared to him that at the commencement the action of our naval force had been completely neutralised, It always appeared inexplicable to him how it was that the fleet of England in the Black Sea was conducted as it had been since the commencement of the war; and when the vote of thanks was given to Admiral Dundas he, feeling this matter deeply, took the liberty of observing sarcastically that after that we should hear no more of the ports in the Black Sea not being blockaded. He did not know whether or not the fault lay with the Admiral, but there was a mystery with

169
respect to the ports in the Black Sea. His opinion was, that it was mainly owing to the severe contests in the Crimea and the investment of Sebastopol that the whole of the ports in the Black Sea were not blockaded. He was convinced that if the whole of the force had been applied in a proper manner, and if the battles in the Crimea had not prevented a fit disposition of the fleet for the purpose of blockade, their Lordships never would have heard the story attempted to be palmed off on the country last year as to the impossibility of the ships being kept in the Black Sea during winter. In answer to that statement, he remembered saying that he would undertake to keep any sea in all weathers and in all seasons, with the ships and sailors of England. He would not say any more on the present occasion, because there was a future notice on the paper with respect to the blockade; but he must add that, of the various errors committed by the Government in reference to the conduct of the present war, none more affected the interests of this country, and strengthened the power of the enemy, than the manner in which the blockade had been conducted.
THE DUKE OF ARGYLLthought it extremely probable that the noble Earl was mistaken in a statement he had made. He (the Duke of Argyll) was not aware of any attempt to palm off on the country the story that the fleets of England could not keep in the Black Sea during the winter.
Motion amended as follows—
"Return of Lead and other Articles contraband of War exported from the United Kingdom to Foreign Countries since the Declaration of War; specifying to what Countries the same have been exported:" And also—
"Return of the Quantities of Tallow, Hemp, Linseed, Flax, Tar, and Bristles, imported into the United Kingdom in Foreign Vessels during the Year 1854; specifying from what Countries the same were imported."
Agreed to.

ROMAN CATHOLIC PROCESSIONS.
THE BISHOP OF EXETERrose to move for Copies of any Case and Questions proposed by Her Majesty's Government to the Irish Law Officers of the Crown in the Year 1852, relative to the Construction of the Statute 10th of George IV. chap. 7, section 26; with the Answers to the same by the said Irish Law Officers; Also, Copy of any Case and Questions proposed by Her Majesty's Government to the Irish Law Officers in the last and
170
present Years on the Construction of the said Section of the said Statute; with the Answers thereto given by the said Irish Law Officers; And also, Copy of a Proclamation by Her Majesty, bearing Date the 15th of June, 1852, warning Roman Catholic Ecclesiastics of the Unlawfulness of wearing their Ecclesiastical Habiliments, saving in the usual Places of Religious Worship or in private Houses. The right rev. Prelate said, their Lordships would soe that in the notice which he had given he had made certain propositions for returns which it was not unusual to move for in either House of Parliament—he meant returns of questions which had been put to the law officers of the Crown, and the answers which had been given to those questions. He should certainly not have departed from the usual practice if it had not appeared to him that there were extraordinary anomalies in this case that required to be explained, and which he could not conceive capable of explanation without direct reference to the opinions given by the law officers of the Crown. Before proceeding to the matter in hand, however, it might be wise to state, though not at any tedious length, the history of this matter as already disclosed in the conversations that had taken place in that House. Last year he had collected from the statement of the noble Earl opposite, who was Lord Lieutenant of Ireland in 1852 (the Earl of Eglinton) that at the time he filled that office he received accounts from the south-west of Ireland to the effect that the Roman Catholic Bishop in one portion of the county of Galway had given notice to his clergy to attend in their robes, in their sacerdotal habiliments, for the purpose of joining in a procession. On this the noble Earl, as he (the Bishop of Exeter) understood him, took the opinion of the law officer of the Crown who was immediately his adviser, who told him that such procession was illegal. But the noble Earl was not satisfied with that. He also sought the opinion of the Attorney General and Solicitor General of Ireland, and from them received the similar assurances that there could be no doubt that such a procession was of an illegal character. On that the noble Earl directed a letter to be written to the Roman Catholic Bishop, pointing out the illegality of the measure; stating at the same time that he believed the notice was given without his having adverted to that illegality, that he was willing to regard the matter in that view, and

171
that he trusted no procession would take place. As he understood the noble Earl, the Bishop returned a reply intimating that he had no intention of pursuing that illegal course. This took place in Ireland in 1852. In the same year, in England, there seemed to be grounds for inducing Her Majesty's Government of that day to issue a proclamation, declaring the danger incurred by those individuals who offended against the particular clause of the statute of 1829 which prohibited ecclesiastics to appear in their sacerdotal habiliments, except in their usual places of worship or in private houses. That proclamation pointed out that it was of great importance to the peace of the country that the law should be strictly observed; and in the most conciliatory, but at the same time in the most peremptory terms, announced the determination of the Government. After reciting the statute and the violation of it, the proclamation proceeded—
"We have therefore thought it our bounden duty, by, and with the advice of our Privy Council, to issue this our Royal Proclamation, solemnly warning all those whom it may concern, that, whilst we are resolved to protect our Roman Catholic subjects in the undisturbed enjoyment of their legal rights and religious freedom, we are determined to prevent and repress the commission of all such offences as aforesaid, whereby the offenders may draw upon themselves the punishments attending the violation of the laws, and the peace and security of our dominions may be endangered."
That proclamation was issued in June, 1852. Of the wisdom of the course then taken there could not be two opinions; and of the necessity for it an unhappy example soon after occurred: he meant those riots at Stockport which created such extreme disgust. It must not be supposed that he charged the Roman Catholic clergymen of that town with provoking the riots by appearing in their robes of office in public to the disturbance of the peace. That was not so. He believed the riots at Stockport proceeded from religious animosities on both sides, and that the fault was more to be ascribed to the Protestants than to the Roman Catholics. But those riots afforded an illustration of the necessity of enforcing the law. At Stockport that law had been proclaimed; and though the Roman Catholic clergy of the town abstained from appearing in procession in their robes, yet such was the soreness of Protestant feeling in relation to these processions that an unhappy outbreak occurred which terminated
172
in loss of life, to the shame of this Christian country. Now, he would say that if an outbreak like that of Stockport take place without the provocation of a direct violation of law, what might we expect would be the consequence if, unfortunately, the Roman Catholic clergy should be taught to feel that they were guilty of no offence if they did appear in the streets in the habiliments of their order in such processions, or even if they daily went about their duties publicly in their dress? In 1854, after this proclamation of 1852 had been found effectual, and been faithfully observed by the Roman Catholic clergy in this country, it happened that a change took place in Her Majesty's councils. Then it appeared that a Roman Catholic Bishop in the south of Ireland—he meant the Irish Archbishop at Tuam (he used the term "at Tuam" advisedly, as he regarded the title "of Tuam" to be illegal)—put forth a manifesto, in which he called on his suffragans and clergy to meet him in their robes of office, in the habiliments of their order, to hold a provincial synod at Tuam. His bishops obeyed this command. The proclamation of John of Tuam was held to be more powerful than Her Majesty's proclamation of 1852. The question, therefore, came to be, whether this Archbishop at Tuam, or Her Majesty's proclamation, was to be held as announcing the law of the land? This took place in the autumn of last year; and since the meeting of the present Session of Parliament a noble Baron (Lord Berners) took occasion to bring the case to the knowledge of Her Majesty's Government, and to ask if any steps were intended to be taken with regard to it. In consequence of that, it appeared that questions were put to the Irish law officers, and that to these questions answers were returned. To these answers he would now take occasion to refer. The noble President of the Council had made a statement on this subject on Tuesday, the 27th of February, and he (the Bishop of Exeter) would not trust to his own recollection, but would quote the noble Earl's words from what were called in that House "the usual sources of information."
EARL GRANVILLEsaid, "the usual sources of information" had not represented with perfect accuracy the observations he had made on the occasion to which the right rev. Prelate referred.
THE BISHOP OF EXETERmust take the liberty of saying that his own recol-

173
lection agreed with the statements contained in "the usual sources of information."
EARL GRANVILLEwas understood to say that what he had stated was, that the law officers of the Crown in Ireland not being agreed upon the subject, the question had subsequently been referred to the English law officers of the Crown, and that, in their opinion, the law did not apply to the secular or working clergy, although it did apply to the regular clergy.
THE BISHOP OF EXETERhad no doubt that the noble Earl's statement of what he had said on the occasion in question was correct; but he (the Bishop of Exeter) had no recollection of any statement on the part of the noble Earl that the Irish law officers of the Crown differed in opinion on the subject, and his own recollection was fully borne out by the newspaper reports. He thought, after the issue of the proclamation of 1852, which had not been recalled, that it would have been but fair to the country if the present Government, if they had formed an opinion as to the state of the law different from that entertained only two years ago by all the then law officers of the Crown, and after they had been formally warned that if they continued to do certain acts they would render themselves liable to any penalties as well as violate the peace and security of the country, had sent forth a new Proclamation, declaring their intention of acting upon the novel and somewhat extraordinary opinion expressed by their law officers. If, as the noble Earl the President of the Council now stated, there had been any difference of opinion on this subject among the law officers of the Crown in Ireland, he thought it was very important that they should ascertain on what ground those differences had arisen. The Act 10 Geo. IV. c. 7, commonly called the Roman Catholic Relief Act, left the recovery of penalties for the commission of such offences in the hands of the Attorney General for Ireland. He considered that if the Attorney General for Ireland was of opinion that the Acts to which he (the Bishop of Exeter) had referred were legal, it would have been quite fair to say to that functionary, "We cannot expect you to prosecute in a case where you believe that the law does not entitle you to do so." He thought that the House should be placed in possession of the opinion of the first law officer of the Crown in Ireland—the Attorney General—and that if other
174
legal officers had differed from him they should know what were the grounds upon which it was considered that the appearance of Roman Catholic ecclesiastics in the habits of their orders, in the streets of Tuam, was not a violation of the law. On Friday last, the 2nd of March, the noble Earl (Earl Granville) was reported to have said—and here he (the Bishop of Exeter) quoted from the ordinary sources of information, whose representation was borne out by his own recollection—"Not that there was any doubt on the subject, but that an opinion had been given to the effect that the prohibitions of the Act applied not to the secular, but to the regular clergy." It was now intimated, however, that there had been a doubt; and he thought the best mode of clearing up that doubt would be by the production of the opinions of the law officers of the Crown. But the noble Earl did not stop here, for he afterwards said—"It did not seem to him that the words prohibiting ecclesiastics from appearing in the habiliments of their order could apply to ecclesiastics who belonged to no order." That brought him to another point of the case. It appeared that in 1852 the law officers of the Crown were clearly of opinion that offences against the law had been committed; but it seemed that in 1854 the law officers of Ireland did not agree in their opinion on the point, and the course was taken—with which he did not mean to find fault—of appealing to the law officers of England. They had had the advantage of hearing, on this subject, the opinion of the noble and learned Lord on the woolsack—an opinion to which he had listened with great respect and deference—but he must frankly say that his confidence in that noble and learned Lord had only increased the surprise with which he had heard the opinions he had expressed. The Lord Chancellor was represented to have said—and his (the Bishop of Exeter's) recollection bore out the statement—that
"There appeared to be good reason for believing that there was no prohibition against a Roman Catholic priest wearing his ecclesiastical habiliments in going through the streets. He took it that the habiliments of a priest were not the same as the habiliments of any one of the orders referred to; and as this was a highly penal statute, the rule of the law was that it be construed very strictly."
It was true, as the noble and learned Lord said, that, this being a penal statute, the rule of law was that it be construed very strictly; but he (the Bishop of Exeter) held that the interpretation to be put upon

175
the words "construed very strictly" was, that the terms of the statute should be construed strictly according to the plain, literal, and grammatical meaning of the words. He found that, in the case of "the Attorney General v. Lockwood," reported in 9, Meesom and Welsby, page 398, Baron Alderson expressed his opinion on the construction of statutes in these words—
"The rule of law, I take it, upon the construction of all statutes, and therefore applicable to this, is, whether they be penal or remedial, to construe them according to the plain, literal, and grammatical meaning of the words in which they are expressed, unless that construction leads to a plain and clear contradiction of the apparent purpose of the Act, or to some palpable and evident absurdity."
The 26th section of the Act was this—
"And be it further enacted that if any Roman Catholic ecclesiastic, or any member of any of the orders, communities, or societies hereinafter mentioned, shall, after the commencement of this Act, exercise any of the rites or ceremonies of the Roman Catholic religion, or wear the habits of his order, save within the usual places of worship of the Roman Catholic religion, or in private houses, such ecclesiastic or other person shall, being thereof convicted by due course of law, forfeit for every such offence the sum of 50 l."
The 28th section related to the particular orders. He now came to the plain, literal, and grammatical meaning of the words used in the Act. This was no longer a legal question, but a question of grammar. He admitted that in one sense it was a question of law, but it was a question of law that the highest legal authorities acknowledged was only to be construed according to the plain, literal, grammatical sense of the words employed; and he therefore contended that every man who knew what the English language was had a right to put his construction upon the matter. The words of the clause were these—
"And be it further enacted, that if any Roman Catholic ecclesiastic, or any member of any of the orders, communities, or societies, hereinafter mentioned, shall, after the commencement of this Act, exercise any of the rites or ceremonies of the Roman Catholic religion;"
so that in this instance there were two classes of persons mentioned—any individual belonging to either of which might incur the penalties of the law—first, "any Roman Catholic ecclesiastic," and next, "any member of any of the orders, communities, or societies." If any one of these parties were guilty of any one of the matters held to be an offence, he came within the meaning of the Act, which provided that a penalty of 50 l. should be in-
176
flicted upon any person exercising the rites or ceremonies of the Roman Catholic religion, or wearing the habits of his order, save within the usual places of worship of the Roman Catholic religion, or in private houses. There were thus, also, two distinct offences, and it was contended that they were to be taken separately, namely, that the offence of exercising any of the rites or ceremonies of the Roman Catholic religion applied only to the Roman Catholic ecclesiastic who had no habits of an order, and that the words "wearing the habits of his order, save within the usual places of worship," applied only to the member of an order. Now, he contended that this construction was a violation of the plain grammatical sense of the words contained in the Act, which asserted that, if either one of two parties did either one of two things, be it what it might, he was guilty of an offence under the Act, and was liable to forfeit a penalty of 50 l. upon conviction. He must be permitted to declare that, if the English language was to be taken as it was usually construed, it was in direct defiance of the construction now attempted to be placed upon the words of the statute. The plain literal construction of the clause would certainly not relieve the Roman Catholic ecclesiastic from the prohibition and penalties of the statute if he wore the habits of his order in the streets, or in any other place, except the usual places of public worship or private houses. For the sake of the peace of the country, he hoped that the construction which he placed upon the words of the Act would be held to be the plain, literal, and grammatical meaning of the clause. If it were not so, he could hardly say what consequences might ensue. In every town in England and Ireland in which there was a numerous body of Roman Catholics they would find their Roman Catholic fellow-subjects disposed to vaunt their strength and defy the Government, particularly if they were to be told that the Government could inflict no punishment upon them. Throughout the towns of Ireland, throughout the largest cities of this country—London, Manchester, and Liverpool—and, above all, in Glasgow—there would be processions of Roman Catholics, headed by Roman Catholic priests in the habiliments of their order; and could their Lordships look upon such a state of affairs without dismay, without believing that the same spirit which had recently manifested itself at Stockport would be greatly increased, and that the indignation

177
of the Protestants of other places would be excited to the utmost when they saw such proceedings taking place in direct defiance of the Proclamation of the Queen, and, therefore, unless Her Majesty's Proclamation should have been withdrawn, in defiance of what they would believe to be the law of the land? It was impossible to doubt, when they saw the Protestants of Glasgow, of London, or of Liverpool, insulted by processions headed by Roman Catholic bishops and priests, in the habiliments of their order, that the worst scenes of violence would take place. He did not think any of their Lordships would be able to say how long such a course could be pursued without entailing the most sanguinary, as well as the most violent scenes. And upon whose head would be the guilt of the blood so shed? In his opinion the guilt of that blood would attach, in the first place, to any Government that should tell the Roman Catholics they were not offending any law by engaging in exhibitions so insulting to the feelings of Protestants that they would be sure to bring down the vengeance of the Protestants upon their heads; and, in the next place, to those law officers, and in particular to the noble and learned Lord on the woolsack, who should have the discredit of misleading the Government by means of an erroneous opinion. If the Government did that without being absolutely certain that the law of the land was such as had been represented to them by the Attorney General and Solicitor General, any blood which might be shed in consequence would rest upon the heads of the Government. He was not desirous of indelicately making a comparison between the noble and learned Lord who now sat upon the woolsack and any other noble and learned Lord who had sat there in former years; but he could not avoid asking other noble and learned Lords who had filled the office of Lord High Chancellor whether they agreed in the construction which had been placed upon this clause of the Act? He appealed more especially to his noble and learned Friend opposite (Lord Lyndhurst), who sat upon the woolsack as Lord Chancellor when the statute was framed. They all knew that the statute was framed in order to preserve the religious freedom of the Roman Catholics, and at the same time to assert the legal rights of the Crown; and he ventured to ask his noble and learned Friend to read the clause, and favour their Lordships with his opinion upon it. It was very remark-
178
able that soon after the Royal Proclamation was issued, in 1852, the present Attorney General for Ireland, Mr. Keogh, said, in a speech in the House of Commons—
"I have seen in this morning's papers a Royal Proclamation which is addressed to the clauses in the Roman Catholic Relief Act, which were introduced into that Act from some very old Acts. Those clauses were directed against the habit of Roman Catholic ecclesiastics wearing the dress of their order in public. These clauses have been dormant ever since the passing of the Roman Catholic Relief Bill."
Now, the words of one of these clauses—that taken from the 8th clause of the 21st and 22nd of George III. (Irish)—were—
"Provided always, that no benefit of this Act shall extend to any Popish ecclesiastic who shall officiate in any church or chapel with a steeple or bell, or at any funeral in any church or churchyard, or who shall exercise any of the rites or ceremonies of the Popish religion, or wear the habits of their order, save within their usual places of worship," &c.
He believed he was correct in saying that was the first statute passed for the relief of Roman Catholics in Ireland. It so happened that in England a similar statute for the relief of the Roman Catholics was passed in the 31st year of the reign of George III., and that Act was a direct transcript of the 21st and 22nd of George III. (Irish) so far as regarded this question. There was in neither of those statutes a single syllable about the members of monastic orders being the only persons who could violate the law, and it must be remembered those Acts were prepared, after long and close consideration, in a spirit of liberality towards the Roman Catholics, but, at the same time, with a firm resolution to assert the rights of the Protestant Church and Government. The Legislature intrusted to one of the law officers in Ireland the duty of enforcing the law, and it was absolutely necessary, if the law was to be regarded as worth anything, that they should know clearly what were the authorities on which they were to rely. Therefore it was that he had introduced the first two subjects of his Motion. If these reasons were not such as to overcome the serious evil of establishing a precedent for making known to the world the grounds of an opinion given by the law officers of the Crown, he would not press for these papers; but he should feel it his duty, at all events, to move for a copy of the Proclamation, unless he should be given to understand Her Majesty's Government would rather he did not. [Earl GRANVILLE: It is contrary to precedent.] Although contrary

179
to precedent, unless it was said to be hurtful to Her Majesty's Government or contrary to public policy, such was his opinion that he must press for it. He therefore would move that a humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying Her Majesty to order to be laid before this House copies of the papers of which he had given notice.
LORD LYNDHURST: I stand, my Lords, in a situation of some difficulty after the appeal which has been made to me by the right rev. Prelate. I entertain the greatest respect for the law officers of the Crown, for their learning and talents, and certainly I shall not, by any voluntary act of my own, put myself in opposition to them nor controvert their opinion, unless called upon to do so in consequence of some legal proceeding. I feel, also, another difficulty. It is possible the construction of this Act may come judicially before your Lordships, and I think a law Lord ought to be careful not to prejudge a question, when he may hereafter have to pronounce an opinion upon it sitting here as in a court of law. The course which I shall pursue in consequence of the appeal of my right rev. Friend is this: I will state the case shortly and plainly to your Lordships, and leave your Lordships to draw your own conclusions. First, with respect to the authorities to which my right rev. Friend has referred, I was not here when this question was discussed on a former night; but I understand it was said that the law officers of the Crown had given a unanimous opinion adverse to the opinion stated by my right rev. Friend. That statement I know on the highest authority to be incorrect. The law officers have not given a unanimous opinion on this subject. They were divided in their opinions. I state this on the very best authority. How the parts were cast I am not enabled to say, and therefore I cannot apply the ordinary rule of pondere non numero. The law officers of the Crown having differed, it is natural to inquire what opinion the law officers of the Crown, on a former occasion, expressed on this question. In the year 1852 the opinion of the Irish law officers was taken on the construction of the statute, and I understand Mr. Napier and Mr. Whiteside, Gentlemen of great learning, great intelligence, and great acquirements, gave an opinion entirely opposite to what has been stated to be the opinion of the present law officers
180
of the Crown. In addition to this, my noble Friend (the Earl of Derby) issued a proclamation directed against such proceedings as we are now considering. That proclamation would not have been issued without taking the opinion of the English law officers on the subject; nor would it have been issued if there had been the slightest difference of opinion between them. We have, therefore, the opinion of the Irish law officers of the Crown and the English law officers in the year 1852 opposed to the divided opinion of the law officers of the Crown in the year 1855. I cannot interpose in such a conflict—Non meum est tantas componere lites. I dare not come "within the wind of such commotion." I understand that my noble and learned Friend on the woolsack on a former evening stated that this, being a penal statute, must be strictly construed. That maxim of law no man will attempt to controvert. But there is another maxim, equally cogent, that every statute is to be construed according to its grammatical construction, unless there be some very strong reason to the contrary. The right rev. Prelate quoted on subject the opinion of a Judge of great eminence—Mr. Baron Alderson—that an Act of Parliament, whether of a beneficial or penal character, must be construed according to its grammatical construction, unless that construction would lead to some inconsistency, or be directly and obviously at variance with the object to which the statute is directed. That is an authority above all exception. Let us consider, then, what is the grammatical construction of this clause. The words of the clause are these: "If any ecclesiastical person professing the Catholic religion, or any member of a religious order"—shall do what?—"shall exercise any rite or ceremony of the Roman Catholic religion, or wear the habits of his order, except in certain places, he shall be subject to a penalty." What is the grammatical construction of this clause? We must consider the operation of the word "or," and I submit the construction is this: If any ecclesiastic of the Roman Catholic religion shall perform any rite or ceremony of that religion, or wear the habits of his order, except in certain places, he shall be subject to a penalty; or if any member of a religious order shall perform any rite or ceremony of the Roman Catholic religion, or wear the habits of his order, except in certain places, he shall

181
also be subject to a penalty. That is the grammatical construction of the clause; and where, then, is the difficulty? Does not every man know that the ecclesiastics both of this country and of the Romish religion are divided into certain orders, distinguished from each other by their peculiar habits? Are these not words sufficient to satisfy the grammatical construction I have pointed out? If they are, there can be no inconsistency in enforcing it. No proposition can be more simple. Why, my Lords, different orders have been established in the Church from the time of the Apostles. If you look into the Book of Common Prayer you will find that in the preface to the ordination service it is expressly stated that from the time of the Apostles different orders have existed in the Church. These orders, as mentioned in the document to which I refer, are the orders of deacons, of priests, and of bishops, all of them distinguished by different habiliments. If you look at the service for the ordination of deacons, you will find it expressly stated in one of the documents read on those occasions that these orders were instituted by the Apostles, in consequence of Divine inspiration; and it is stated, with respect to the order of deacons, that so distinguished an individual as the martyr, St. Stephen, belonged to that order. We therefore find that these orders existed from the earliest period—from the time of the Apostles—and that they were established by Divine inspiration. There is a similar document in the service for the ordination of priests, and the same thing is repeated in the service for the consecration of bishops. These orders are mentioned over and over again in the canons, and they have been sanctioned and confirmed by Act of Parliament. The statute of Elizabeth expressly states that no person shall belong to the order of deacons or priests unless he shall subscribe to the Articles of the Church of England. What reason is there, then, for not adhering to the grammatical construction of the clause, no one being able to doubt for a moment what that construction is? The only ground for overruling the grammatical construction of a clause is, that it contains something inconsistent with, that it leads to some conclusion different from, the scope and object of the Act. Passing, then, from this point, I come to the other statute adverted to by my right rev. Friend—the Irish Act. It is obvious that the
182
English Act was taken from it. The word "orders" in that Act can only mean ecclesiastical orders, for there is no mention in that Act of religious or monastic orders. The Acts are inpari materiâ, and must be construed in the same way. This appears conclusive. Another rule for the construction of statutes is to consider the evil they are intended to obviate—the object against which they are directed—for an Act must be passed in order to cure some evil and to give some remedy. What is the case in this instance? I have some recollection of the Act, and I had something to do with preparing it. It was thought to be important when it was introduced, in consequence of the excitement—I may say, the irritation—which prevailed in Ireland, to prevent, as far as possible, the occurrence of any circumstance which would increase that irritation. The object, therefore, of the Act was to prevent all public displays which might have that effect. How imperfectly that object would be attained if you were to confine its application to the mere appearance of a few monks walking about the streets in the vestments of their order—how little feeling their appearance would create! whereas the ceremony which gave rise to this question was one of the most exciting and irritating that can possibly be conceived. It is described as a most gorgeous ceremony, the bishops being present in their pontifical habits of the most splendid kind, with their mitres and crosiers, and various other accompaniments; and yet you say that such a case does not come within the Act, and that it is confined solely to the monks. Is this the mode in which the Act ought to be construed? Consider what is the evil intended to be remedied, and what is the remedy provided? Having made this statement, I wish to clear myself from any impression which may have been created as to the opinion I may be supposed to entertain with regard to the policy of enforcing the Act. I say nothing upon that subject; an Act of Parliament may have been very prudent at the time when it was passed for the purpose of correcting a certain evil, and it may be extremely imprudent to act upon it after a long interval during which it may never have been enforced. I hope your Lordships will not consider, from my having stated the case in this way, that I have given an opinion as to the propriety of enforcing the Act. I do not know enough

183
of the state of Ireland to form a sound opinion on the subject, and I therefore say nothing one way or the other respecting it. I am not called upon to give any such opinion, and I therefore decline to do so.
EARL GRANVILLE: My Lords, I do not rise to answer my noble and learned Friend, for I am entirely wanting in the qualifications necessary for a contest with him in a legal argument; and, although he commenced and ended his remarks with an assurance that he did not intend to pronounce any legal opinion, I am so utterly destitute of the knowledge of what constitutes such an opinion, that it appears to me that my noble and learned Friend did in the most clear and expressive manner give the strongest possible opinion upon the construction of the law. I regret that a question of recollection should ever arise between two Members of this House, but I certainly feel perfectly confident that the explanation I have given of what I stated upon a previous occasion is correct. I am aware that I am not always able clearly to express what I mean; but, being so confident as to what I meant on the occasion, I believe that I did then say what I intended. I certainly remarked to a friend soon afterwards that I saw I was represented in the papers to have given an opinion of the Irish law officers, when the opinion I had really given was that of the English law officers; upon which my friend observed—I am not in the least surprised at it, because I was below the bar at the time, and I could not understand a single word that you said. I think the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Derby) has, on a previous occasion, remarked that it is unusual to give an opinion of the law officers of the Crown which is of a confidential nature, and I must therefore appeal to the right rev. Prelate to withdraw his Motion, except as regards the Proclamation, to the production of which, as it has been already published in the Gazette, there can be no objection. There is no doubt that the Irish law officers of the Crown were divided in their opinion upon the point of whether the prohibition to appear in ecclesiastical habiliments applied both to the regular and to the secular clergy. The question was referred to the English law officers, who gave their opinion that a distinction did exist between them, and that the words of the statute only referred to the regular orders. The Irish law officers were divided in their opinion,
184
but not the English. I believe that the noble Earl opposite, before issuing the proclamation which has been referred to, consulted the law officers in this country, who gave an opinion contrary in some respects to that which has now been given; but, I believe, they also said, that this being a penal statute it must be strictly construed, and that the opposite view to that which they had themselves taken might be argued; and they also added another doubt to which he need not refer. I cannot sit down without protesting against the allegation that any guilt is incurred by a Government in declining, upon any isolated occasion, to act upon the opinion which the law officers of the Crown may have pronounced.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I felt the great force of the observation with which my noble and learned Friend commenced his address, as to the extreme difficulty there was in any of your Lordships—and more particularly those who were called law Lords—giving a construction of the penal clauses of an Act which may be hereafter brought judicially before them for their decision. I trust, in the few observations I am about to make, I shall follow the precept rather than the example of my noble and learned Friend; for commencing as he did in saying that he would not commit himself by expressing any opinion upon the subject, I must appeal to all your Lordships whether it be possible for any defendant who may hereafter be convicted on the ground of having committed an act prohibited by this law, to appeal to your Lordships, and hope to receive an impartial judgment from my noble and learned Friend? It is impossible; for although he said he would not give an opinion, yet he has given an opinion, in the most powerful, most able, and most artistical manner, in what he called simply stating the facts, and leaving your Lordships to draw the inference. Well, I have said that I would follow the precept and not the example of my noble and learned Friend. In reference to that subject, let me call the attention of your Lordships to what has occurred. A question was put the other night by the right rev. Prelate as to the processions which had taken place in Ireland coming within the provisions of the law. I was then quite unaware that any such question would be put to me. I had not, at that time, had an opportunity of looking at the Act of Parliament; but I then remarked

185
that, according to the wording of the clause, there were grounds for arguing that Roman Catholic ecclesiastics, wearing their clerical habits in the streets, were not within the purview of the Act of Parliament. I did not mean to say that if the question came judicially before your Lordships that would be my opinion. I merely meant to say that there were good grounds for urging such an argument. The right rev. Prelate has said, that although that might be the legal construction of the Act, still we are bound to give it a plain grammatical construction. My noble and learned Friend, I think, in his construction of it, has perhaps misunderstood the clause. He has told us what the word "orders" means; but the question is not what "orders" in general means, but what is the meaning of the word in this particular clause of the Act. I am extremely averse to give my construction of the word, because I may hereafter be called upon in my judicial capacity to put a construction upon it. But I wish to point out that the word does not mean, or does not necessarily mean, the orders of priests and deacons; but, simply, monastic orders. What are the words of the Act?—
"And be it further enacted, that if any Roman Catholic ecclesiastic, or any member of any of the orders, communities, or societies hereinafter mentioned, shall after the commencement of this Act exercise any of the rites or ceremonies of the Roman Catholic religion, or wear the habits of his order, save within the usual places of worship of the Roman Catholic religion, or in private houses, such ecclesiastic or other person shall, being thereof convicted by due course of law, forfeit for every such offence the sum of 50 l."
Now, my noble and learned Friend says that the words, "wear the habits of his order" apply equally to both nominative cases, which are separated by the disjunctive conjunction "or"—that is to say, to the words "any Roman Catholic ecclesiastic," as well as to the words "any member of any of the orders, communities, or societies therein mentioned;" but is that quite clear? Can a member of the monastic orders exercise any ceremony of the Church of Rome? Can they do it? That is a question of fact. If they cannot, then the first nominative case can only apply to the first verb, namely, "exercise," and the second nominative case will then naturally only apply to the other verb, "wear." There may, therefore, be ground for contending that the clause must be construed distributively, and that it refers to priests exercising the rites of their Church and to monks wearing the habits of their orders.
186
But I am very much afraid of being betrayed into giving an opinion upon the construction of an Act which I may have to construe in a different way on another occasion. All I said on the subject the other day was, that I thought that that may probably be the construction of the clause. Supposing it should be contended that a monk is an ecclesiastic, and that he may be punished, if not as a monk, yet as an ecclesiastic, is that the construction to be put upon the words of the Act? Supposing, instead of the penalty being a pecuniary one, it were enacted that those guilty of the offence should be punished with death, is it to be said that the clause should be construed so strictly that a priest not a member of any order wearing his habits of a priest not within the usual places of worship of the Roman Catholic religion, should be punished with death? It is a mode of construction which might be argued at your Lordships' bar, but do your Lordships think it could be done with success? But, whether it could or not, I wish to keep my mind perfectly unaffected by the arguments that may be urged upon it.
LORD ST. LEONARDSsaid that he would not shrink from giving an opinion on this question, because when a member of the Administration of the Earl of Derby he had found himself in the position of being compelled to come to a positive conclusion with respect to what was the correct construction of this statute, and to stake his reputation as a lawyer and a statesman upon the soundness of his interpretation. Nay, more. As Lord Chancellor, he had been obliged to give effect to his opinion by issuing the Proclamation which informed the people of England and Ireland that a thing which was said to have been lawful was in fact unlawful, and that the penalty under the Act of Parliament would undoubtedly be enforced. But if the opinion which had been given the other way was right, he, of course, was entirely wrong. The Proclamation was sent forth upon the clear understanding, right or wrong, that that which had to-night been stated by his noble and learned friend (Lord Lyndhurst) was the law. Upon that point no doubt whatever was entertained either in the mind of the Government or in his own mind. He felt no difficulty in stating, that if he saw that he had fallen into an error, he would have judicially corrected that error; but on the contrary he did not believe that he was in error, and he had no hesitation in express-

187
ing before their Lordships a clear, confident opinion that that which he proclaimed to be the law in June, 1852, was the law, according to the clear meaning of the 26th clause of the Catholic Relief Bill, of 1829. With regard to the grammatical construction of the clause, and the argument respecting "orders," let them see what that amounted to. After having very properly repealed many penalties, and required ecclesiastics to make certain declarations, he found a proviso in section 11 to the effect that no penalty in the Act contained should extend or be construed to extend to any Roman Catholic ecclesiastic who should officiate in any place of religious worship, or exercise any of the rites or ceremonies of his religion, or wear the habits of his order, in any place of religious worship or in private houses. Here there was every single word that they found used in the other clause, and the words "of his order," applied exclusively and simply to the Roman Catholic ecclesiastics, and not to the monastic orders only. How then could there be a doubt as to the proper understanding and construction of the Act in the mind of any human being who was capable of reasoning. And, while they were thus talking of the Act of Parliament, they must not lose sight of what was the real intent of the Legislature in enacting it. They were not bound even by the grammatical construction of the Act; on the contrary, there might be strong reasons for setting themselves against that construction; but, if they found that the intention of the Legislature and the grammatical construction concurred, there was nothing to find fault with. It was intended, and it ought to have been intended. It was policy, and it was the true policy. The policy of the law before this Act was passed was to prevent any public displays that were likely to give rise to irritation, and the purpose of this Act was to continue that prohibition, to enforce it, and even to carry it still further than before. And why was it in the Act? Because, although the country was resolved to have no more Jesuits—in which it acted wisely—within its dominions, and not to allow these monkish orders to come into the country, it did tolerate them so far as to allow those who were already here, who belonged to the country, or who came here within a short period, to remain under certain restrictions, and this Act was intended to apply to them while they remained. The intention of the Legislature was not to put an
188
end to Roman Catholic establishments, but it was desired to exclude the monkish orders. Could it then be maintained that this Act was only to apply to that body whom it was intended for the time to come wholly to exclude from the kingdom, but was not to extend to those who were allowed to remain, and form a permanent part of the community? It was impossible, in his opinion, to do so; and he could only say, in conclusion, that, having read the clauses over frequently, he had been unable to bring himself to entertain the slightest doubt that the words so often quoted referred both to the secular and the regular priests of the Roman Catholic Church.
THE BISHOP OF EXETER,in reply, appealed to the House whether it was fair for the Government to obtain the opinions of the law officers of the Crown, and to keep their Lordships altogether in the dark respecting them. He must say that that was not equal justice. After the speeches they had heard to-night the case had really become ridiculous, and he should not think it worth his while to disturb the practice by moving for any other papers than the Proclamation.
Motion, as amended, agreed to.
House adjourned to Thursday next.