Sitting of 14 April 1856

MINUTES.
NEW MEMBER SWORN.—For New Ross, Charles Tottenham, esq.
PUBLIC BILLS.—2° Bankers' Compositions; Medical Qualification and Registration; Cambridge University; Exchequer Bills (£21,182,700).
3° Public Works; Public Works (Ireland).

ST. JAMES'S PARK—QUESTION.
LORD RAYNHAMsaid, he would beg to ask the Chief Commissioner of Public Works, in the absence of the Home Secretary, whether, pending any alterations in St. James's Park, the privilege and great convenience of passing through the park in cabs would be conceded to the public?
SIR BENJAMIN HALLsaid, he regretted that his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sir G. Grey) was too unwell to attend the House that evening; but he hoped that, if the House should go into Committee of Supply on Friday, the right hon. Baronet would be enable to explain to the House the intention of Her Majesty's Government with reference to the alterations to be made in St. James's Park.

THE UNITED STATES—ENLISTMENT— QUESTION.
MR. H. BAILLIE: I wish, Sir, to put to the noble Lord at the head of Her Majesty's Government a question of which I have given him notice, and upon his answer will depend the course I shall take this evening with respect to the Motion which I have placed upon the paper. I wish to ask whether the noble Lord can give any assurance to the House that, within a reasonable and definite period, he will lay upon the table the papers relating
1000
to recruiting in the United States of America, as, if he is able to give such an assurance, I shall not be willing this evening to interfere with the progress of Supply?
VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: Sir, the documents which must naturally form the groundwork of the reply of Her Majesty's Government to the last communication from the Government of the United States were only received a short time ago, and they contain a great mass of detail. My noble Friend Lord Clarendon, as is well known, is now at Paris, engaged in negotiations of a very important character, which occupy a great portion of his attention every day. My noble Friend's powers of work are, however, very remarkable, and, although absent from this country, he is transacting the business of the Foreign Office with only that delay which is necessarily incident to the distance between Paris and the Foreign Office. The answer to be made to the United States' Government necessarily requires very careful preparation—that, on the one hand, it may contain nothing which can at all envenom the discussion that unfortunately has already gone too far; while, on the other hand, nothing may be omitted essential to the case of the British Government. The absence of my noble Friend, the necessity of communication with him, and the small portion of time he has been enabled to bestow upon a matter which requires a great deal of consideration, have been the causes which have hitherto prevented the completion of the answer of the British Government. That answer is in preparation, and we are in communication with my noble Friend upon the subject. I will not undertake to say that in the course of this week the answer can be so entirely agreed upon as to be communicated to Mr. Dallas. My noble Friend may probably return to this country at the end of this week, and I think I may venture to say that at an early period of next week we shall be in a position to submit to the House the whole of the correspondence.
SIR BULWER LYTTONsaid, he had given notice of a Motion with reference to the disputes between Her Majesty's Government and the Government of the United States respecting the affairs of Central America. He could not bring forward that question until certain papers for which he had asked, and which he was told would

1001
be laid upon the table in a few days, had been produced. He wished to know if the noble Lord could state when those papers would be in the possession of hon. Members?
VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, he regretted that the papers to which the hon. Baronet referred had not yet been presented to the House. Those papers were in print; they were now in course of revision; and he hoped that in a very few days—certainly in the course of the week—they would be laid upon the table.
MR. H. BAILLIEsaid, that after the statement of the noble Lord he considered it his duty to postpone the Motion of which he had given notice.
SIR DE LACY EVANSsaid, he would propose the Amendments he had placed upon the paper when the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Baillie) brought forward his Motion.

SUPPLY—MISCELLANEOUS ESTIMATES.
House in Committee, Mr. FITZROY in the chair.
(1.) £4,050, Bermudas; agreed to.
(2.) £7,397, North American Provinces.
MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, that Canada was in so prosperous a condition, and so able to maintain its own ecclesiastical establishments, that he thought the proposed Vote ought to be withdrawn. The people of England should not be called upon to pay £1,990 to the bishop of the rich and flourishing city of Quebec, and £300 to the rector of Montreal. He objected also to the payment of £2,762 to the foreign missionaries of the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel. Some years ago the House was informed that the Roman Catholic Bishop of Newfoundland was to receive £100 per annum. He observed that functionary was down in the Vote for £500. Seeing that a large portion of the lands given up by the Crown had been exclusively applied to the payment of the clergy, he thought that no more demands should be made upon the British Parliament; he should therefore move that the Vote be disallowed.
MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, that the answer which he had to make to the hon. Gentleman was the same as that which had been given every Session for several years past. The truth was, that the various items in the Vote were the remains of a system which had been abolished. No new payments were now made by Great Britain with regard to the ecclesiastical establishment in Canada; but,
1002
inasmuch as there were individual clergymen who had accepted offices in Canada on the faith of this Vote, they could not with justice be deprived of their salaries, which, however, would cease at their death.
MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, that the clergy ought to have been provided for in the Civil List, which was arranged when the Government of Canada was vested in the Colonial Legislature.
MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, that it would be adding insult to injury to throw the individuals mentioned in the Vote upon the Colonial Assembly, which had resolved not to vote money for the clergy of any particular denomination.
SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, the question had been so often discussed and decided that he was surprised it was again revived. It was a question of good faith. The Colonial Legislature was not bound to pay these claims. The honour and good faith of the British Parliament were bound, as much as they could be bound, to defray them. He therefore hoped the Committee would not agree to the Amendment of the hon. Member.
MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, he would remind the hon. Member for North Warwickshire that one of the bishops for which an amount was to be voted was a Roman Catholic.
MR. SPOONERsaid, he would state his views on that point when a specific Motion was made, but to a general Amendment of this sort he should not give his support if it was to take away a grant sanctioned by the British Parliament and guaranteed by that House.
Vote agreed to.
(3.) £4,713, India Department, Canada.
MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, he wished to call attention to the large sum—£2,255—paid in salaries, and he desired to know who the parties were to whom those salaries were given. He noticed the sum of £78 charged under the head of gunpowder; he also wished for an explanation of the item of £750 for office hire, fuel, stationery, postages, and miscellaneous. He must also complain of the large sum expended in presents to the Indians.
MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, that the Vote had been reduced by nearly one-half since last year, and that the nature of the presents to the Indians had been altogether changed. With regard to the salaries, it must be remembered that the duties of the officers of the Indian Department

1003
were by no means confined to distributing presents, but that many of the Indian tribes had very considerable landed and funded property, which required to be carefully managed.
Vote agreed to.
(4.) Motion made, and Question proposed—
"That a sum, not exceeding £24,728, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge of the Salaries of the Governors, Lieutenant Governors, and others, in the West Indies, and certain other Colonies, to the 31st day of March, 1857."
MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, he should move to reduce the Vote by the amount of £5,300, being £1,800 for the salary of the Governor of Western Australia, and £3,500 part of the salary of the Governor of Jamaica. That island used formerly to pay its own governor, and the present Vote was quite a recent charge. He saw no reason why the Governor of Jamaica should be paid a salary of £7,000, when the Governor of the State of New fork, the population of which was upwards of £3,000,000, received only £800 a year.
MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, he conceived that the true policy of this country was to pay the salaries of the Governors of the Colonies, who were imperial officers, much more generously than they did at present. The Governor of Jamaica received £1,500 a year from colonial sources, and £3,500 from the Imperial Government. The question had been carefully considered by Her Majesty's Government, and they had come to the conclusion that until Sir Henry Barcly's Government should expire, it would be highly improper that any change should take place. He need hardly say how difficult a task Sir Henry Barkly had had to perform in introducing financial reform and checking expenditure in the colony. In doing that, of course he had to run counter to the private interests of many individuals, and they thought it would be a most impolitic thing that he should have to depend on the Colonial Legislature for his salary. With regard to Western Australia, it should be remembered that that was now the only colony that received transported convicts from this country. He thought, in such a case, the salary of the Governor ought to be paid by the Imperial Government.
MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, the right hon. Gentleman's explanation was different from that which was made when it was first proposed, that a portion of the salary
1004
of the Governor of Jamaica should be paid out of the Imperial Treasury. That was before Sir Henry Barkly was Governor of Jamaica. He should, however, take the sense of the Committee on the Vote. They had in the present year the most extravagant Estimates in every department that had ever been presented in his time.
MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, that the Colonial Estimates were reduced last year by nearly £4,000, and they were now less than one-half what they were six years ago. In 1850 they were £212,000, and this year they only amounted to £104,000.
LORD JOHN RUSSELLsaid, he thought the hon. Member for Lambeth (Mr. W. Williams) hardly recollected what occurred with reference to the salary of the Governor of Jamaica being thrown on the Imperial Treasury. It was at the time of the appointment of Sir Henry Barkly, and the object was not only to grant the salary of the Governor, but it was a general object with regard to the constitution of Jamaica. There had been for many years great embarrassment in carrying on the Government of Jamaica, and at the same time the colony was in a very distressed state. The object then in view had not been fully accomplished, and he considered that it would be unwise to disturb the present arrangement.
MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, the people of this country ought not to be taxed for the benefit of Jamaica, from which colony they did not derive any benefit whatever.
MR. T. HANKEYsaid, he hoped the hon. Gentleman would not persevere in his opposition to the Vote.
SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, he rose to take the opportunity of referring to an omission in the Estimates. If there was one thing which should always be maintained, that was the good faith of that House. He thought that the noble Lord the Member for London (Lord J. Russell) would, not contradict him when he stated that the Bishop of New Zealand had accepted that office upon a bonâ fide understanding that he should receive a salary of £600 a year as long as he lived, or until he should be otherwise provided for. Two years ago that grant had been struck out from the Estimates, and he was then told that the matter would be referred to the colonists, but they had done nothing in the matter. The good faith of that House and the credit and character of the Church of England, required that the Bishop of New Zealand should not be left without

1005
that income, and he wished to know if the attention of the Government had been directed to the subject?
MR. WIGRAMsaid, he wished to explain the circumstances under which the salary was granted to Dr. Selwyn. It was in 1854 that the colony declined to pay the salary. At that time the bishop was in this country, and was informed that communications had been made to the colony on the subject. Sanguine expectations were entertained that the colony would provide for him, but unfortunately it had not done so. He, therefore, hoped the right hon. Gentleman the Colonial Secretary would consider the matter; as the only reason why the Vote had been discontinued was the expectation that the colony would provide the amount.
MR. HADFIELDsaid, he thought that the question had been decided, and was surprised at the application being renewed. It was something inconceivably monstrous to expect that this overtaxed country should not only pay its own bishops, but be asked to pay for the luxury of a bishop to a colony. He believed that the bishop was an excellent man, that he had done great good in the colony, and if a subscription book were opened for him, he would willingly put down his name.
MR. MOWBRAYsaid, the case under consideration was simply this: in 1841 a gentleman distinguished in the Church of England accepted the appointment of Bishop of New Zealand at the moderate income of £600 a year. He discharged his duties to the satisfaction of every denomination of Christians in that colony. A distinct assurance was given that the allowance should be continued until the colony of New Zealand should itself make provision for it. But what was the treatment the Bishop received? On the 30th of June, 1854, he learnt that his salary had ceased on the 31st of March, 1853.
MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, he was somewhat reluctant to take any part in the present discussion, because he thought it Was not a convenient practice to raise questions of this nature when the Committee was considering the ordinary Votes for the year. Not wishing, however, to appear discourteous to the right hon. Baronet opposite, or disrespectful to the distinguished prelate in question, to whose personal merits and high character he was ready at all times to bear testimony, he might state that if ever they were to decide a question with reference to the
1006
merits of the individual, no man could have a stronger claim to their consideration than Dr. Selwyn had, whose exemplary conduct had conferred not only great benefits on the colony, but on the native population. But, with regard to the salary of the Bishop of New Zealand, he was bound to say that the course taken by the Government had not been suddenly taken. He believed that Bishop Selwyn the last time he was in this country was apprised that the Government could not undertake to ask for a continual renewal of a Vote on account of his salary, and that it would require especial and stringent circumstances for Government to come again to Parliament to demand any such Vote. He must say, though it might be with great regret, that, looking at the whole of the circumstances, such a case of good faith had not been made out as to entitle the Colony of New Zealand to claim a continuance of this grant to the Bishop of that Colony. He therefore did not think that the Government of this country could be justly accused of any breach of faith in the matter of the description referred to. He had no fear that the community in New Zealand would suffer from the course which had been pursued with reference to the stoppage of Bishop Selwyn's salary, and in proof of the justice of his view upon that point he might observe, that he had not long since had an application from the inhabitants of the Colony in question for his sanction to the formation of a new diocess, and as a consequence the nomination of a new Bishop. Upon receiving that application, he had endeavoured to ascertain whether funds had been provided for the payment of the salary of another Bishop, and in answer to the question which he had put upon the subject he had been informed that the funds would be in readiness as soon as the proposed See was established. Under those circumstances, he should, he thought, not be justified in placing a sum of money in the Estimates for the salary of Bishop Selwyn.
LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, that he had long had the honour of being acquainted with that most excellent prelate the Bishop of New Zealand, and he had listened with satisfaction to the encomiums which had that evening been passed upon him. While making that statement, however, he was of opinion that the Committee should regard the payment of the salary under discussion, not so much with

1007
reference to the merits of the man as upon the ground of abstract and simple justice. Looking at the question, then, in that point of view, he must contend that a clear and distinct promise had been made to Bishop Selwyn that he was to receive a certain salary; nor did he think that the facts which had been adduced by his right hon. Friend near him (Sir J. Pakington), in order to show that such was the case, had been in the slightest degree controverted by the observations which had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for the Colonies. It was not right that that House should, for the sake of a few hundreds a year, deprive any man, however distinguished or humble he might be, of that income which, at the date of his appointment to a particular office, he had been led to suppose he should continue to receive. If the act by which faith was broken with Bishop Selwyn was the deliberate act of the Home Government, then by so much was it the more discreditable to them, and by so much the more ought the House of Commons to endeavour to do a tardy act of justice to one of the most successful of those zealous pioneers of the Gospel in foreign lands.
LORD JOHN RUSSELLsaid, there were circumstances with regard to the Vote for the clergy of Canada which did not belong to those for New Zealand. With regard to Bishop Selwyn, when the Vote was first granted, he (Lord J. Russell) communicated to him that in the opinion of the Government a Vote of £600 should be taken for him; but at the same time, he mentioned that that was only the opinion of the Government, and he could not answer that such a Vote would be acceded to by the House of Commons. It was agreed to, and it went on until the right hon. Baronet the Member for Droitwich (Sir J. Pakington) was Secretary for the Colonies, and then that right hon. Baronet gave a pledge to the House that the sum should not appear in the Estimates again. Now, assuredly if he wanted to maintain the salary he should not have given that pledge. When he (Lord J. Russell) held the office of Colonial Secretary, he did not propose any salary to the Bishop of New Zealand; and in doing so he thought he was carrying out the arrangement made by the right hon. Baronet the Member for Droitwich. As to Bishop Selwyn not being acquainted with the salary being
1008
discontinued until after fifteen months had elapsed, that arose in consequence of a despatch sent out to the Colony not reaching the Governor until after he had left the Colony for this country. When it was discovered that Bishop Selwyn had been taken by surprise, it was proposed that, for one year, the Vote should be placed in the Estimates. That was done; but it was at the same time intimated that it could not be proposed for a longer period. The Vote had been discontinued through a pledge given to the House that it would not be proposed again; and he (Lord J. Russell) must say, that it was a much easier thing to take a Bishop off the Votes than to put him on again.
SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, the question of the good faith and honour of this country could not be got rid of by a joke of the noble Lord. The noble Lord had referred to a pledge he (Sir J. Pakington) gave when he had the honour of being Colonial Secretary. That was not the first time that he had attempted to do justice to Bishop Selwyn when reference had been made to the part he then took on the subject. He would not say that he did not make now of the words alleged, but the answer he had to make now was, that he intended to apply them with reference to the civil Government of Now Zealand. The Committee would remember that for that Colony very considerable Votes for her maintenance were granted. Those Votes underwent a gradual reduction from year to year, and in 1852, when at the head of the Colonial Department, he stated that no further grants would be made for the civil government of that Colony. In making that statement he had no intention whatever of becoming a party to withdrawing the grant made to Bishop Selwyn. He believed that that was a matter of honour and good faith with Bishop Selwyn, and that the House of Commons was bound to provide him with a salary to the extent of £600 a year so long as he lived, or other arrangements respecting him were made. He still hoped that the Government would take this matter into consideration, and not allow this scandal to remain any longer.
Motion made, and Question put—
"That a sum, not exceeding £19,428, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge of the Salaries of the Governors, Lieutenant Governors, and others, in the West Indies, and certain other Colonies to the 31st day of March, 1857."
The Committee divided:—Ayes 3, Noes 269: Majority 266.
Original Question put, and agreed to.
(5.)£24,300, Stipendiary Justices, West Indies and Mauritius.
MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, that he believed this Vote to be about as objectionable a one as there could possibly be. Still, if he divided the Committee, he supposed that he should not conciliate any more support than he had just obtained. We received no advantage from our connection with these colonies, and he objected to the people of this country being taxed for the payment of stipendiary magistrates in them. The justices of the peace, for whose salaries it was intended to provide, had been appointed nineteen or twenty years ago, when slavery in our West Indian Colonies was converted into a system of apprenticeship, and when it was necessary that the apprentices, or partially liberated slaves, should be protected against oppression upon the part of their masters. That necessity, however, now ceased to exist, and he saw no good ground, therefore, why those justices of the peace should be continued. There were seventeen of them in the island of Jamaica alone, and the aggregate amount of the salaries of those seventeen was not less than £7,650 per annum.
MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, he must explain that, at the time of the emancipation of the slaves in the British Colonies, it became indispensable to appoint stipendiary magistrates to carry out the system of apprenticeship, but that no appointments had since taken place, Government allowing the vacancies occasioned by death to remain unfilled. He hoped that explanation would satisfy his hon. Friend.
MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, he would not, after the explanation, divide the Committee. He was often taunted for not dividing upon the subject of these Votes; but the last division showed that the House of Commons was indifferent how the public money was spent.
Vote agreed to; as were also the three following Votes—
(6.) £10,230, Civil Establishments, West Coast of Africa.
(7.) £10,856, St. Helena.
(8.) £960, Heligoland.
(9.) £2,901, Falkland Islands.
MR. WARNERsaid, he wished to inquire what use those islands were to the mother country; and whether it was intended to send convicts to them?
MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, that they were very useful to this country, being places of great and increasing resort for whalers and other traders in those seas. The Government would not determine upon sending convicts there without very mature consideration.
Vote agreed to.
(10.) £14,582, Emigration.
MR. SPOONERsaid, he thought that the experience we had learned during the prosecution of the late war ought to convince us that it was not sound policy on the part of this country to stimulate emigration. The people who emigrate from our shores were, for the most part, men of energy and activity—the very men whom it was most desirable that we should, if possible, keep at home; and we should be acting much more wisely in spending money in making them comfortable in their native country, rather than in spending it in removing them to distant lands. A much sounder policy, he considered, would be to find employment for our people at home, and he trusted the Colonial Secretary would do all he could to diminish emigration.
MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, it had never been the policy of this country to stimulate emigration, but to direct and control it. The amount of emigration depended upon the circumstances of our home population; but even in the most prosperous years there was a considerable number of persons desirous of going to the colonies, and it was the duty of the Government to watch over them on their passage across the sea, and to protect them against those dangers which too frequently attended voluntary emigration. Moreover, it was the business of the Commissioners to look after the emigration of coolies to the Mauritius and to the West Indian islands; and, on the whole, he could not recommend any great or immediate reduction of the establishment.
MR. HUTCHINSsaid, he wished to know whether this sum of £14,582 was to be a permanent charge on the revenue of the country? When the Emigration Board was established it did a great deal of good; but circumstances had materially altered, and, at a time when labour was scarce, it was wrong that the emigration agents should be allowed to send our best labourers out of the country.
MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, that the amount of the Vote must, of course, vary with the amount of business which the

1011
Emigration Commissioners might have to discharge. He anticipated that there would in the course of time be a great reduction in the quantity of labour they would have to perform, and their remuneration should then be proportionately diminished. But they had still very considerable and important duties to fulfil, as might easily be inferred from the fact that 176,000 persons had emigrated from this country during the last year.
CAPTAIN SCOBELLsaid, he wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he had considered the propriety of establishing an emigration port along the line of coast between Plymouth and Liverpool? The inhabitants of Bristol had twice brought under the notice of the authorities at the Colonial Office the manifest expediency of selecting that city for such a port.
MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, that subject had not been brought under his notice. If it should come before him, he should of course give to it his best consideration.
MR. ADDERLEYsaid, that so many dreadful accidents had occurred with respect to passenger ships that no one, he believed, would object to any expense which might be necessary to carry the provisions of the Passengers' Act into effect. As it was no longer found advisable to stimulate emigration to the Australian Colonies, he thought that some reduction might well be made in the expenditure incurred for the Emigration Board in the metropolis. He understood that a large portion of the staff of that Board was occupied chiefly in managing the funds sent over to this country by the Colonial Legislatures for the purpose of procuring English emigrants; and it seemed to him that the cost of managing those funds ought to be defrayed by the colonists themselves.
MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, it would no doubt be the duty of the Government to diminish the cost of the Board in proportion as they might find its legitimate business decreased. But, at the same time, he thought there was some advantage in maintaining a uniform system of emigration control by means of public officers; and he did not consider that it would be good policy to diminish precipitately the staff of the Emigration Commissioners. There was an important duty discharged by those gentlemen in addition to those he bad already mentioned. They afforded most important assistance to the Colonial Office in revising the drafts of Colonial Bills.
MR. SPOONERsaid, that he objected not to the protection of emigrants, but to the encouragement of emigration.
SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEsaid, he thought that means ought to be found to enable the Colonial Office to discharge its own special business, and that the number of the Emigration Commissioners ought to be reduced.
MR. WARNERsaid, that there was a strong and growing feeling in this country against our sending from our shores the very flower of our population. He thought the Colonies ought to defray an expenditure which was incurred solely in the promotion of their interests.
MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, it was his opinion that the Vote might be reduced by one-half. He objected to the vague terms used in the Estimate. Mention was made of an agent and assistants. How many assistants were there? There were ten agencies at different ports in Ireland. It was necessary to incur proper expenditure for the inspection of emigrant vessels; but he was confident that much of this expenditure was unnecessary.
SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, he could not help thinking that the Vote would bear diminution. Emigration from this country, although still considerable in amount, had greatly diminished within the last few years; and, besides, a change had within the same period taken place in the nature of our relations with the Australian Colonies. Formerly the Colonial Land Fund had been divided into two portions, one of which was devoted to the encouragement of emigration from this country; but the whole of that fund was at present at the disposal of the colonists, and that portion of the emigration to which one-half of it was at one time applied was no longer conducted as before. He would readily bear testimony to the admirable manner in which the present Emigration Commissioners performed their duties, and to the valuable assistance which they afforded to the Colonial Office, as stated by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Labouchere), in revising the drafts of Colonial Bills; but he was, nevertheless, of opinion that the. Vote should for the future be reduced.
MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, he thought they had reason to anticipate for the future a diminution of the business of the Commissioners, and the Government would, of course, feel bound at the same time to diminish, as far as possible, the expenditure incurred under that head.
CAPTAIN BELLEWsaid, he hoped that, whatever reduction might be made in the expense of the central Board of the metropolis, no diminution would be effected in the number of emigrant officers employed in the smaller ports for the protection of emigrants. The services of these officers were exceedingly valuable, and very much needed.
MR. HADFIELDsaid, he thought we ought to provide, as far as possible, for the comfortable removable of emigrants to the distant lands in which they were to settle, and not allow them to quit our shores with a feeling of discontent and ill-will, which might hereafter materially militate against our own interests.
MR. MONTAGU CHAMBERSsaid, that when peace was fully restored emigration would probably revive, especially among discharged soldiers and the militia. Then, instead of there being a deficiency of labour, many hands might be thrown out of employ; and it was then most desirable to encourage the emigration of deserving persons.
Vote agreed to; as was also
(11.) £12,000, Captured Negroes.
(12.) £11,050, Mixed Commissions.
MR. BIGGSsaid, he could conceive no greater inconsistency than that involved in the conduct of this country in making such strenuous efforts for the suppression of the slave trade along the coast of Africa, and tolerating the brutal and debasing traffic in slaves at Constantinople. We had now a recognised right to interfere in the Government of Turkey, and it was our duty to exercise that right for the destruction of an iniquity which had become an abomination in the eyes of God and man. What was now most wanted in the East of Europe was the establishment of a Christian State on the ruins of the vile and degrading empire of the Turks. At present there were 50,000 slaves in Turkey, most of them Christians. They were brought from Tunis, Kurdistan, and other places, and sold in the market of Constantinople. He would not object to the Vote, but he thought it a piece of national hypocrisy to pass this Vote, and to ignore the existence of slavery in Turkey, now admitted as a sort of junior partner in the European firm. There was a slavery now going on in Europe which put to shame the worst features of West Indian slavery when it existed. Lord Stratford de Redcliffe said that this slavery was calculated to excite the indignation of all
1014
Europe against Turkey. He considered that this country was morally responsible at the present moment for the existence of this vice. Brigadier General Williams, speaking of the social state of Turkey at the latest moment, stated that the buying and selling of slaves was notorious amongst the officers of the Kars army, and that any attempt at its abolition by firmans was a mere mockery. From a careful perusal of the reports of all travellers he denied that the boasted civilisation of the Turks was more than skin deep, whatever might be said by lying French journals. Let the Greeks and the Christians be encouraged in that country, and they would soon plant another London on the Bosphorus. At present it was blasted by a people who were scarcely fit to exist, either in Europe or elsewhere. Mr. Layard had attributed all the misery of the Turks to their false faith.
THE CHAIRMANsaid, he must call the attention of the hon. Member to the fact that the Vote before the Committee was for the salaries and contingent expenses of the Mixed Commissions for the suppression of the slave trade.
MR. BIGGSsaid, that he believed he should have introduced the subject in another form, and regretted that he was not better acquainted with the rules of the House. He would, therefore, only say, in conclusion, that to be spending £20,000 for the release of nigger slaves on the coast of Africa, whilst they allowed this slave trade to be carried on at Constantinople, appeared to him to be one of the grossest cases of political hypocrisy.
Vote agreed to.
(3.) £167,498, Consular Establishments Abroad.
MR. WISEsaid, that he did not rise to object to the Vote, but for the purpose of calling the attention of the Committee to the present state of our consular establishment. It was almost impossible to overestimate or overrate the importance of an establishment so connected with the protection of trade and with the opening of new channels of industry. The duties of Ambassadors would, he hoped, comparatively cease with the prospect of peace, and those of Consuls gradually increase. This was, therefore, the time to seek amelioration and improvements; to urge the appointment of proper persons who could effectually protect our commerce, look after the interests of our shipping, and discharge with propriety the delicate functions

1015
and varied duties of a Consul. The right man was especially required in these appointments; knowledge and capacity must be considered before connection and interest, and the great interests of a great country must not be sacrificed to the little interests of little men. The Committee was aware that the noble Lord at the head of the Government had made several changes and considerable improvements in the service in 1831, and the subject had since been frequently discussed in Committees. In the year 1850 a Committee was appointed to inquire into our diplomatic and consular establishments. That tribunal investigated the first branch of their subject, and recommended that the Committee should be revived in the following Session to enter into the second—namely, our consular establishments. That Committee, however, had never been appointed, and no such inquiry had yet taken place; and he should endeavour to show why the consular system should be investigated, and an extensive revision should be made. To the British Consul were entrusted throughout the world the interests of merchants and travelers he had to protect vessels, to look after shipwrecks, to settle disputes between captains and seamen, to look after the effects of deceased Englishmen, to report upon the erection of lighthouses, the laying down of buoys, to watch all armed enterprises. In many cases he had to administer Acts of Parliament, and one of the most important functions of the Consul was to acquaint his Government with the state of trade, arts, industry, and agriculture, and with the exports and imports of the country in which he resided. Our Consuls in the Levant filled positions of a peculiar and special character, requiring on the part of those selected for them the capacity to discharge not merely consular but notarial, judicial, administrative, and even at times diplomatic duties. Extensive powers were conferred on these officers by Acts of Parliament, including a civil and criminal jurisdiction, and authority to punish by imprisonment and banishment. These Consuls ought, therefore, to be men of high principle and independent character; and, if we wished to increase our influence in the Levant by their agency, it was full time a Commission was appointed to examine carefully into that part of our consular system. It was clear that merchants actually trading ought not to hold consular offices; and that all consular fees affecting the travelling and shipping interests should
1016
be as far as possible abolished, additional salaries being awarded, where necessary, in lieu of such fluctuating emoluments. National duties should be discharged at the national expense. The man who sustained the double character of a Consul and a merchant occupied a very anomalous situation, having constantly to balance between his private interests and his obligations as a representative of the Government. He did not mean in any way to cast reflections or bring charges against our consular body in the Levant—many of its members were most honourable and efficient, and he did not think they were adequately paid or properly promoted; but, undoubtedly, there were members of the class who were wholly unfit to represent the interests of a great country like England. Among those who had most effectually served the Government in the late war were Mr. J. Brant and Mr. Calvert, to whom an especial tribute of praise was due. In support, however, of his own opinion as to the character of many of our Consuls, he hoped he would be allowed to quote a very eminent authority—the correspondent of The Times, who, on the 6th of February, 1855, wrote thus—
"The French Consuls throughout the continent of Europe are, with few exceptions, men who have already distinguished themselves in some branch of the public service, and, being in general accustomed to business, know both how and when to do what is required of them. They are almost all Frenchmen, and many of them are members of the Legion of Honour, and thus, both from their birth and antecedents, are devoted to the interests of their country. They avail themselves of the facility which their national habits afford of mixing with the society of the place where they reside, and thus have the means both of information and action at command whenever the public service may demand them. Such may he said to be the almost universal characteristics of the French Consuls. The English Consuls, on the contrary, are of several classes, and, although some are in all respects similar to the French, there are others who, being Englishmen, have received their appointments through interest, who assume an air of superiority and exclusiveness, and who do not consider it necessary to be conversant with business, but leave everything to be done by Vice-consuls or other deputies."
The next authority which he wished to adduce to the Committee was that of Lord Carlisle, who, in his Diary in the Greek Waters, stated that, as compared with foreign nations, he regretted that England, in regard to its consular proceedings, did not hold the high place she once held, and which we must all desire to see her do again. The noble author went on to observe that great responsibility attached

1017
to those who had the selection of persons for consular appointments, and expressed a hope that the time had gone by when failure and insolvency in trade would be regarded as proper qualifications for those offices. Dr. Sandwith, the author of the Siege of Kars, thus spoke of consuls in the Levant—
"While we are anxious to reform the Turks—and assuredly no people ever needed it more—our first efforts should be directed to setting them a good example in their own country, and to do this we must reform our consular system.
He (Mr. Wise) trusted that those opinions would induce the Government to take into their serious consideration the present condition of the consular service. The Vote proposed in the present Estimates for the maintenance of our consular system was £167,498; but there was a further Vote of £18,957 for superannuation allowances and compensations, which made the total amount £186,455. He did not so much object to that amount, but to the way in which it was distributed. The whole number of persons employed in the consular department was 533. There were twenty-seven Consuls-general, 119 Consuls, 228 English Vice-consuls, and 159 foreign Vice-consuls. Of these, twenty-four had salaries from £1,000 to £1,800 a year, sixty-nine from £1,000 to £500 a year; the others had salaries between £500 and £200 a year. There had been a considerable increase in the establishment since 1848 of which he did not complain, as the increase was owing to increase of trade with China and other places. The increase consisted of forty-four new Consuls and thirteen, interpreters, and the cost was £19,300. Notwithstanding this he certainly thought that some of the Consuls might be altogether dispensed with, and that new Consuls should be appointed from time to time as their services might be required at other places. While this country maintained a very large diplomatic establishment at Constantinople and in the Levant, costing about £40,000 a year, the consular establishment at Constantinople cost £2,500, and he thought the consular expenditure in that quarter of the world might be revised with great advantage. Our embassy at Madrid cost £6,000 a year, and we maintained in that city, where there was no commerce, a consul, whose duties he could not imagine, at a salary of £200 a year. Our embassy at Naples was maintained at a cost of £6,600 a year, while we have there a Consul with a salary of £500 a year. At
1018
Lisbon, also, we had a Consul and a Vice-consul, the former with a salary of £600, and the latter of £300. The Consul, he believed, slept by day and played at whist by night, and if those wore his duties no doubt he enjoyed himself. He had no complaint to make with regard to the superannuations, except that he thought the scale of allowances was excessively low, and that many of the consuls received very inadequate amounts. There was, for instance, one gentleman who had served this country as Consul in Chili for a period of eighteen years, who was sixty-one years of age, and who received a superannuation allowance of £400 a year—a pension which he (Mr. Wise) thought was very insufficient after so long a period of service. He must say, however, that he regarded many of the compensation allowances, which amounted to £9,400, as totally unnecessary. He found that Mr. Crow, who had been Consul at Tripoli, received a compensation allowance of £850 a year, and he (Mr. Wise) did not complain of the amount, but of the reason assigned for granting the compensation—namely, "abolition of office;" for in the very year when the office was nominally abolished another gentleman was appointed Consul-general, whose salary was now £800 a year; and there was, in addition, a Vice-consul with a salary of £300 a year. In 1852 the office of Consul-general at Venice was abolished, and the gentleman who had held the office with a salary of £1,200 a year, and who was only forty-three years of age, received a compensation allowance of £600 a year, but in December 1852, another Consul was appointed with a salary of £700 a year. But the worst case was that at Buenos Ayres, where a gentleman only thirty-eight years of age had been compensated with a pension of £1,000 a year on the abolition of his office; hut, notwithstanding that abolition and compensation, a new consular establishment had been created, comprising a Consul-general, with a salary of £1,600 a year, allowances £997, and a Vice-consul at £500 a year. He wished to know how it was that when an office was abolished and compensation given, another Consul was immediately appointed, with a considerable salary? He found that a gentleman who had been Consul-general at Odessa for thirty-six years, and who was sixty-three years of age, received a pension of £500 a year, and he thought that was the only case to be

1019
found in the list of compensation allowances in which the pension was justifiable. The regulations with regard to compensation allowances pressed with great hardship upon Consuls. There was no deduction whatever made for superannuations from the salaries of ambassadors, who possessed large incomes, but five per cent was deducted from the salaries of Consuls. If, therefore, a Consul served his country for twenty-five years at a salary of £500 a year, £625 was taken from him in the shape of deductions, and lie then received an annual allowance of £250. He thought that, if they gave these paltry allowances to men who were exiled from their country for twenty-five years, they could not expect to get properly qualified persons to serve the country in such positions. Great complaints were made of the manner in which the patronage connected with consular appointments were made. In a work which had been published by an attaché to an embassy, the writer stated that he could recall several cases of Consuls in the Levant who had been bankrupt traders; that without attaching any ungenerous imputation to men who might at some time have been in such a position, he thought that persons who had not been able to conduct their own business satisfactorily ought not to be entrusted with the management of public affairs; and that the persons who ought to receive consular appointments were plain sensible men, who had been brought up to business, and not individuals who had failed in all their other occupations. He (Mr. Wise) must confess that, with regard to the question of patronage, he had great faith in the regulations recently issued by Lord Clarendon respecting consular appointments. He should be anxious to discover whether the new Consuls at Warsaw, Odessa, and St. Petersburg would be required to be able to speak German, Italian, or French fluently, to possess a competent knowledge of international and commercial law; and, in short, to come up to the requirements of the examination paper recently published. A better mode could not be adopted to secure the proper disposal of the patronage of the Foreign Office; but meanwhile he could not help saying that, if hon. Members were anxious to ascertain who they were that got the nice appointments of £1,800, £1,600, and £1,200 a year, and who were put in the inferior places of £500, £300, and £200, they had nothing to do but to look at the
1020
list of Consuls, and the required information would speedily develope itself. He would also suggest to the Government the expediency of adopting one feature of the French system, and attaching to all the large consulates a number of Consul pupils, thus securing a succession of young men conversant with duties that ought to be discharged by the Consuls. The Government had already carried out that principle to a certain extent by sending out young men as attachés to the Consuls in China; and he was satisfied that great good would result from having a number of pupil-Consuls connected with the consulates at Bordeaux, Marseilles, Hamburg, Leghorn, New York, Odessa, and Smyrna, who would in a few years be found qualified for Vice-consulships, and might in time be promoted to consulships. He hoped, however, that they would not be treated in the same way as those who had been induced to enter the diplomatic service—young men who had been tempted to quit high positions at the Universities and to learn foreign languages, and then compelled to pass a number of years at Constantinople, for example, when they ought to have been promoted. In the French system merit was rewarded. Out of the 115 French Consuls no fewer than ninety-four wore the decoration of the Legion of Honour—a proof of the estimation in which they were held in their own country. There were three remaining points upon which he wished for information. From what he had himself seen and heard in the Mediterranean and south of Europe generally, he believed that the system of fees was universally condemned as extremely injudicious and undignified. What could be more absurd than for the paltry sum of £31,739, which was the amount of the fees last year, to make our commercial representatives taxgatherers instead of what they ought to be—the protectors of our rights and interests? The great bulk of the fees were collected at a few ports, among which Constantinople, San Francisco, New York, and Alexandria were the most conspicuous; the fees at Constantinople being last year £2,680; at Callao, £1,514; at San Francisco, £1,200. At Boston, New York, Alexandria, Smyrna, Leghorn, Hamburg, the fees varied from £1,000 to £400 a year. At Paris they were £506, at Boulogne, £536, and at Marseilles, £435. It appeared singular that where the salaries were large, the amount of business appeared

1021
remarkably small and vice versâ. At Leipsic the salary was £750, and the fees £18. At Stockholm, the salary £500 and the fees £9. At Bogota the salary was £2,000 and the fees £8. At Boston, on the other hand, the salary was £200 and the fees £1,600. At New York the salary was £500 and the fees £870. At the Dardanelles the salary was £300 and the fees £450. It had been stated that fees represented the amount of business done, and that the greater the sum taken for notarial fees, the more necessary was the Consul. He was therefore desirous to ascertain what were the duties of Consuls in places where no fees were levied. Upon the subject of fees he ventured to quote the opinion of an attaché to one of our embassies, who thought that these fees ought to be abolished. That nine times out of ten the Consul himself did not deign to touch his fees, but banded them over to somebody who very often touched too much; that they afforded a premium to delays and vexation in civil suits brought before Consuls, and they often occasioned serious altercation with sea captains, who were disposed to pay less and to charge their employers more than they should, and that by permitting fees, we were lending our authority to the system of passport exaction, which we have not scrupled to condemn elsewhere. He (Mr. Wise) thought that no inconvenience, but the reverse, could arise from the abolition of fees, which might, he apprehended, be done by an Order in Council. He also objected to the employment of foreigners, of whom there were at present no fewer than 159 acting as Vice-consuls. At Hamburg there was one with £300 a year; at Bremen another with £150, and at Scutari a third, with £130. They might be good, worthy men, able, and, he hoped, honest, but still they could not have the interest of this country at heart as much as Englishmen; and, if pupil-Consuls were attached to our larger consulates, and from time to time promoted to the Vice-consulships, there would be no necessity to employ foreigners, and a great improvement would be made upon the present system. It was likewise of the highest importance—and that was the last point upon which he would touch—that our Consuls should not be in business. If a consul-merchant failed, discredit was brought upon England, and his official position was compromised. One instance was known in which information was given
1022
to a French Consul because he did not trade, and withheld from the English Consul in the same place because he was engaged in business. The reason was, that it was supposed he desired intelligence for the advancement of his own private interests. Part of the duty of a Consul was to witness documents. If a merchant in the same city wanted to raise money on his ships or goods, would he not think it hard to be obliged to expose his private affairs to the Consul, a merchant engaged in the same trade? During the present war the letter-bags had been sent to the Consuls, who had thus the power of keeping back the correspondence of their rivals in business, and of acquiring early and exclusive information, such as might enable them to buy or sell to advantage. Consul-merchants, in short, had every temptation to advance their own private interests at the expense of their brother traders and of their consular duty. He had received a large number of letters from all parts of the Continent upon the subject; but he would not trouble the Committee with more than one case. A vessel, the Mermaid, arrived at Pernambuco with a cargo of golddust and bullion to the value of upwards of £400,000. The captain wanted fresh vegetables and meat, nothing more. But the Consul sent a surveyor on board, and the ship was declared unseaworthy. Captain Davie denied it, and the passengers, who were anxious to get home, supported him. The Consul told the captain to put to sea at his peril, threatening that, if he did so, he would have his name struck off the list of officers qualified to servo in the marine. But as the effect of staying at Pernambuco would have been that the owners would have been compelled to pay to the Consul a per centage upon the entire value of the cargo, which percentage would have amounted to the sum of £10,000, Captain Davie continued his voyage. The Consul sent a statement of the case to the Board of Trade, and when the Mermaid arrived at Liverpool a thorough investigation took place into all the circumstances of the case, the result of which was that Captain Davie was told by the Government officers he did quite right in leaving Pernambuco; the conduct of the Consul being thus virtually condemned. The continuance of such a system as that must be highly detrimental to the public interest, He would not trouble the Committee any further, but he trusted that Her Majesty's Government would give

1023
their attention to the points to which he had referred; first, that traders should not be appointed; secondly, that the system of fees should be abolished; and thirdly, that the patronage of the Crown should be exercised in such a way as to secure the appointment of persons who would comprehend the interests of trade, commerce, and shipping, and discharge the consular functions with credit and honour to themselves and with benefit to the British Nation.
MR. KINNAIRDsaid, he thought that the facts which had been brought forward by his hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Wise) required the attention of the Government. It was notorious, when the war broke out, how meagre was the information which we possessed with respect to the resources of the Russian empire; but he believed that if we had had as Consuls on the coast of the Black Sea men who had been trained in habits of diplomacy, we should have obtained from them most valuable information. He had heard that it was the intention of the Government to appoint a Commission to consider the whole matter, and he hoped that the rumour was correct.
MR. LINDSAYsaid, it was not his intention to oppose the Vote, he merely rose to express his thanks to the hon. Member for Stafford for his very clear and able speech, which he thought had made a complete case for a Committee or Commission. A movement was now taking place in the foreign trade of this country similar to that which took place in the inland trade some twenty-five years ago. The lines of ocean steamers were producing a development in the foreign trade equal to that produced by railways in the home trade. It was therefore of the utmost importance that the country should have an efficient system of representation abroad. It was the duty of the Consuls to make Reports on the trade and resources of the countries in which they were stationed, and if that duty was efficiently performed the Reports would be most valuable to commercial men, and far more interesting than the greater number of the Blue-books. Upon the whole, though some Consuls might be too highly remunerated, he thought the consular body ill-paid. It was of great importance to have the best men, and he hoped a Committee or a Commission would be appointed to inquire into the subject.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, he quite agreed with his hon. Friend the Member
1024
for Stafford as to the important and multifarious nature of the duties which Consuls had to perform. His hon. Friend had in a very detailed manner explained the different points to which their attention was directed, and the hon. Gentleman who had spoken last had adverted more particularly to that portion of their duties which consisted in making periodical reports of the resources, statistics, trade, and other matters connected with the countries where they were stationed. It having been his (Lord Palmerston's) duty for many years to see those Reports, he had the satisfaction of thinking that they were generally very ably drawn up, and that they contained a great deal of important and useful information. These Reports were invariably sent to the Board of Trade. They were not laid before the House, because they were rather voluminous; but they were accessible to anybody who wished for information on the matters in question, and they showed that the consuls did inform themselves of matters connected with the trade and resources of the country where they were stationed. His hon. Friend (Mr. Wise) objected to the system of fees, but he was of opinion that his hon. Friend entirely mistook the nature of those fees. Originally, Consuls were paid by fees on shipping, but in 1826 or 1827, a measure was passed, placing those fees on a different footing, and giving salaries instead. The fees were now only levied for the purpose of enabling the Consuls to pay the expenses of their office clerks, &c. It was but in comparatively few cases that any fees went to the Consuls merely as emoluments to them. His hon. Friend also seemed to think that improper selections had been made in the appointment of Consuls. He (Lord Palmerston) could only assure the Committee that it had been his anxious endeavour to appoint fitting persons. The duties of Consuls, though very important, and involving a great number of details, did not require any particular previous education or avocation. A man of good sense was able, with very little application, to discharge the various functions which a Consul had to perform. What had passed that evening afforded a just illustration of the change of opinion which took place from time to time in that House. For many years he had been urged to appoint commercial men as Consuls: but in order to do that, it was necessary either to appoint an unsuccessful commercial man, or a commercial man

1025
who, having an establishment of his own to maintain, would, for a moderate sum, perform also the duties of a Consul. For his own part he was rather inclined to agree with the opinion that, although no doubt on economical grounds the appointment of merchant Consuls was advantageous, still that on the whole it would be desirable not to appoint merchants to that office. It was plain that when there were national political functions to be exercised a merchant was not a fit representative of the Government, because he was from his private circumstances more or less liable to be visited with the displeasure of the Government in the territory of which he was residing, and was not, therefore, so free an agent as a person would be who was not engaged in mercantile pursuits. Then, again, there was the objection that persons engaged in the same career might entertain the suspicion that the Consul made use of his official knowledge and influence for his own benefit, and he therefore thought that, as a general rule, it was not expedient to employ the services of merchant Consuls. At the same time the Committee must bear in mind that, if the principle were established that the services of merchant Consuls should not be employed, they must he prepared to give increased salaries. He felt bound to say, in justice to the merchant Consuls, that during the time that he was at the Foreign Office he never had any reason to believe that any merchant Consul had abused the influence and authority which his position gave him, or had evinced less zeal in maintaining the rights of his countrymen than those Consuls not engaged in commerce. With regard to Vice-consuls the hon. Gentleman had observed that there were a great number of foreigners occupying that position, and he appeared to consider it undesirable that such should be the case. Now the rule had been that in any port where there was a British subject who, in the opinion of the Consul, was adapted for the position, the office, the salary of which varied from £100 to £150 a year, should be conferred upon him; but in cases were there was no such British subject it became the duty of the Government to consider whether it would be desirable to find a British subject who would leave England and go to live abroad on so small a salary, or to employ the services of some respectable foreigner resident in that port. Now, the Committee would see that a salary of from £100 to £150 was not a sufficient inducement
1026
to command the services of men whom it was desirable to make Vice-consuls. Then, again, in some ports, as for instance in many of those in the Levant, the Vice-consuls received no salary at all, and the only inducements to them to perform the duty were the privileges and immunities and a certain amount of dignity which was attached to the position; but could the Committee expect any respectable man to leave this country and live abroad upon those terms? It had been stated that the Consuls were not properly distributed, and the Consul at Madrid had been brought forward by the hon. Member for Stafford as an instance. Now the Consul at Madrid was, in point of fact, only a consular clerk, with a salary of £200 a year, and he only received the title of Consul in order to qualify him for the exercise of certain functions which the Act of Parliament required should be performed by a Consul. Then, again, as regarded Naples and Lisbon, those were places where there was a great amount of British commerce carried on, and under those circumstances it was especially desirable that there should be Consuls resident at those places. It had been stated that it would be desirable to revise the whole of our consular establishment, and his noble Friend (Lord Clarendon) had laid the foundation for such a revision, for he had established a system of examination for appointments to the consular office, a system which, would, he believed, should it come fairly into operation, beyond dispute secure for the public the appointment of persons fully competent to discharge the duties of the office. His noble Friend had also sent a circular to the various Consuls, and more especially to those in the Levant requiring them to answer a certain number of questions bearing upon the subject, with the view, when the answers were received and thereby sufficient information collected—information which would be essential to assist the labours of a Committee—of authorising him (Lord Palmerston) during the next Session of Parliament to agree to the appointment of a Committee to inquire into the whole subject. He thought that it would be desirable to wait for the arrival of that information rather than to appoint a Committee immediately, and he had no doubt that the necessary information would be collected before Parliament met next year. With regard to the observation that the Consuls ought to have furnished the country with information as to the resources

1027
of Russia, he could only say that there were British Consuls at Taganrog and Odessa, and they had given the Government very valuable information. British Consuls could not be spies, and, as the Russian Government before the war did not allow any Consuls in the Crimea, and as Consuls could only report upon what came before them in an open and legitimate manner, the Government did not derive from their Consuls much information as to the resources of Russia in the Crimea. As to the subject of retiring pensions to Consuls, he could only say that yielding to the desire of the House he had some time ago diminished the number of Consuls-general, but as those gentlemen could not be deprived of their office without compensation, a retiring pension had been allowed them, and, although at first the cost to the public would not be diminished, still it was a step towards economy and retrenchment.
MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, he was glad to hear that it was intended to appoint a Committee. The salaries of those officers were certainly small in some cases, but he thought that in general they were quite large enough for the duties. He could not make out in some instances what those duties were. There was a Consul at Paris with a salary of £100 and £506 fees. What could he be wanted for, when there were an Ambassador, a Secretary, and two paid attachés? The number and salaries of these officers in the East was something prodigious. He found that in Turkey there were forty-two Consuls, who received amongst them in salaries the sum of £15,635, and in fees, £5,735, making together, £21,370; and these Consuls were in addition to those employed in Egypt and at Tripoli, and Tunis, who received about £13,000. In the United States there were only thirteen Consuls, receiving £5,000 a year, and to that country the great mass of their exports were sent. At Constantinople he found they had a Consul-general at £1,500 a year, a Vice-consul at £400, and another Vice-consul at £300, besides having another Consul at Scutari. He had also to complain that in Spain there were two new appointments of Consuls at salaries of £400 a year, there was likewise a Consul at Warsaw at a salary of £1,000 a year.
MR. WILSON: That is not a new appointment, it was only supended during the war.
MR. W. WILLIAMS: He, however,
1028
thought the salary too high, nor could he see the object of having Consuls at inland towns like Cologne and Leipsic. As it was intended to appoint a Committee he would not detain hon. Members with the observations he had intended to make.
MR. BELLEWsaid, he wished to ask the noble Lord whether the Government was aware that an expedition was either despatched, or about to be despatched, by the French Government to the island of Madagascar; and, if so, whether the noble Lord knew under what circumstances that expedition was about to be sent forth?
VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, he knew that there were some rumours that it was the intention of the French Government to send an expedition to Madagascar; but there was no intention either on the part of England, or, he believed, on the part of the French Government, to interfere in any way with the internal affairs of the Queen and people of Madagascar.
MR. WISEsaid, he begged to thank the noble Lord for the statement which he had made respecting our consular establishments, which he was sure would be extremely satisfactory to the shipping and commercial interests of the country.
Vote agreed to.
£25,000 Embassies and Missions abroad.
MR. BOWYERsaid, there was one column in this Vote to which he wished to call the attention of the Committee. It was that which related to interpreters, attachés, and clerks. He did not know whether the whole amount of the salaries was included in the sums stated in that column. He rather thought not; but he took the case as it stood on the paper, and he found that for the attachés, interpreters, and clerks in France the sum was £58 7s.; for Austria no sum was charged; while for Turkey the amount paid on account of those services was not less than £3,080 11 s. 1d. He was convinced that gratuitous service was a mistake. The mode of insuring good service was by paying your servants well. In that respect the attachés connected with the various diplomatic missions deserved the attention of the Government. The attachés ought to be well paid, and care ought to be taken that they should be young men who were by their knowledge of public and international law well qualified to discharge the duties of their offices. It frequently happened that Ministers or Ambassadors

1029
were men who were taken from that or the other House of Parliament, and were not thoroughly versed in international law. To such persons it was most important that their attachés, should be acquainted with the treaties on which the public law of Europe was founded, and with the textbooks which treated of international law, and therefore able to furnish them with authorities on any subject at a moment's notice. He had often heard that in these respects English Ministers and Ambassadors did not receive from their attachés, that assistance which was rendered to the Ministers of other Powers by their subordinates. Considering how much underpaid our attachés, were, he could not blame them for this. It might be said that these young men looked for promotion; but the effect of this was diminished by the fact that promotion generally depended upon interest with the Minister, and that vacant posts were sometimes filled by men who had no previous experience of diplomacy. Instead of depending upon their hopes of promotion, we ought to give these young men such salaries as would enable them to live in accordance with their position without embarrassing themselves, and to require them in return to do their duty fully. At Paris there was a chaplain who was paid £300 per annum. He did not object to this Vote in a sectarian spirit, but he thought that, as there were so many English residents at Paris, they might support a chaplain by their voluntary contributions. In conclusion, he begged to disclaim any intention of contending that no man ought to be appointed to be an Ambassador or foreign Minister who had not gone through a certain training in public and international law. It was sometimes of advantage to appoint to high diplomatic posts Members of that or the other House of Parliament who had not gone through such training. But they ought to be assisted by an efficient staff.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, that the Vote now under consideration was not for the ordinary payment of the attachés, but for the extra expenses of the diplomatic establishments. The salaries and retiring allowances of persons connected with those establishments were defrayed out of a sum of £1,860,000 charged upon the Consolidated Fund. The attachés mentioned, as serving in Turkey were, he apprehended, some who had been sent out to serve in the capacity of interpreters rather than of attachés. When he was Foreign Minister he thought that it would
1030
be very desirable to create a set of British interpreters, who should supersede the dragomans hitherto employed, who were not properly British subjects. He consequently applied to the Vice-Chancellors of the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge, each of whom recommended to him a young man, selected as being most fit for the office, who was sent out to Constantinople to learn Turkish, and then to act as an interpreter. Since that time one or two gentlemen had been added, and he apprehended that those who were referred to in this Vote were serving in that capacity. There was something in what the hon. and learned Gentleman had said as to the inexpediency of the system of unpaid attachés. It was also true that in the diplomatic service promotion was slow, but this arose from the very nature of the service. He could not, however, concur with his hon. and learned Friend in thinking that a Minister ought to be dependent upon his attachés for the knowledge of public law and historical facts, necessary to enable him to perform his duties; because we must assume that the Minister had risen to the post he occupied through the lower grades, and therefore, if he was not better informed than his subordinates, he would not be well fitted for his office. He considered that the Minister ought to instruct the attachés, and not the attachés the Minister.
MR. BOWYERsaid, that in nine cases out of ten, persons were appointed as Ministers who had not passed through the subordinate grades of the diplomatic service; and to such persons it would be of great advantage to have as attachés young men who could at a moment's notice furnish them with any references or facts which they might require.
MR. W. EWARTsaid, he would remind the hon. and learned Member that by a recent arrangement all attachés for the, future, before their appointment, would be, obliged to go through an examination in history, languages, and, to a certain extent, in international law.
MR. WISEsaid, he regretted that the salaries of the Ambassadors were still paid out of the Consolidated Fund instead of coming before the House in the Estimates. He wished for an explanation of an item of £1,463 put down as lost by Ambassadors by exchange.
MR. WILSONsaid, that Ambassadors had often very large disbursements to make on behalf of the Government, and in

1031
drawing Bills upon this country it not urfrequently happened that the exchange was against the place where the Bills were drawn. It was obviously unfair, however, that the loss should fall on the Ambassadors, who were merely reimbursing themselves for payments they had made. Up to the present year, although losses were allowed for, it had not been usual to account for any gains which might be made in these exchanges; but for the future the practice would be to credit all such gains in favour of the Government.
MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, he did not see why we should have Ministers at six of the petty courts of Germany. He might pass over Hanover on account of the relationship existing between the King and Her Majesty; but that excuse did not apply to Wurtemberg. He believed that our first connection with that kingdom was when a princess of England married the Elector, as he was then called; but since her death there had been no Minister of that State at this Court.
MR. J. G. PHILLIMOREsaid, he would remind the hon. Gentleman that the ruler of Wurtemberg had never been called an Elector, but that his former title was Duke of Wurtemberg.
MR. OTWAYsaid, he should be glad of some explanation of the item £2 14 s. 4d. in the expenses of the mission at Berlin for fêtes and illumination. Did that sum represent in itself a fete and an illumination? In reference to the subject of paid attachés which had just been discussed, he would suggest that it would be for the public service if an interchange were occasionally made between the attachés at Foreign missions and the clerks in the Foreign Office; if, for instance, a clerk in the Foreign Office were sent to Spain or Naples, or any other foreign mission, for a year or two, and, vice versâ, an attaché be brought home and placed for a time in the Foreign Office.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, the practice of attaching clerks in the Foreign Office to foreign missions for short periods was not unusual, and there was no doubt that when it could be done, without inconvenience or interruption to the business of the Foreign Office, it would be very beneficial. With regard to the question raised by the hon. Member for Lambeth (Mr. W. Williams), if it was an error to send representatives to foreign countries it was one which was shared by the world at large; and if it was an error to send representatives
1032
to those small German States to which the hon. Member had objected, the greater number of the European Governments were involved in it. Those German States had, more particularly of late, been of considerable importance, because they formed the elements of the Great German body, and the policy of that body had been matter of great importance, especially during the last two years. Every one who had at all attended to the course of things was aware, that a great deal of our interests connected with the war which had recently taken place was dependent on the action of those separate States, composing part of the great German body, and the conduct of the great States, such as Austria and Prussia, had turned very much on the feelings and policy of the smaller component bodies. The public interest would very essentially suffer if a communication between this country and those different States were not organised.
MR. W. EWARTsaid, he trusted that the observations of the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Otway) would not be lost sight of, for it was important to keep up such a system of connection as had been adverted to between the Foreign Office and the missions abroad.
Vote agreed to.
(15.) £146,537 Superannuation Allowances.
MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, he observed some items of an astonishing character in the Vote. One person had been receiving a pension for sixty-five years, and there were numerous instances of persons who had retired from infirmity of body. One gentleman (Sir Alexander Spearman) had retired from the Assistant Secretary ship of the Treasury at the age of forty-six years, and, as that gentleman now filled the office of Secretary and Controller General in the National Debt Office, he wished to know what salary Sir Alexander Spearman received in addition to the £1,000 pension.
MR. WILSONsaid, that by a rule of the service, if an officer retired on a pension and was afterwards able to return to the public service, taking an office the salary of which was not equal to the emoluments of his former office, he was entitled to retain such portion of the retiring pension as would, together with the new salary, make up the amount of the salary which he had relinquished. That was the case of Sir Alexander Spearman, who was formerly Assistant Secretary to the Treasury, when the salary of that office at its maximum

1033
was £2,500 a year. He retired on a allowance of £1,300 a year, but now held the office of Comptroller of the National Debt, the salary of which being £1,500 a year, he retained £1,000 a year of the retiring pension.
MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, that in page 34, four persons were mentioned who had been in the Office of the Metropolitan Buildings, and who received among them £2,000, as retiring pensions. He wished to know why those persons had not been found employment in the new Metropolitan Central Board of Works?
MR. WILSONsaid, that it had been found impossible, after making every effort, to find employment for those four persons, and, therefore, they were entitled to superannuation allowances. The retiring pensions allowed to the four officers of the late Metropolitan Commission of Sewers had been provided for by the Metropolis Local Management Act.
SIR FRANCIS BARINGobserved, that an officer who had retired after nine years' service in office with a salary of £500 received £333 retiring allowance. According to the old Superannuation Act, twenty years' service would have been required of him before he received half of his salary on retirement. He, therefore, wished for some explanation on the subject.
MR. WILSONsaid, that the scale referred to by the right, hon. Gentleman applied only to gentlemen who retired from office from ill health or incapacity to continue to perform the duties. In the case of the abolition of an office, it was the practice to give two thirds of the salary for retirement.
SIR FRANCIS BARINGsaid, one of the Committees recommended that all officers who retired in consequence of the abolition of their offices should receive the same amount of pension as if they had been superannuated. He wished to know whether the Treasury Minute granting those superannuation allowances could be produced?
MR. WILSONsaid, there was no objection to the production of the correspondence in the subject between the Board of Works and the Treasury.
LORD NAASsaid, the office of Counsel to the Irish Office in London having been abolished, he wished for an explanation of he charge of £500 a year, the salary of gentleman for drawing up Government Bills? Another £500 a year was charged
1034
for the retiring allowance of Mr. Batty, who formerly held the office which had been, abolished, and the duty of which was the drawing up of Bills.
COLONEL DUNNEsaid, since the abolition of that office, not an intelligible Irish Bill had been been presented to the House. There were several cases of the same kind, especially in the Paymaster's Office and the Audit Office. The Administrative Reform movement of the Government appeared to consist in pensioning off all the able men and replacing them by men who knew nothing about their business. Why, some of those gentlemen were almost ashamed to receive their pensions; he knew many of them who would prefer to perform some duties for them. He wished for some explanation with respect to the retiring allowance of Mr. Mulvaney of the Board of Works, who had been removed from his position in consequence of charges brought against him by Irish Members.
MR. WILSONsaid, the office of counsel to the Irish Office had been abolished by the Government, of which the noble Lord (Lord Naas) was a Member, and at his suggestion. It was afterwards found desirable to re-establish it.
MR. WHITESIDEsaid, it was quite true that the office was abolished by the Earl of Derby's Government among other reductions which had taken place. But the objection was, that having superannuated the Gentleman who filled the office, the present Government, upon reestablishing it, had appointed a person to do the very work which he was fully competent to perform.
MR. HORSMANsaid, the abolition of Mr. Batty's office and the pensioning of that gentleman was one of the improvements effected by the noble Lord opposite (Lord Naas). It was the opinion of those who were competent to form an opinion on the matter, that those improvements were extremely ill-advised, that they were bad in theory and worse in practice. But, he office of Bill-drawer having been aboished, each Department last Session drew its own Bills, and there was no security or their being well drawn. Greater expense also was incurred; for, whereas Mr. Batty's salary was £1,000 a year, the charge for drawing even those Bills on the subject of tenants' compensation, from which the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Whiteside) and his colleagues had derived so much distinction, was no

1035
less than £500. Finding that the system of the noble Lord (Lord Naas) was expensive and inconvenient, he had obtained the services of one of the best Bill-drawers in London, a gentleman who had been brought up under Mr. Batty, and who, for the salary of £500, had undertaken to give the whole of his time to the Irish Office, and to go to Dublin and to attend on Parliament whenever he was required.
MR. NAPIERsaid, he was confirmed by this discussion, in his opinion of the necessity for a department of public justice. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Ireland had spoken rather sarcastically about the Landlord and Tenant Bills, but he was willing enough to take them up. [Mr. HORSMAN.—Never!] Those measures proposed to change and consolidate the entire statute law of landlord and tenant, as well as the law affecting leasing powers; and the best comment upon those two Bills was, that they were received with perfect approbation by both Houses of Parliament. He ventured to say that the gentleman who drew those Bills was very much underpaid; for himself, he received nothing but the usual official allowance of the Attorney General. He was astonished when he saw a Bill now before the House for amending the Common Law Procedure Act. He could not imagine who had drawn it, for it copied an English Act so slavishly that it omitted a marginal note that was wanting in that Act, and re-enacted clauses that had already been enacted in the Bill of an hon. Friend of his. He was sure it was impossible that the Attorney General for Ireland could have had any hand in preparing that Bill. Instead of giving a man a fixed salary, whether there was much work or little, he thought the best plan was to go to the best man, to put him in connection with the department requiring the Bill, and to pay him liberally for his work. If there existed a separate department for preparing Bills, all the measures prepared for England and Ireland might be deliberately drawn up and properly paid for. He trusted he should have the support of the House in putting an end to a system which was accompanied either by actual jobbing or certainly suspicion of jobbing.
MR. HORSMANsaid, it seemed that hon. Gentlemen opposite had changed their ground. At first they had objected to this arrangement on the score of economy.
1036
He had shown that the payment was less than under the former system, and now that objection was given up, and it was said that the gentleman employed was not a competent person. The gentleman engaged had had a great deal to do with drawing Bills, and was well known to Members of Parliament for his experience and efficiency.
Mr. DISRAELIsaid, that having been responsible for the inquiry into the Irish Office he could not admit that the right hon. Gentleman had proved the inefficacy of the arrangements made by the Government of which he was a Member. The right hon. Gentleman said, "Here is a case in which a Gentleman received £1,000 a year for performing a particular office, and you, on a plea that his duties could be performed more efficiently and economically, terminated his engagement. An officer has now been found to perform the same duties for half the money." But that appeared to him to be a justification and vindication of the policy which the Government of Lord Derby had recommended. If for half the salary the duty was as efficiently performed, that proved the wisdom of the recommendations of the Committee at the head of which was his noble Friend the Member for Buckingham (the Marquess of Chandos).
MR. HORSMAN: If the right hon. Gentleman had reduced the salary from £1,000 to £500 the arrangement would have been an economical one. But he abolished the office, and superannuated the holder of it, and the present Government have re-instated the office at half the salary.
LORD NAASsaid, it was found that the clerks of the Irish Office were receiving fixed salaries with very little hope of promotion, and it was thought desirable to put them upon the same system that prevailed in this country. That system was accordingly introduced into the Irish Office, and three classes of clerks were established with progressive salaries. The departments thus got rid of old men who did nothing and received large salaries, and an inducement was given to the younger clerks in the Irish Office to exert themselves. Mr. Batty was receiving £1,000 a year as counsel to the Irish Office. It occurred to the Government that the work of drawing Bills was not worth so high a salary, and that it might be performed for a less sum. They accordingly recommended that the usual annual

1037
Irish Bills should be drawn by the law officers of the Crown; but that if important Bills like the Landlord and Tenant Bills were required, gentlemen of the highest legal acquirements should be consulted, who were conversant with the particular subject to which their attention was directed. They were told that this would be found a saving of expense and an advantage to the public service, but by the arrangement at present in force one gentleman received a salary of £500 and another a superannuation allowance of the same amount.
MR. DRUMMONDsaid, he wished to call the attention of the Committee to a superannuation allowance for an architect to the Committee of Privy Council on Education. He supposed an architect would be paid in the ordinary way, and he should like to hear why he was to receive a retiring allowance of £130, having previously received a salary of £200.
MR. WILSONsaid, that Mr. Westmacott was employed as architect at a fixed salary, to which he was entitled as long as he held his office. The policy had been of late to employ public officers at a fixed salary instead of fees. Mr. Westmacott was employed as architect to the Committee of Privy Council on Education, at a salary of £200, and at sixty years of age he retired with a pension of £130.
SIR FRANCIS BARINGsaid, that Mr. Westmacott was not entitled, after service of only twelve years and a half to so large an allowance as had been granted.
MR. J. G. PHILLIMOREsaid, he did not see what the Committee of Privy Council on Education wanted with an architect any more than a chaplain or a physician.
MR. MOWBRAYsaid, he wished to know whether Mr. Westmacott was the architect under whose superintendence £70,000 were expended on Kneller Hall?
MR. WILSONsaid, whatever blunder the Government might have committed in undertaking the establishment at Kneller Hall, it was not the fault of the architect.
MR. BLACKBURNsaid, the point was, that, if the architect received a commission on that expenditure, he was not entitled to a retiring allowance. There was a sum of £3,237 10 s. for retiring allowances to officers under the Irish Poor Law Board. Their services could not have been very long, but no information was given in the Estimates either of their ages or services.
MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, he would
1038
move to reduce the Vote by £2,000—retiring allowances of the three Referees and the Registrar of Metropolitan Buildings.
SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, he would suggest that the allowances should be gone through regularly, and not taken out of their order. No answer had been given to the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Portsmouth (Sir F. Baring). The resignation of office by Mr. Westmacott was no ground for a retiring allowance; age and infirmity of course might give him a claim.
MR. WILSONsaid, by the Superannuation Act, any public officer was entitled to retire at the age of sixty-five and to have a pension according to merits. This was the third year the allowance had been voted to Mr. Westmacott. It was impossible to remember the circumstances, but it was quite clear that at the age of sixty-five he was entitled to a retiring allowance.
MR. BLACKBURNsaid, he must repeat his observation on the £3,237 10 s. for retiring allowances to officers under the Irish Poor Law Board.
VISCOUNT MONCKsaid, he must beg to explain, with reference to the retired officers of metropolitan buildings, that the Act abolishing those offices contained a clause giving compensation. The special circumstances of the three referees and registrar, the officers in question, had been considered. They were all professional gentlemen, who had been taken from their private practice to fill appointments of trust. After many years' service the offices had been abolished, and they had been sent back to their professions with little chance of regaining their private practice. Those circumstances he thought were a sufficient justification for the amount of retiring allowance.
MR. MOWBRAYsaid, he must call attention to the fact, that the appeal of the hon. Member for Stirlingshire (Mr. Blackburn), though twice made, still remained unanswered. If the Government offered no explanation, he should move the reduction of the Vote by £3,237 10 s.
MR. WILSONsaid, it was impossible to answer so many questions at the same time. The whole details of the transaction had formed the subject of two hours' discussion in a previous Session. All the offices held by those ten gentlemen under the Poor Law Board had been abolished, and a great saving thereby effected.
MR. GROGANsaid, those gentlemen

1039
were perfectly competent to fill existing offices, to which other gentlemen had been appointed.
MR. WILSONsaid, he must deny that such was the fact. No new officers had been appointed to the Poor Law Board in Ireland.
MR. HORSMANsaid, that whenever vacancies occurred, the Government always gave the preference to candidates who had been previously superseded on grounds of economy.
SIR FRANCIS BARINGsaid, that the subject of these superannuation allowances, having been discussed at some length last year, ought not, in fairness perhaps, to be again revived; but the amounts had certainly been fixed much above the standard prescribed by the Treasury Minute or by the Superannuation Act.
MR. SPOONERsaid, he would beg to ask whether the offices of the three official referees included in the Vote still existed?
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, they did not. These officers were pensioned under the Metropolitan Buildings Act, and were not subject to the control of the Treasury.
MR. HILDYARDsaid, the answer that had been given might suffice to exculpate the Government, but did not exonerate the House. It was now the rage to abolish everything, to vote handsome compensation to all the persons concerned, and then call into existence a substitute for the institution swept away, which, in turn, was soon found to work little better than its predecessor. They omitted, however, to provide that the paid officers under the old system should be continued under the new. They might well take a lesson in this respect from æsop's fable of the "Fox and the Flies." Reynard, while swimming across a river, was caught in the weeds and there surrounded by a swarm of flies, who began to suck his blood. A swallow coming near wished to drive away the flies, but Reynard forbade this, shrewdly observing that the swarm which then had possession of him were nearly satiated, but if they were driven away they would be sure to be succeeded by a fresh army as voracious as the first, which would drain his body of every remaining drop of the vital fluid.
CAPTAIN SCOBELLsaid, he wished to remark that there were about 300 "flies" included in the list before the Committee—in other words, there were 300 claimants for retiring pensions, many of whom
1040
were neither aged no disabled; he should like to know why they were not reabsorbed into the public service, and made to work for their pay?
MR. BOWYERsaid, he would suggest that next year the Vote for superannuation allowances, which extended over thirty-three pages of the Estimate, should be broken up into a number of distinct Votes. That would be a great convenience to the Committee, and would also facilitate the task of the Government in affording explanations. The greatest confusion was produced by the present complex form of the Vote, which, moreover, was calculated to render the revision of the Estimates by that House nothing better than an idle farce.
MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, that after the explanations which had been given, he would not press his Amendment.
Amendment withdrawn.
Vote agreed to.
(16.) £2,270, Toulonese and other Emigrants.
MR. MOWBRAYsaid, he observed that this Vote included a sum of £210 for "American Loyalists," and he wished to know what number of persons coming under that designation now possessed any claims upon the Government? In a subsequent Vote he found items of £700 for "poor French refugee clergy," and of £250 for "poor French refugee laity." He would suggest that all items of that description should be included in one Vote.
MR. WILSONsaid, that all those charges were sanctioned by Act of Parliament, and had been carefully investigated by the Committee on the Miscellaneous Estimates a short time ago. He could not inform the hon. Member among what number of American loyalists the Vote was divided, but if it was thought advisable a Return of the number of persons participating in the grant could be presented to the House.
MR. DRUMMONDsaid, he believed that the grants to refugees had been confined to two generations, and he could not understand why the grant to French refugee clergy, who must have come to this country about 1793 and which could not have been required for two generations, should still be continued.
Vote agreed to.
(17.) £2,000, National Vaccine Establishment.
MR. STAFFORDsaid, he wished to know why a long and violent pamphlet,

1041
written with great spirit and ability, but directed against the Compulsory Vaccination Act, bearing the signature of "John Gibbs," had been printed at the public expense? The production of the pamphlet or letter had been moved by the hon. Member for Salford (Mr. Brotherton), and the writer described vaccination as "a great sham, a wicked delusion, which could have emanated only from the 'father of lies,' and to advocate which is at best but to preach, 'Let us do evil that good may come.' "As there was a great outcry against the expenditure for printing Returns, he thought the Committee should be informed why that letter had been printed at the expense of the country, and not at that of the Gentleman by whom it was written.
MR. COWPERsaid, that the letter referred to was of a very amusing character, but the Government had nothing to do with printing it. The hon. Members for Salford and Finsbury were the parties responsible for affording hon. Gentlemen the opportunity of perusing this very facetious pamphlet.
MR. BROTHERTONsaid, the paper in question was addressed to the President of the Board of Health, and he (Mr. Brotherton) applied to the Printing Committee, requesting them to order it to be printed, but they declined to accede to the request. That was all he had to do with the matter. The hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. T. Duncombe) afterwards gave notice of a Motion for the printing of the letter, and the Committee then ordered it to be printed.
MR. MICHELLsaid, he knew nothing of Mr. Gibbs, but that that gentleman's letter contained much valuable information, and that from his own experience he could confirm many of the writer's statements. He regarded the letter as a very valuable document, and if hon. Members would read and consider it they would know more of vaccination than they did at present. Many deaths had been caused by vaccination, and he thought, when Bills were passed by that House causing the deaths of individuals by vaccination, it was necessary the House should be informed on the subject, although it might be by a man like Mr. Gibbs.
MR. GROGANsaid, he thought that if hon. Gentlemen took the trouble to read Mr. Gibbs's letter they would find that it referred to facts which would surprise them.
MR. COWPERsaid, he was glad to learn that the pamphlet was worth reading, for if he had not heard such an opinion expressed by the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Michell) he would have supposed it had been written by the inmate of a lunatic asylum. He had certainly been under the impression that the writer was stark staring mad.
MR. MICHELLsaid, Mr. Gibbs did not receive £2,000 a year for supporting the system of vaccination, or he might not have expressed such strong opinions on the subject.
Vote agreed to; as was also—
(18.) £325, Refuge for the Destitute.
(19.) £4,000, Polish Refugees and distressed Spaniards.
MR. HADFIELDsaid, he wished to inquire whether the Poles enlisted in our service during the present war would be regarded as fresh claimants upon this fund, or whether arrangements would be made with the Emperor of Russia for their restoration to their own country?
MR. WILSONsaid, the Vote had nothing to do with the Poles engaged in the recent war. It was established for the benefit of the old Polish refugees, and was in process of gradual reduction, having been £8,500 in 1848.
Vote agreed to; as was also—
(20.) £4,371, Miscellaneous Allowances.
(21.) £2,985, Infirmaries (Ireland).
MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, he thought the time had arrived when this Vote should disappear from the Estimates. Not a single farthing was given to Infirmaries in England or Scotland. He considered that the people of Ireland should support their own Infirmaries, and he believed they would do so if they were not allowed to put their hand into the public purse.
MR. WILSONsaid, the Vote was sanctioned by two Acts of Parliament; but in the Medical Charities Act it was provided that the allowances should be discontinued when the officers receiving them ceased to hold their offices.
COLONEL DUNNEsaid, the hon. Member for Lambeth (Mr. W. Williams) seemed to have forgotten that the salaries of the medical officers and schoolmasters of workhouses, which in England were paid out of the public money, were paid by the rate-payers in Ireland. A larger sum than that which the Committee was now asked to vote for Infirmaries in Ireland was

1043
annually voted for a single park in London.
Vote agreed to.
(22.) Motion made, and Question proposed—
"That a sum, not exceeding £1,295, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Expenses of the Foundling Hospital Department of the House of Industry, Dublin, to the 31st day of March, 1857."
MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, the people of England and Scotland paid for every one of the workhouses in Ireland, to say nothing of the public works, which cost several millions in addition.
MR. BLACKBURNsaid that the Commissioners appointed to inquire into the condition of the Dublin Hospitals, and whose Report had been delivered only that morning, expressed the opinion that £7,600 per annum would be sufficient for the support of all the Hospitals connected with the House of Industry, of which the Foundling Hospital was one. He did not think that the Committee should be asked to pass this Vote until some attempt had been made to carry the recommendations of the Commissioners into effect.
MR. HORSMANsaid, that the grants to these Hospitals, dated as far back as the time of the Union. By a clause in the Act of Union, the British Parliament bound itself to grant for those hospitals, for twenty years, the same amount as the Irish Parliament had granted for their support. The grant had been continued since, principally through the recommendation of Committees appointed to report on the matter. In 1855, a Commission was appointed on the subject, but that Report had only just been laid upon the table of the House. The grant, in fact, was about the same as it had been for several years, the only alteration being that a new distribution of it was proposed.
MR. ALEXANDER HASTIEsaid, he should move that the Vote be reduced by the sum of £129 10 s., or ten per cent on the Vote. The ground of his Motion was that Ireland ought to support its own foundlings, and not call upon England to do so.
MR. I. BUTTsaid, this Vote involved no question whatever relating to Dublin Hospitals in general. It was simply whether the House of Commons should continue to pay certain pensions and charges entailed upon a defunct establishment, and which would gradually die off.
MR. VANCEsaid, the charge had been
1044
gradually diminishing, and he trusted, after the explanation which had been given, the hon. Gentleman would withdraw his opposition.
Motion made, and Question put—
"That a sum, not exceeding £1,165 10 s. be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of the Foundling Hospital Department of the House of Industry, Dublin, to the 31st day of March, 1857."
The Committee divided:—Ayes 32; Noes 187: Majority 155.
Original Question put, and agreed to.
(23.) Motion made, and Question proposed—
"That a sum, not exceeding £11,790, be granted to Her Majesty, towards defraying the Expense of the House of Industry, &c. Dublin, to the 31st day of March, 1857."
MR. ALEXANDER HASTIEsaid, he should now move that the Vote be reduced by 10 per cent.
Motion made, and Question put—
"That a sum, not exceeding £10,611, be granted to Her Majesty, towards defraying the Expense of the House of Industry, &c. Dublin, to the 31st day of March, 1857."
The Committee divided:—Ayes 33; Noes 180: Majority 147.
Original Question put, and agreed to.
MR. HADFIELDsaid, he would now move that the Chairman leave the chair and report progress. The House had already been in Committee for seven consecutive hours.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he hoped his hon. Friend would not persist in his Motion. He did not believe the Committee were at present, exhausted.
MR. HADFIELDsaid, the labour was really more than human nature could bear; he would, however, consent to withdraw his Motion.
The following Votes were then agreed to—
(24.) £500, Female Orphan House.
(25.) £1,215, Westmoreland Lock Hospital.
(26.) £500, Lying-In Hospital.
(27.) £795, Doctor Steevens' Hospital.
(28.) £1,900, House of Recovery.
(29.) £600, Meath Hospital.
The House resumed.

BANKERS' COMPOSITIONS BILL.
Order for Second Reading read.
MR. GLYNsaid, he must express his regret that the right hon. Gentleman the

1045
Chancellor of the Exchequer had not, in moving the second reading of this Bill, taken the opportunity of stating to the House the course which Her Majesty's Government intended to pursue in regard to the Bank Act of 1814, of which this was a pendant. He was anxious to ask the right hon. Gentleman a question upon the Treasury Minute of the 18th of March, 1856, respecting the payment to the public of the net profit arising from the issuing of bank notes. He wished for an explanation with regard to the item in the account for deduction to the amount of £1,422, being compensation now paid by the Bank to bankers for a discontinuance of their circulation.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he had stated at the beginning of the Session that the Government would make no objection to an inquiry by a Committee into the operation of the Act of 1844, if any gentleman should think it desirable to propose it at the end of the Session. He did not know whether it would be the wish of the House, at this period of the Session, to institute such an inquiry; but if it were, no objection would be made by the Government. At the same time, he was not aware that, during this latter period of the Session, it would be possible to make any great progress in an inquiry of that sort. He did not see how it would be consistent with the duty of the Government to make any proposition for the alteration of a solemn act of the Legislature embodying a compact, between Parliament and the Bank of England, without a preliminary inquiry, and without facts having been ascertained and opinions heard bearing upon the operation of this Act during the twelve years which had elapsed since its passing—that Act having for the first time introduced the important principle of a fixed legislative limit on the issues of the Bank. With regard to the hon. Gentleman's second question, he could only say that the arrangement had been carefully considered in concert with the Governor and Deputy-Governor of the Bank before the Minute was drawn; but he could not at that moment explain the precise item referred to by his hon. Friend. If he would repeat the question on another occasion, he would take the opportunity of reading the Minute again, and he should then be able to give his hon. Friend tin explanation which he desired.
MR. SPOONERsaid that, when an inquiry
1046
into our monetary system was proposed a short time ago, both the right hon. Gentleman and the right hon. Baronet the First Lord of the Admiralty stated that, though they were not opposed to an inquiry, yet that that was not the proper time. Now, the right hon. Gentleman said it was too late. If that were so, why had all this time been wasted?
Bill read 2°.
The House adjourned at a quarter after One o'clock.

MINUTE.
PUBLIC BILL.—1a Oxford University.

THE HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT—THE FIRE BRIGADE.
LORD REDESDALEsaid, he wished to call the attention of the noble Lord opposite (Lord Stanley of Alderley) to a matter of which he had just heard, and which was of very serious importance. He understood that the whole fire brigade attached to the House had been discharged without notice having been given to Black Rod or any of the officers of the House,
964
and that their duties were in future to be undertaken by the police. He felt it his duty to call attention to the matter. A fire had already happened in the House which had been immediately checked by the fire brigade, under whose charge all the somewhat complicated arrangements connected with pipes, water, and gas works were placed, and which were by them all kept in a constant state of readiness. If, however, these arrangements were put in the hands of the police, who were frequently changed, it could not be supposed that they could have so competent a knowledge of all the arrangements as the old fire brigade. He trusted that immediate attention would be paid to the subject. The orders with reference to the matter he supposed came from the Department of Woods and Forests, and he thought it was a question that ought not to be settled in so summary a way. The old system was extremely well arranged, and there ought to be some provision for such good arrangements being kept up.
LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYbelieved that the whole of the House was under the direction of the officers of the Board of Works, and that the fire brigade and police were employed under the direction of that Board. He would make inquiries of the Chief Commissioner, and return an answer to the noble Lord.

TORTURE IN MADRAS.
THE EARL OF ALBEMARLEsaid, before I move the Resolutions which I have placed on the Notice Paper, allow me to present a Petition from certain Inhabitants of Madras, complaining of the Infliction of Torture by the Officers of the Government for Government purposes; and praying for your Lordships' protection. The petitioners are anxious that your Lordships should not consider the Report which has been laid upon your table as conveying any adequate idea of the amount of suffering endured by the inhabitants of the Presidency of Madras. The Commissioners themselves virtually acknowledge the incompleteness of their Report, because they say that full inquiry would have occupied two years, and the labours of the Commission were brought to a conclusion in three mouths. Besides this, the Commission sat in the town of Madras, where, owing to the want of means of internal communication, and the extent of the Presidency, being an area of 144,889 statute square miles, or within

965
one-fourth part of being twice as large as Great Britain, it was impossible that many of the sufferers should attend to make their complaints. The Report must, therefore, be considered simply as a sample of the way in which justice was administered, and the revenue collected under the East India Company. Without stopping to contrast the innocent surprise expressed by the home authorities at the prevalence of torture over a territory inhabited by near 23,000,000 of inhabitants, with the fact that there existed in the India House documents, written between the years 1806 and 1852, which proved the prevalence of such torture, I will proceed at once to the question of the torture itself.
To correct the impression which exists on the part of some of the civil servants of the East India Company, who seem to have an erroneous notion of the word torture, and fancy that nothing short of those kinds of pain which, in England, in barbarous times, were employed judicially for compelling evidence, such as the rack, the boot, and the wheel, let me quote the definition of torture given by Dr. Johnson, which is, "pain by which guilt is punished or confession extorted." If I might make an addition to the definition of the great lexicographer, I would add, "or Government revenue extorted." That your Lord-ships may not think that the torture inflicted is of the mildest description, an impression which you might receive from the extenuatory despatch from the Court of Directors to the Governor of Madras, dated the 12th of September, 1855, I will read a list of the modes of torture practised, which I have extracted from the Report of the Commissioners. These are, deprivation of food and water; hindering a man from sleeping; hanging a necklace of bones or other disgusting materials round the neck (a punishment peculiarly offensive to a Hindoo); compelling a man to sit on his heels, with brickbats or sharp stones under his hams; striking the heads of two defaulters against each other; tying two persons together in a stooping posture by the hair of their heads; tying a man in a stooping posture to the wheel of a cart; tying a man by the hair of his head to the tail of an ass, and parading him through the public market; forcing a man into a stooping posture with another man on his hack; binding a man to one tree and hoisting his leg by a rope attached to another; suspending a man by his heels to the bough of a tree; suspending him by
966
the wrist, and scourging him while in the air. If my recollection serves me right, there is in that Report an instance of a woman who died under the infliction of this torture. Tying to a tree with a fire underneath, in order to produce partial suffocation; forcing a man to whirl his head in a peculiar manner with his hair dishevelled, sitting in the sun, the process being assisted by scourging (called in the native collector's office, "extracting the devil"); suspending a man by his arms tied behind his back, which, I believe, is the Indian punishment of the strappado; plunging into wells and rivers, until the victim is half, or sometimes wholly, drowned; placing the carpenter beetle, or other gnawing insect, or some stinging reptile, confined within a cocoa-nut shell, on the navel or still more sensitive part of the body, causing great torment; cudgelling with bludgeons with such severity as to produce dislocation; placing the muzzle of a musket on the great toe, and forcing the party to continue with it for hours in the burning sun; placing a stick across the chest with a man seated at each end of it, so as to produce partial suffocation (I have heard that this has been in some cases continued until the tongue protruded from the mouth); binding a limb by twisting a rough rope round it, so as to impede the circulation, the intensity of the torture being increased by the application of a composition of red pepper, salt, and mustard. This torture the Court of Directors have themselves described in their Judicial Dispatch of the 11th of April, 1826, page 7 of the Report. Another punishment is the stocks—a very different punishment from the stocks formerly used in this country; the victim is placed on his back, with his heels in the air, his face exposed to the sun by day, and the damp and cold by night. Then there is lifting up by and tearing out the mustachios—not only a very painful torture, but a great indignity into the bargain; placing the victim on a nest of red ants, also a very painful torture; squeezing the crossed fingers; pinching the fingers between a cleft bamboo; torture by the kittee, an instrument by which the fingers arc gradually bent back until the pain is unbearable; pinching the inside of the thighs; nipping the flesh with wooden or iron pincers; pounding the joints with mallets of soft wood; flagellation with every kind of scourge in every part of the human body, and with such severity as occasionally to cause death (at

967
page 80 will be found a case mentioned by Mr. Lushington of a man flogged to death for non-payment of taxes); tying rags round the fingers and setting fire to them; burning various parts of the body with a lighted cheroot, heated packing needles, and Searing irons; wrapping the body in cotton steeped in oil, and setting fire to it; compression of the sensitive organs of the body; driving thorns under the nails; filling the nostrils, eyes, and other parts of the body with cayenne pepper; applying the bamboo pincers to women's breasts. In their dispatch of the 12th of September, 1855, the Directors refer with great satisfaction to a passage in the Report, paragraph 70, page 35, in which the European officers are acquitted of giving countenance to the infliction of torture, and in which also, it is alleged, that the natives place implicit confidence in the integrity of the European officers. Now, I will state some facts bearing on these points, and then leave your Lordships to draw your own conclusions. For my own part, I cannot agree with either assertion. First, with regard to the confidence placed by the natives in the integrity of European officers. Now, I have made copious notes from the Report of the evidence of the natives themselves, which expresses anything but confidence in the European functionaries, but I will confine my quotations to what Europeans themselves say on the subject. At page 86, Mr. Minchin, sub-collector of Nellore, states:—
"The fact that no cases of torture have been inquired into for the last seven years must force an the mind the conviction that the body of the people believed that the system of personal ill-usage for the collection of revenue was at least connived at by the Government and its officers. The answers to any questions on this point have been always confirmatory of this humiliating truth."
At page 89, Captain Boileau, civil engineer, of Nellore, states:—
"The idea of torture being tacitly tolerated by the Government or its European officers is so far prevalent that a belief is expressed that any complaint made of torture inflicted for the nonpayment of the kist (rent) would not be attended to."
At page 95, Mr. Saalfelt, agent to Messrs. Arbuthnot and Company, a very important witness, from his necessarily constant intercourse with the natives, states:—
"Not a single individual can be found bold or resentful enough to make torture a subject of complaint, simply because the idea is prevalent among the people that such acts are tacitly tolerated by the Government."
968
At page 97, the Rev. E. Webb, of Bellary, says:—
"He must add in conscience that the impression entertained by the people is that by many European servants of the Government the whole subject is avoided, and that it is tacitly permitted as a sort of irremediable evil. I have myself received the reply from more than one gentleman in the service of the Government when reference was made to this mode of obtaining evidence,
'We have nothing to do with that, it is all sub rosâ.' These gentlemen would, without doubt, have severely punished a case of the kind satisfactorily proved."
At page 115, Mr. F. W. Goodwyn, Civil and Session Judge, Salem, says:—
"As far as I could ascertain or judge, the idea was prevalent among the people that such acts were tacitly tolerated by the Government or its European officers. If directed to do so, I can furnish some details which appear to me to support the above opinion."
At page 216, Mr. Bourdillon, collector of Arcot, quoting the evidence of a native revenue officer of North Arcot, says:—
"The ryots do not think that the Government and collector do authorise such acts; but they think the collector does connive at it, and that if any charge of this kind were given, the collector would inquire into it formally, but at the end he would dismiss it on the ground that the charge was not proved. On this account the ryots are backward to make complaint."
What constituted connivance? If it is said that non-connivance meant ignorance of the fact, that plea certainly would not be substantiated. Ignorance of the existence of torture among the civil servants of India was impossible. The hon. Walter Elliot had made a very able report on the subject of torture, had drawn up an analysis of the evidence, from which it appears, at page 230, that—
Of 215 responses elicited, only seven express a disbelief in the existence of the practice, seventeen give no positive opinion, while 197, of whom 112 are public officers engaged in the civil administration, &c., concur in stating their belief in the prevalence of the evil to a greater or less degree.''
Again, Judge Cotton, of Masulipatam, says, that if the civil servant were asked, "Does torture exist?" from the highest to the lowest subordinate official the answer must be in the affirmative. I may be very uncharitable, but I cannot conscientiously acquit the civil servants of India of all non-connivance of torture. Connivance of some kind was shown by the almost universal repugnance of the civil servants to convict a subordinate of the offence, even upon the strongest evidence.

969
Take one district alone—that of Coimbatore. At page 131, it would be found that Mr. E. B. Thomas, a magistrate in that district, states that "torture, properly so called, had ceased to prevail." Mr. M. J. Wallhouse, another magistrate, also states that he "considered his knowledge of facts enabled him to pronounce that the statements in the speeches circulated by the Government (i. e. the speeches in the other House) were pure fictions," as regarded that district, and yet, on looking a little further, it would be found that two men had been tortured to death in his district. Look now to page 299, and your Lordships will see the Torture Calendar for this same Coimbatore. I find that from 1847 to 1853, there have been thirty-one convictions, involving no fewer than sixty offenders, all public officers of the Government. Two of the convictions are by Mr. E. B. Thomas, the very collector who states that "torture has ceased to exist," and thirteen convictions involving twenty-three cases, by Mr. M. J. Wall-house, the magistrate who pronounces "the existence of torture to be pure fiction." True it is that in the record of convictions, the kind of torture is veiled under the vague title of ill-treatment, but in that list we find the stocks, the handcuff, and the scourge. Now I will only select two cases, and they shall be two of the thirteen convictions of Mr. Wallhouse. I adduce them to show that the inadequacy of the punishment on the delinquent affords evidence of connivance. The sixth conviction on the list, date 1848, four men for torturing the prosecutor, and taking away fifty rupees he had in his house. That is torture and burglary. The principal in this case is fined the sum of ten rupees, being one-fifth of the robbery he had committed. Five officers are convicted of torturing a man for the purpose of extorting revenue, the amount not stated. Three of these are fined eight shillings each, and two, four shillings each. In not one case out of the thirty-one convictions does dismissal from office seem to have followed. In this country dismissal would follow in every case, and in most of the cases a penal servitude of four years' duration would be the slightest punishment which a Judge would inflict. Let me now call your Lordships' attention to the causes of torture, and I think I shall show they are distinctly traceable to maladministration. Let us first look to assessment of the land.
970
One of the facts proved is the necessity of torture for the realisation of the revenue, and I think that fact alone will establish the point that there existed the grievance of over-assessment. When rent could only be obtained by means of torture, it might safely be assumed that the land was rented too high. Mr. Seymour, when fortunately for the natives of India he visited India—for otherwise these atrocities might not have been brought to light for another half century—asks Mr. F. N. Maltby, collector and magistrate of Canara, whether the Government had taken the best measures to put it (torture) down, and he (Mr. Maltby) replies, that he could never say that, so long as they maintained in many districts a rate of assessment which he believed to be excessive. Mr. J. D. Bourdillon, collector and magistrate of North Arcot, enumerating the causes of torture, instanced the high assessment of the land:—
"With a moderate assessment," says Mr. Bourdillon, "land would have become a valuable property, and a man would not only have taken care not to incur the loss of it, but in case of adversity would always have had in itself the means of satisfying the Government demand upon it. Further, had the assessment been moderate, that circumstance would have powerfully tended to raise the character of the people, for when men begin to possess property, they also acquire self-respect, and the knowledge how to make themselves respected, and will no longer submit to personal indignities."
With regard to the necessity of torture for the realisation of revenue, Mr. W. Sloane, Sudder Ameen (a judge empowered to try causes to the extent of 1,000 rupees), of Vizigapatam, states—
''Parties who have had the fullest means of knowing the truth of what they stated, have told me that, without resorting to torture, tehsildars (native collectors) and heads of police would find it impossible either to collect revenue or detect criminals."
Mr. J. M'Kenzie, merchant of Bimlipatam, an important because an unwilling witness, whose extenuation of torture, and contradiction of himself the Torture Commissioners have pointed out, states—
"Certain I am that if the ryots come to entertain the belief that the tehsildars (native collectors) dare not and will not use any other means to collect the revenue than those authorised by the strict letter of the regulations, the void in the Madras Exchequer will be large indeed. I have heard of the experiment being tried in some not distant districts, and the results were such as might have been anticipated. The annual jummabundy (rental) reports were far from being satisfactory."

971
Mr. J. J. Minchin, Acting Sub-collector of Nellore says—
"I believe that there is not one native official who does not expect that the new system will be followed by a decrease of 50,000 rupees in this division, and of a lac or a lac and a half (£10,000 or £15,000) in the whole district."
If all the other collectorates were in the same condition as Nellore, the defalcation of the Madras revenue would be nearly 8 per cent, or £350,000, a sum which in such a case must be considered as extracted by mere force of torture.
Having shown that torture and high assessment are inseparable, I will take another example from the Report, and prove the converse. I will now show how moderate assessment is marked by the absence of torture. In the town of Madras, where there is a fixed and moderate rent, and not an annual assessment, where the police and revenue departments are separate, and where there exists the supervision of an active intelligent European population, torture is unknown; but of the twenty other collectorates, there are only two in which there is an absence of torture, namely, Canara and Malabar. In these two districts, the assessment is low, and the proprietors are not a numerous class of pusillanimous occupants, but a few sturdy, independent, and somewhat recalcitrating landowners, who have inhabited those districts immemorially, and who will not submit to be over-taxed.
"Both in Canara and Malabar, (say the Commissioners), the land tax is generally light, the people are flourishing, the assessments easily and even cheerfully paid; the struggle more often being, who shall be allowed, than who shall be made to pay the Government dues."
(This was evidently in order to establish a title to the land.)
"Land has acquired a saleable value, and allotments of waste are eagerly contended for. Who, (continue the Commissioners,) can be surprised then, at hearing one and all the European dwellers in those favoured spots declare, that there torture for revenue purposes is comparatively unknown?"
I will not now revert to the tax moturpha, but will speak of the ryotwarry, which is, if possible, as absurd and impolitic as the moturpha itself. I have several times attempted to awaken the attention of your Lordships to a sense of the sufferings of the Madras people, with respect to this very tax. I will here read a definition of the term "riotwarry," in Wilson's Indian Glossary, and the very definition sounds like a libel on a civilised Government—
972
"Ryotwaur, familiarly applied to the revenue settlement, which is made by the Government officers with each actual cultivator of the soil for a given term, usually a twelvemonth, at a stipulated money rent, without the intervention of a third party."
Here there is, ostensibly, an undertaking, on the part of the European, to enter into a direct and annual settlement with every peasant proprietor without the intervention of a third party, but in reality neither the surveyors of the land, nor the assessors and collectors of the tax are Europeans, but natives, the higher class of these men receiving a salary of £70 or £100, and the lower only a salary of £12; and as they live at ten times that amount, they of course eke out a livelihood by the very power which this tax gives them. The Government has not furnished me with the returns for which I have moved; I must therefore make use of such documents as I can lay my hands on. An able article, which appeared the other day in The Times, fixed the number of proprietors in Madras at 5,000,000; I and the number of European servants, it appears by the Torture Report, who ostensibly survey and assess that number of farms was seventy. Seventy Europeans to assess every field of 5,000,000 farms! The idea was absurd. As a necessary consequence, the people of Madras were left to the mercy of a legion of underpaid, undisciplined revenue officers, armed with all the powers of the police, and exercising those powers without supervision. Mr. Walter Elliot in his evidence upon this subject, at page 83 of the Report, says—
"The number of ryots paying an assessment of less than ten rupees (20 s.) per annum is 630,704."
Now, in the five northern Circars, the average number of pauper ryots is 30,000 for each, or 150,000 for the whole. The population of the Circars is 4,284,139. If proportions in the other fifteen provinces be the same the number for the whole presidency will be 786,426.
How has this number of pauper proprietors been created? Are they a damnosa hæreditas, left us by the Mahomedans? No; they have been created by the cruelty and fiscal rapacity of a Government more barbarous than that of the Mahomedans—by the Government of the East India Company. An account of the manner in which a pauper proprietary has been created is ably given by Lieutenant H. L. Grove, employed in the Godavery Works:—

973
"From my constant residence among the natives I can assert that, without using force, a considerable portion of the revenue never could be collected, and the same difficulty will exist so long as men, who are wretchedly poor, and utterly unfit for anything but coolee (day labourer's) work, are permitted, either voluntary or (mark this, my Lords,) by force, to become cultivators. In every village there are some bits of waste or bad land, which the wealthier ryots will not cultivate; but as the Circar's (Government) annual demand must somehow or other be paid, the names of some of the poorest inhabitants (and even sometimes without their knowledge) are put down for these bad bits. In vain do the unhappy creatures declare that they know nothing about cultivation, that they have no implements, cattle, or plough, or that they were ruined last year by the loss of their crops. They are told that the Circar's money must be raised, and they are promised tuckavee (advances) to purchase what they require. If the man is still unwilling to take the land, the village authorities bring him to the notice of the Amildar (collector), who orders him to his cutcherry office, where, by threats and force, both moral and physical, he is induced to cultivate."
Now, call this what you will, it is psædial slavery. If a man is forced to cultivate in order to yield revenue, and forced to work upon the public works without reward, what is this but substantial slavery?
I will now show the great impolicy and cruelty of the tuckavee (advances) system, from the evidence of a native, to which great importance is very properly attached by the Commissioners. This gentleman, A. Nulla Moothoo Pillay, Quit-rent Amildar (collector) of the Madras Collectorate, p. 222, says—
"Whenever the ryots wanted tuckavee (advances) for buying cattle, or in any way to help themselves in cultivation, the half of the amount which they applied for would be appropriated among the Talook (Government) servants, and the other half given to the ryots, who applied for the whole; but when they demand fully the advanced sum, they (the Cirear servants) use the most cruel torture towards those that resisted or hesitated to pay the amount which they had received only in part."
Another cause of torture is the union of the functions of police officer and revenue officer in one person. In 1792 Lord Cornwallis completely separated the administration of revenue from that of police in Bengal, and in 1802 his regulations were introduced into Madras. In 1816, however, they were rescinded, and the offices of judge, magistrate, and collector, were centred in one person. Several able protests were made against this barbarous and unprincipled measure, from one of which I will read a short extract, although I recommend all the quotations given in the
974
Report from this able State paper to your Lordships' serious perusal. Mr. Fullerton, a Member of the Madras Council, afterwards Governor of the Straits Settlements, in a Minute dated January 1,1816, says—
"It is not, I conclude, intended to make police or the administration of the criminal law subservient to the collection of revenue—meaning, of course, that it was the intention of his honourable masters to do so—to vest in the collector such a degree of overwhelming authority as will enable him to dictate the terms of cultivation, to infringe on the personal liberty and the free exercise of the labour of the ryots, and extract, by an organised system of compulsion, a revenue beyond the natural result of voluntary engagement."
It appeared that the East India Company did intend by this step to dictate the terms of cultivation, to infringe on the personal liberty and free exercise of the labour of the ryot, and to do all that Mr. Fullerton deprecated. Two years after this protest, namely, in January, 1818, when full experience had been acquired of the cruel working of the measure, the Revenue Board issued a Minute, contrasting Lord Cornwallis's, or, as they were then called, "the new regulations," with the ryotwarry. They said—
"The new regulations required revenue to be subordinate to justice, while the ryotwar system has rendered justice entirely subordinate to revenue."
I hold our East Indian Government of the present day responsible for these evils inflicted upon the unhappy inhabitants by their predecessors, because, with all the evidence before them which has been collected as to the cruel working of the present law, they have actually, in their despatch, written as late as September 12, 1855, recommended that the union of the revenue and judicial functions should be carried into effect in Lower Bengal,
where, as I have every reason to believe, the practice of torture even now exists, and requires no new cause to be added for its infliction.
The remedies for these evils are obvious. The assessments must be reduced, and they must not be made annually. Instead of entering into arrangements with each individual collector, the Government must fix the amount of rent or land tax for a long and for a definite period, and whenever an augmentation takes place it must be one of a fixed and specified amount not exceeding 5 or 10 per cent. The necessity of having a large amount of European functionaries must be admitted, although

975
its practicability may be denied. There are 1,000 civil servants in India to a population of between 100,000,000 and 150,000,000, being one European to every 100,000 or 150,000. The thing is absurd, but the evil will not be remedied so long as they maintain the principle affirmed by the Act of 1853, that is, so long as the covenanted servants of the Company receive ten times as much as the servants of the wealthiest country of the world, whilst such poverty exists as in the Presidency of Madras with its 700,000 pauper landholders.
I have to ask your Lordships' indulgence for having detained you so long. I have discharged a painful duty, but the responsibility now rests with you. You may be pained at the fiendish malignity of the native servants, and ashamed of the disgraceful apathy, to call it nothing worse, of the civil servants, but I do not know in what terms to speak of the rapacity of that Joint-Stock Company to which Parliament and the Government of this country have farmed the Indian empire, the greatest dependency that this or any other country ever possessed, as if they had been leasing a private estate to tenants at will. On your Lordships will rest the responsibility, and you owe it to God and your country to blot out the evil and apply the remedy. I now move to resolve—
"That by a Report lately laid on the Table it is proved to the entire Conviction of the House that Torture, or the Infliction of Pain, for the Purpose of Confession or Extortion, has long been practised, and still continues to be practised, by the Native Officers of Government in the Realisation of the Public Revenues and the Administration of Criminal Law, to a greater or less Extent, throughout all the Twenty Provinces constituting the Government of Madras:
"That the aforesaid Torture, although clandestine and unauthorised, has been for many Years known and admitted by the constituted Authorities at Home and in India, as shown by the Public Records:
"That this House views the aforesaid Practice of Torture, affecting so many Millions of Her Majesty's Subjects, whether as an Instrument for the Realisation of the Public Revenues or the Administration of Criminal Law, or for any other Purpose whatsoever, as repugnant to natural Justice, abhorrent to Humanity, and highly disgraceful to the Character of this Nation:
"That this House hereby pledges itself to pursue the speediest and most effectual Measures within its Power for the Annihilation of the odious and barbarous Practice of Torture within the above-mentioned Government and Presidency of Madras."
THE DUKE OF ARGYLLbegged to express, on the part of the Government,
976
their entire concurrence with the opinion of the noble Earl as to the light in which they ought to regard the practice of torture, which, unhappily, had been proved to exist in one of the presidencies of India; and to admit fully that it was the duty of the Government to take every measure in their power to put an end to it as speedily as possible. It was the more necessary that he should do so promptly and frankly, because, as their Lordships might have perceived, the facts brought to light by the investigation of the Torture Commission had been quoted, not only in this country, but in various parts of Europe, as proving the indifference of the British Government; and he was not sure that they had not been quoted as showing that it had the sanction of the British Government. Therefore it was the duty of those who spoke on behalf of the Government to declare how utterly they abhorred and detested the resort to such practices, and that they considered that they were as much opposed to the interests as they were to the honour and character of the country. But with regard to the course the noble Earl recommended the House to pursue, he had a few words to say. The Resolutions which the noble Earl had proposed were, he presumed, intended to be simply the declaration of the opinions and feelings of the House with regard to the facts brought to their knowledge by the Torture Commissioners. He was far from saying that the House ought not to come to some expression of opinion, the subject having been brought to their attention. He thought, when the existence of such a practice was brought to their notice, it was fitting that some step should be taken; but their Lordships, he thought, would agree with him that whatever Resolutions they might come to should state the facts as accurately as possible, and ought not to be so worded as to convey the impression of complicity or silence on the part of the Government to foreign countries or to the people of this country. He would draw their Lordships' attention to the facts. It was scarcely three years since Committees of both Houses of Parliament were engaged in an inquiry preliminary to the renewal of the East India Company's charter. For many weeks and many months the two Houses of Parliament were engaged in investigating every possible charge that could be brought against the administration of the East India Company. Those charges were supported before

977
the Committees by the evidence of persons who were influenced by no friendly feeling towards that Company, and who were desirous that some organic change should be effected in the government of India. He had the honour, with some of their Lordships now present, to be a Member of one of those Committees, and he thought he spoke for them as well as for himself when he said that, during the whole of that inquiry, not a whisper was heard as to the existence of the practice of torture in India, nor was it brought under their notice by any witness whatever. He was aware that some were of opinion that the inquiry might have been prolonged with advantage, and he was not prepared to deny that sufficient time for the investigation for all the questions arising out of our Indian government had been given. Nevertheless, one would have expected that if it had been a known fact that the East India Company resorted to the infliction of torture for the collection of their revenue, that would have been the first and most obvious weapon used in debate by those who were opposed to the renewal of the charter; and he mentioned it as a remarkable fact in connection with the case, that not a word upon the subject was mentioned during the whole of the discussion. Their Lordships would remember how the discovery originated. In the course of July, 1854, on the occasion of a Motion brought forward in another place, an hon. Member stated that torture was practised in the Presidency of Madras. That statement was denied at the time by those Members of the House of Commons who were more immediately connected with the Government of India. His right hon. Friend (Sir C. Wood), who was President of the India Board at the time, stated that he could not positively deny an accusation he had never heard before, but he would cause a strict inquiry to be made. The report of the debate was sent out to India immediately, and in September, almost as soon as it arrived, a Commission was appointed to inquire into the whole subject. So rapidly did the Commissioners execute their duty that in the April following their Report was concluded, and the whole mass of evidence was brought under the consideration of the Indian Government. That Report was sent to the Home Government, and within ten months of the accusation being first made in the House of Commons, the matter had been sifted and thoroughly investigated.
978
These facts, he submitted, did not evince any reluctance on the part of the British Government or of the Indian Government to inquire into the allegations, and, as far as it could do so, to provide a remedy. The Resolutions moved by the noble Earl did not allude to a fact dwelt upon by the Commissioners of Investigation, that the practice of torture, though existing under British rule, had not arisen under British rule, and was not due to it. In almost the first page of their Report the Commissioners showed that under the various Governments immediately preceding our own in India, torture had been practised and recognised as a means of extorting both revenue and confessions. That being the case, it ought to be stated in any Resolution which might be passed by that House, and which would go forth to the world, that the practice had not arisen with us, but had been inherited from the various Governments which had preceded us. Then as to the continuance of the practice under British rule. In page 34 of their Report, the Commissioners give some singular statements of the habits of the people contracted under the despotism of former Indian rulers. To show how difficult it was for such practices to be eradicated, they say—
"It seems to be the universal opinion among the Natives themselves, that, in criminal cases, the practice is not only necessary, but right. It excites no abhorrence, no astonishment, no repugnance in their minds. … We have instances of torture being freely practised in every relation of domestic life. Servants are thus treated by their masters and fellow-servants; children by their parents and schoolmasters, for the most trifling offences. … It seems a 'time-honoured' institution, and we cannot be astonished if the practice is still widely prevalent among the ignorant, uneducated class of Native public servants. … There is not a Native public servant, from the highest to the lowest, who does not well know that these practices are held in abhorrence by his European superiors."
But, however the practice of torture had originated, and however long it had been continued, could it be said with truth that the British Government had connived at its continuance? In page 35 of the Report the Commissioners said—
"We see no reason to doubt that the Native officials, from the highest to the lowest, are well aware of the disposition of their European superiors. … We have seen nothing to impress us with the belief that the people at large entertain an idea that their mal-treatment is countenanced or tolerated by the European officers of Government. On the contrary, all they seem

979
to desire is, that the Europeans in their respective districts should themselves take up and investigate complaints brought before them; the distance which the Natives will often travel at great personal loss and inconvenience to make complaints, even of a very petty nature, to the collector or sub-collector, is, of itself, a proof of the confidence which they place generally in those officers. … The abstinence of the Native officials from such practices in or near stations where Europeans, be they civilians, surgeons, commissariat, or other officers, reside, and the prevalence of torture increasing in proportion as the look appears less exposed to European scrutiny … and the whole cry of the people which has come up before us is to save them from the cruelties of their fellow-natives—not from the effects of unkindness or indifference on the part of the European officers of Government."
These passages supported his argument, and he quoted them, not from the appendices, but from the Report of the Commissioners, which set forth the general impression left by the whole evidence upon the minds of honourable and independent men. Now, with respect to the ignorance of the Company or the local Government—and considering that it was clearly proved the practice was largely prevalent over the whole of India—the ignorance of its existence might seem extraordinary—the Commissioners said—
"There are many circumstances in the peculiar condition of this country which may well account for the prevalence of even a systematic and general practice of personal violence, used for the purpose of extortion among the native population, without the general run of Europeans being aware of it."
After mentioning that, in the first place, there were only three European magistrates for a district larger than the whole of Wales, and that, therefore, anything like a minute superintendence was impossible, the Commissioners went on to say—
"The certainty that no Native would knowingly venture to have recourse to any such practice in the presence of an European sets at rest any surprise at the very few cases in which any of our countrymen have personally witnessed the operation."
Again the Commissioners remarked—
"Few of the civil engineers, few of the missionaries can testify from personal knowledge to the existence of torture; and, what is a more important matter of consideration, few of the medical men attached to zillah stations have any experience of the practice. When it is remembered that they have charge of the gaols, that it is their duty personally to inspect the prisoners, and that by being at tile head of public dispensaries they must necessarily become acquainted with great numbers of the poor, suffering from bodily ailments, it cannot but excite surprise to find almost every one of them declaring that neither
980
do their records show, nor does their own experience furnish them with, cases of complaints of personal violence."
When they found such to be the experience of medical officers, they need not he surprised at the amount of ignorance prevailing among the higher officers of the Government, and the members of the Government at home. At another point in their Report, with regard to the duties, of the European officers, the Commissioners said—
"It may here possibly suggest itself to those unacquainted with the duties of the European officials in the provinces, that they are obnoxious to blame for not personally investigating all the complaints which find their way before them; and that were they so to do, a great check would necessarily he offered to the repetition of similar causes of complaint. But they who would thus argue know but little of the nature and extent of the duties which any European officer in a district has to discharge, and are ignorant of, or forget, both the immense size of our collectorates, and the small number of Europeans employed for the ordinary administration of the affairs of each province."
So much with respect to the ignorance of the practice. But he must observe that in former years the existence of these practices had been brought under the notice of the Indian Government, and in this book were to be found many quotations from dispatches of the Directors, and from circular orders of criminal courts and revenue boards, calling the attention of collectors and magistrates to the existence of torture, and giving the most stringent directions for putting an end to it. They would find that since 1810 or 1812, when the existence of torture was first brought to the notice of the Government, on ten separate occasions various criminal courts had issued stringent orders to the police and revenue officers to put down the practice. The most important question was this—had any one act of the Government tended to continue the practice? The noble Earl who brought the question forward had used strong language in reference to the East India Company. But it was very difficult to say what share the East India Company had in the matter. The East India Company was under the Board of Control, and any censure directed against the East India Company was, in fact, directed against all the various Governments which had had control over that body, and were responsible for the exercise of their powers, in so far as these could be made effectual. Moreover, he (the Duke of Argyll) thought the

981
language of the Resolution was stronger than was warranted by the facts, although, no doubt, one of the regulations had an unfortunate influence in perpetuating the practice of torture. He meant, with reference to the junction of the police and revenue duties in the hands of one body. With regard to this regulation, there was a passage in the Report of the Commissioners, in which he cordially concurred. He would read it to their Lordships, because he thought it important to call their attention, not merely to the sentences which were exculpatory, but to those which were incriminatory of the Government. The Commissioners said—
"Thus it will be perceived that the collection of the land revenue was entrusted to the very class who had from time immemorial been accustomed to practise the most cruel and violent tortures upon the persons of the unfortunate prisoners in their custody, accused or suspected of crime, and that with the full cognisance and even approval of their fellow-countrymen at large. Now, it certainly docs not seem to be drawing an overstrained inference to argue that the peons accustomed to elicit confessions in criminal matters through the instrumentality of torture would not be slow to have recourse to the same or similar appliances for the extortion of dues in revenue matters; especially as the practice was of long standing also in this department of the State administration under Native rule, and no innovation or surprise upon the habits and customs of their fellow-countrymen. We do not mean to say that there may not have been an equal, or possibly even a greater amount of personal violence in the collection of revenue previous to 1816 than subsequent to that epoch; but while the diminution is traceable to other causes, the concentration of all police and revenue duties in the same hands appears to us necessarily to have destroyed that check which would have resulted had these powers been committed to two distinct bodies."
The noble Earl had alluded to the protest of Mr. Fullerton against this combination of duties, but he had avoided all reference to the still higher authority by whom that system had been recommended. During the discussions upon India two or three years ago, the noble Earl (the Earl of Ellenborough) spoke of Sir Thomas Munro as the greatest name in the history of India, and as standing nearer in mental calibre to the late Duke of Wellington than any other public man of modern times. Sir Thomas Munro, moreover, was a man who took the Native population especially under his protection. Yet it was this Sir Thomas Munro who opposed Mr. Fullerton, and supported the measure which it was now said, perhaps correctly, had tended to the continuance of torture in India. It was hardly fair, then, to charge the Company
982
with the intention to continue the practice of torture, and to get revenue at any cost, by making that charge, when the change was supported by such a man as Sir Thomas Munro. He would now direct their Lordships' attention to what was now being done, and what was proposed to be done, to eradicate this abominable system from the Presidency of Madras. By reference to the last few pages of this Torture Report, it would be found that Lord Harris, the Governor of Madras, concurred in every suggestion of the Commissioners. Lord Harris wrote thus:—
"I concur generally with the views of the Commissioners with respect to the remedies which should be adopted for rendering the general administration of the Government more effective, and at the same time equitable and beneficial to the people. Some of the measures mentioned, more especially those respecting the police and magistracy, have been under my consideration for some time, and I should have already moved on these subjects on which discretionary power has already been given to this Government by the hon. Court in its dispatch No. 8, dated August 23, 1854, but for the delay which has occurred of more than six months in procuring information on the police force of Bombay. The evidence brought forward in these papers strengthens the views which I had already arrived at on these subjects, and there is a very remarkable confirmation of the advisability of the separation of the revenue and police in the absence of charges against the police of Madras. I hope this Government may soon be able to embody a comprehensive and valuable change in the unsatisfactory system now in force. At the same time, the whole subject requires serious consideration, and must, with the greatest desire of improvement on the part of the Government, take considerable time in its completion. On one point to which attention is drawn by the Commissioners I think an immediate change might be beneficially made—that as regards the state of the law on this subject; and I would propose that the Advocate General and Government Pleader should be called on, in concert, to propose such alterations as would be likely to remedy the evils mentioned."
He read that extract to show that the Government of Madras had resolved upon immediate action, and was in favour of almost every suggestion made by the Commissioners, although he saw difficulties in the way of carrying them into effect, especially in the employment of a greater number of European officers. It seemed to be universally admitted that it was difficult to increase the number of Europeans in that Presidency at the present moment, and it was the more to be regretted, because without that increase it was impossible to make speedy way in the abolition of the system, which was clearly proved to prevail in proportion to the distance from the stations of

983
the European officers. With regard to the separation of the revenue and police departments he could not but express an earnest hope that such a measure would be found practicable. He cordially concurred in the opinion expressed by the noble Earl, that it was most inconvenient and dangerous that the annual assessment of land—itself a most objectionable practice—should be conducted by a set of men whose habits were such as had been described, and he trusted that some means would be discovered to effect a severance between those two great services. At the same time he was bound to remind the House that the Commissioners had themselves admitted that there were serious difficulties in the way of so desirable a measure of reform. They commended and desired it, but avowed that the question was beset with embarrassments. A dispatch from the Presidency of Madras, received as recently as that morning, showed that the local Government were anxious to abolish the annual and to substitute a fixed assessment of land—a measure which would go far to supersede the necessity for employing those Native servants whose interference had been productive of such unfortunate results. In fact, the whole question was engaging the serious attention of the Government both in England and Madras. With respect to the Resolutions now before the House, they did not hold out any hope of a practical remedy for the state of things complained of; they merely indicated the opinion of the House, and pledged their Lordships to such measures as they might be able to take. Nor, indeed, could it well be otherwise, for their Lordships could not practically take any steps unless they proposed some great organic change, in which they would require the co-operation of the other House of Parliament. In the meantime all they could do was to call the attention both of the local and home Government to the subject. If, therefore, the noble Earl was resolved to press the Resolutions on the adoption of the House, he (the Duke of Argyll) would take leave to propose certain verbal alterations in the first and second, the effect of which would be to place the subject rather more fully and fairly before the country. Thus amended, the Resolution would read as follows:—
I. "That by a Report lately laid on the Table it is proved to the entire Conviction of the House that Torture, or the Infliction of Pain for the Purpose of Confession or Extortion, has long been
984
practised in India, and, that though derived from former Governments and steadily decreasing both in Severity and Extent under British Rule, it still continues to be practised by Native Officers of Government in the Realisation of the Public Revenues and the Administration of the Criminal Law, to a greater or less Extent, throughout all the Twenty Provinces constituting the Government of Madras:
II. "That the aforesaid Torture, although clandestine and illegal, has been for many Years known to exist, and has been repeatedly denounced and condemned by the constituted Authorities at Home and in India, as shown by the Public Records:
For the third and fourth Resolutions of the noble Earl he should propose to substitute the following—
III. "That this House observes, nevertheless, with great regret and Disapprobation, the very inadequate Punishments which have been frequently inflicted upon the Perpetrators of these atrocious Crimes:
IV. "That this House relies upon the zealous and continued Exertions of all Persons in authority in this Country and in India to extirpate a Practice disgraceful to the Character of our Government and calculated to render it odious to the People of India."
He trusted that their Lordships would be of opinion with him that these Resolutions would meet the exigencies of the case and adequately vindicate the honour of the Government.
THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDEsaid, that while he must commend the tone in which the question had been treated by the noble Duke, and though he was willing to believe with him that the Home Government was without complicity in these dreadful practices, and that no British Minister, of whatever politics, was cognisant, or, if cognisant, could view them with any other sentiments than those of horror; he could not so easily acquit the East India Company. He should not, however, have risen to offer any opinion on the subject had it not been for what had fallen from the noble Duke with regard to what he called the British Government. It was difficult to say what was meant by the East India Company, and as difficult to say what was meant by the British Government. But one thing was certain, namely, that when the Government was spoken of in India, the East India Company, to whom it pleased Parliament two years ago to commit the government of that country, was meant; and when it was asserted that that Company was ignorant of the practice of torture in India, he denied it, and would prove his denial by the records on the table. He could believe it

985
possible that the Governors who were sent out to India were ignorant of these practices, but it was difficult to say whether it were a greater shame to be ignorant, or to be cognisant, of their existence. Their Lordships should remember that the subject had not come to the cognisance of Parliament from having been brought substantively before the House of Commons. The discovery arose from the incidental assertion of an English gentleman who had travelled in that country, on occasion of a Motion on the land tenure in India in the House of Commons. In the course of the debate, that Gentleman asserted that to his knowledge torture was inflicted on the Natives of India not only in criminal cases under inquiry, but also in the collection of the revenue. This assertion was met by a distinct denial on the part of certain Members of the Lower House, who were connected with the Company, some of whom had been thirty years in the Company's service; and one Gentleman, who exerted great influence over the Indian administration, namely, Sir James Hogg, actually twitted the hon. Gentleman with having gone into remote districts in the prosecution of vague and idle inquiries. But notwithstanding these disclaimers, the truth was brought to light by the subsequent Commission of Inquiry, and it was to Mr. Danby Seymour they were indebted for the disclosures they were then discussing. The East India Company had denied the practice of torture so far as applied to the collection of rent tax, but not in other respects; but he repeated the East India Company must have known of the infliction of torture, and wilfully and disgracefully concealed it. Lord Harris, who had lately arrived at Madras, and was, doubtless, ignorant of those practices, said, and it showed the ignorance or deceit of the persons by whom he was surrounded, "He would not hesitate to repel such accusations on the part of the Government service, but it would not be satisfactory to that service if they were not inquired into." When the question with reference to the police was alluded to, the Governor in Council said:—"The Government is desirous of ascertaining the extent to which similar practices are carried on in the Presidency." He then proceeded to say that strenuous exertions would be made, and so on. On the margin of that very document there were actually no less than ten circular orders quoted, beginning in 1806 and going on to 1852—their
986
Lordships would observe that he (Lord Harris) was writing in 1854—showing that torture had been long and notoriously practised. Now, what he (the Marquess of Clanricarde) wanted to know was, why the practice, thus shown to be well known, was not put a stop to until the issuing of the Commission? He (the Marquess of Clanricarde) would show their Lordships the facility with which the information on the subject of torture might have been obtained if required, and the manner in which such torture was spoken of by the servants of the East India Company. One of the witnesses most to be relied upon was a Captain Frederick Nelson, a gallant officer on service at a place called Ongole. Their Lordships would observe that the Order in Council, from which he (the Marquess of Clanricarde) had just read a short extract, was dated the 9th of September, and on the 18th of September the officer referred to was in a position to give ample information on the subject, he having been an eye-witness. A Native went to that gallant officer to complain that he had been tortured for rent; but the evidence not being quite to the satisfaction of Captain Nelson, he proceeded to the sort of police court in which the alleged torture was said to have been carried on. Arrived there, he twitted the man who complained by asking him where the instruments were with which he was tortured, who, in reply, pointed out those instruments, and three or four persons being tortured then and there; and Captain Nelson further ascertained that it was for the non-payment of the rent tax that the punishment was inflicted. Could the East India Company deny that they were cognisant of such tortures? and if they were not, what other horrors might not be perpetrated at that or other places of which that House never even heard. In the Report of the circumstances of the case to which he had just referred, the proceeding was spoken of as one of "coercion." It went on to say that, so far as Ongole was concerned, torture was not used by revenue officers, "unless canes, ferules, &c., could be considered instruments of torture"—but that he (Captain Nelson) felt it his duty to reveal the circumstances which had come under his notice. Those facts would never have been revealed if the Order of the 9th of September had not been sent forth, and that Order would never have been made but for the fortunate

987
journey of Mr. Danby Seymour to that part of the world. If all the circumstances now before that House had been brought before the Commissioners in 1853, and if the Committees of both Houses had been carried on, as he (the Marquess of Clanricarde) believed it had been intended to be carried on, by the noble Earl opposite (Earl of Derby), they might have made a very great difference in the way in which the subject had been dealt with at that period. It afforded matter for the grave consideration of Parliament when such practices were brought accidentally before it, showing, as they did, the conduct of the East India Company's servants, affording an insight into what Mr. Burke called "the inmost recesses and labyrinths" of Indian subjects. The noble Duke (the Duke of Argyll) said, in answer to a part of his noble Friend's (the Earl of Albemarle's) speech, that it was not for purposes of money that those practices had been connived at, but he (the Marquess of Clanricarde) would ask why, if they were not resorted to in the cause of revenue, was there not a better system of government established throughout the country? But clearly torture was resorted to in the collection of land tax, and in connection with the police; and the continuance had resolved itself to a question of money, and nothing but money. If the Indian Government had proper officers for the collection of the revenue, and a proper police, these things could not happen, and it was entirely owing to the system of government in India that they were permitted to go on. Unless there was established a more perfect supervision of the practices of those persons to whom they entrusted the collection of the taxes, there could be no guarantee that such practices would not continue to prevail. Their Lordships had been assured by the noble Duke that steps had been taken, and would be taken in reference to these transactions. So far as the Government of Madras had now moved in the matter, he was bound to admit that they had pursued a satisfactory course; but he could not conceal the fact that their Lordships had not the security that these steps would be followed out to their legitimate consequences. Whenever the subject was properly considered, in connection with it must be taken into consideration the question of Indian finance—the two things necessarily acted and reacted upon each other. The Government of Madras doubtless thought it necessary
988
to impress upon its European collectors the necessity of collecting every shilling that could be obtained from the people, and the Native agents had it impressed upon them that they were to obtain every farthing the Government required. Moreover, by these latter torture was occasionally inflicted for the gratification of their own bad passions. That would, therefore, be a partial and unsatisfactory settlement—amounting, in fact, to little better than no settlement at all—that did not take both questions within its terms. One excuse advanced in defence of torture was, that the Natives were so fond of money that nothing but torture would extract it from them. That, however, was an argument deserving of very little weight. He hoped that the present discussion and inquiry would put an end to practices about which only one opinion could be entertained by that House; but he rejoiced that they were not to go to a division on the question—that was not the time for coming to any decision—and he would warn their Lordships that at some future time the entire problem would require solution at their hands.
THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGH: My Lords, I rejoice that this subject has been brought under your Lordships' attention by the noble Earl, and I rejoice also that there is every prospect that we shall not be called on to divide on this Motion, for I think it would be highly undesirable that there should be even the appearance of the slightest difference of opinion among us with respect to this enormity, and with respect to the duty of the Government to take every measure in their power for its extirpation. In the course of my public life I have been connected with the government of India—in this country about two and three quarter years and in India two and a quarter years—in all five years, and in the whole of that time I never heard of or had the slightest suspicion that the practice of torture existed in any part of India; and if at any time before I had read that Blue-book which lies on your Lordship's table, I had heard that such a charge had been made against the Indian Government, I should have repudiated it with no little indignation. But I must say, that inasmuch as it is now certain that this practice has constantly existed to a greater or a less degree—delivered to us from our predecessors, the Mahomedan rulers of the country, and continued under our own Government, for half a century—for we have

989
had possession of those provinces for more than fifty years—it is to me a matter of the greatest surprise and regret that there should have been that silence on the part of those persons who must have been cognisant of it, and that it should never have been brought prominently under the notice of any one entrusted with the Government of the country. It must have been known among those who carry on the Government in subordinate positions; but, beyond all question, those who are the heads of the Government have never become acquainted with it. I do not go with the noble Earl to the length of attributing connivance in this practice to any member of the civil service in India; but I must say that I do not think the officers of that service have shown that sensitiveness upon the subject of the existence of so dreadful a crime which might have been expected from the feelings of English gentlemen. I think it most extraordinary too, that, with the exception of a very few cases, the punishment inflicted for this offence should have been so extraordinarily inadequate. And not only that, but also that in so very many instances the magistrate should have held the case not to be proved, and in so very many others that he should have consented to that which seems to me to be totally inconsistent with our ideas of the administration of criminal justice—a compromise between the person tortured and the man who had tortured him. I look upon this circumstance with more than regret, and I do hope that the Government at home and the Government in India will make the gentlemen who exercise authority under them in India thoroughly understand that the administration of British India is hereafter to be conducted in a very different spirit from that in which it appears to have been conducted according to the papers upon your Lordships' table. I rejoice that the noble Duke (the Duke of Argyll) has stated it to be his opinion, and, as I understand, that of Her Majesty's Government, that it was absolutely essential to separate the functions of the police from the collection of the revenue. I have always been of opinion that the police and the revenue should be in different hands; but the noble Duke will find, and the Government here will find, more practical difficulty in carrying that separation into effect than they expect, and unless the greatest resolution is shown by the authorities here, you may depend upon it failure will ensue. I say this with the more confidence because this
990
was the only subject on which I and my Council did not agree. I never could get them to adopt the view which I always entertained as to the necessity of separating the police from the revenue department. But if you only separate the two departments you will do but little. The proposition which I then made, and to which I did not obtain their assent—a proposition which I think absolutely necessary for the good government of India—was that the police should have a military character. Wherever I had the opportunity, as I had in the North Western Provinces, I did everything in my power to carry that measure into effect. In Scinde, I had a tabula rasa, and I immediately wrote to my gallant friend (Sir C. Napier) with my sanction to establish there a system of police which should serve as the model of the police all over India. In that country the police is altogether military; it is armed, drilled, and paid like soldiers, and it approaches to the military character more nearly, I apprehend, even than the police of Ireland. The country is divided into districts, each under the charge of a lieutenant, who corresponds regularly with his captain, in whom is vested the superintendence of the body throughout the whole province, and, by an admirable regulation of Sir Charles Napier, not only are special reports made of every noteworthy occurrence either in the police or revenue departments, but a weekly report is also sent in of all occurrences which are in any degree important in either department. No wrong, therefore, can be done without a combination of two hostile authorities—of two authorities certainly jealous of each other—constituted in a totally different manner and under different heads. The result has been not only the absence of cruelty, but the most perfect good government, the protection of the inhabitants, and the prevention of crime. In other parts of India, the police are entirely useless for the preservation of order. If there is a disturbance they run away, as was shown in the Santhal insurrection. They are powerful for the persecution of the people, and useless for their protection. I am perfectly confident that there is no other method of securing the due administration of police duties but by separating the police from the revenue service. When that has been effected, it is absolutely necessary that the pay of the European officers should be such as to induce, not only young, but old, respectable, and experienced officers to take commands

991
in this force. It is also necessary that the pay of the police should be increased in order to induce respectable classes of men to enter into it; and, more than this, it is most desirable that there should be in the police so many different grades well paid, so as to make it worth the while of persons expecting soon to rise to non-commissioned situations in the regular forces of the army to transfer their services to the police. In the first instance, at least, it would be most desirable to obtain the aid of military men in the organisation of the police. I say this, because it was impossible for me in passing through different parts of India not to perceive the difference of character between persons belonging to the army and persons having only a private character. There is nothing so humiliating as to observe the servile salaam of the persons who crowd the courts of the civil officers. There is nothing, on the other hand, more graceful and dignified than the appearance of the Native soldier when he salutes his officer. While he evinces respect for his superiors, he shows also that he respects himself. In all cases you will find that the only true mode of really improving the moral character of the people of India is to draw the Native officers exercising authority over them from the army, by which they were ennobled, and became a different class. There is one point forced on our observation by the papers on the table, which, though strongly noticed by the Commissioners, is not noticed by the Court of Directors, namely, the connection between the persons who direct the police and who compose it, with the persons who are about the court of the collector, and who may be called his head-quarters staff. There is nothing more dangerous or improper in the state of India than the connection between the persons in the police and the persons who were generally understood to have the ear of the collector. It leads to the keeping back of complaints which ought to be made, and to the defeat of justice when complaints are made. I feel this matter most strongly; and from the first time I became acquainted with the affairs of India I have always entertained the greatest apprehensions that many of the evils with which India is afflicted were derived from the circumstance of the European officer being much more than he ought to be in the hands of the Native officers by whom he is surrounded. The more the
992
European officer is young or inexperienced, the more, of course, he falls under the control of these Native officers. One circumstance which is considered most calculated to improve the condition of the people—namely, the extension of education—is, from the manner in which it operates, calculated more than anything else to increase the evil; for it is too commonly found that the persons receiving instruction are the sons and relations of persons already in office, forming, consequently, a low official aristocracy, calculated to hold permanent possession of office, and making themselves useful to the European by the very knowledge of his language. I think it would be desirable to direct the European officer to pass six months in every year under canvas, not to wait until the Natives come to him for justice, but to go about and visit every part of his district, and make himself on every occasion accessible to the people. He would thus become acquainted with their wants and feeling; many grievances, perhaps heretofore unsuspected, would come to his knowledge, and it would be impossible for such things as we are now lamenting to take place and remain unknown. The best thing to improve the Madras territory would be to pass an Act with one short clause, giving the Governor the power of leaving the Presidency, of going into the interior with all the powers of Governor and Council, and of seeing things with his own eyes. There is one point on which I entertain a different opinion from many who have expressed their views upon this subject. It is considered that the great cause of all the evil now under notice is over-assessment, especially in the case of the land revenue in the Madras territory. Now, I have referred anxiously to the papers on the table of the House in connection with the subject, and I confess that the result on my mind is, that the revenue of the Madras territory is, on the whole, not excessive, but ill assessed and ill administered. In the course of twenty-seven years the population of Madras has increased by 8,500,000 persons. At the same time the taxation, on the contrary, has been reduced by £732,000. I am speaking now only of the ancient territory of Madras, But while on the whole the result is thus far favourable to the people of India, the complaints which come from particular districts convince me that great inequalities exist somewhere; and since the increase of population is indicative

993
of the increase of prosperity, and also of the increase of land under cultivation, I cannot but think that the territory is not generally excessively, but rather ill, assessed, and that the last Revenue requires revision. Some of the details on this subject are remarkable, there being in some districts a great increase in population, and in others scarcely any; and it is deserving notice, that in one district, where there has been a diminution of population, there has been an increase of taxation. I will read to your Lordships an account of the population and taxation of different districts—

Population.

Revenue.

1823.

1850.

1823.

1850.

Grajam

332,015

926,930

144,123

142,113

N. Arcot

892,292

1,485,973

234,571

215,021

S. Arcot

455,020

1,006,005

221,727

269,645

Tinnivelley

564,957

1,269,216

255,294

247,311

Masulipatam

529,849

520,866

149,528

152,269

Salem

1,075,985

l,195,377

229,09l

185,453

In the Report I find the following statement made by a Native—
"I have heard from many that thousands of ryots of the Masulipatam districts have left their houses and lands waste, and went over to the Nizam's territories, in consequence of torture and extortion, &c., for which they have not obtained redress from the collector thereof, as the huzzoor and talook servants were combined together against them."
This is the Native prince whose dominions have been recommended over and over again for immediate annexation, in order that the people of his country might have what is called the benefits of our rule. The facts which I have stated make it necessary that there should be on the part of the Government the most searching inquiry into the whole of the revenue system of the Madras territory, for somewhere or other there is a great evil. I do not believe that the whole sum collected is extravagant. The diminution of revenue, as well as several of the details of Madras government of which we now complain, is to be attributed in a great degree to the ryotwarry settlement, a settlement sanctioned by the authority of Sir Thomas Munro, the very greatest man, take him for all in all, who ever entered the service of the East India Company. I always apprehended, with respect to the ryotwarry settlement, that which has taken place; I always thought that, established as it was by the genius, industry, knowledge, and benevolence of one great man, it would fail when it fell into
994
the hands of men with less knowledge, industry, and benevolence than he had. The only fallacy of which Sir Thomas Munro is to be accused is, that he vainly supposed other men were as great as himself. His industry, knowledge, and benevolence not having been possessed by others, the whole system has fallen to pieces, and its fundamental revision is absolutely necessary for the welfare of the people. Many of us, my Lords, are apt to look upon the Natives of India as low and degraded, and I cannot refrain from affording you the satisfaction of hearing the opinion expressed by Sir Thomas Munro in the House of Commons, with regard to that people forty-three years ago. I was then a young Man. I had just entered the House of Commons, and I well recollect the effect produced by the words I am now going to read. Sir Thomas Munro had been asked, probably by one of those persons who are of opinion that trade will effect everything, what would be its effect upon the civilisation of the Hindoos. He said:—
"With regard to civilisation, I do not exactly understand what is meant by the civilisation of the Hindoos; in the higher branches of science, in the knowledge of the theory and practice of good government, and in an education which, by banishing prejudice and superstition, opens the mind to receive instruction of every kind from every quarter, they are much inferior to Europeans; but if a good system of agriculture, unrivalled manufacturing skill, a capacity to produce whatever can contribute to convenience or luxury, schools established in every village for teaching reading, writing, and arithmetic, the general practice of hospitality and charity among each other, and, above all, a treatment of the female sex full of confidence, respect, and delicacy, are among the signs which denote a civilised people, then the Hindoos are not inferior to the nations of Europe; and if civilisation is to become an article of trade between the two countries, I am convinced that this country will gain by the import cargo."
This was the opinion of Sir Thomas Munro, and I hope that the effect of our legislation during the last half-century has been at least to leave the people of whom he spoke in such terms as good as we found them. There is an observation in a very valuable paper written by a Hindoo, contained in the Report on your Lordships' table, to which I also think it right to direct your notice. That Hindoo, referring to the progress of education among the people of India, cautions the Government that, although when in a state of comparative ignorance they were prepared to submit to almost any suffering that could

995
be inflicted upon them on account of their ignorance, it is altogether inconsistent with the knowledge and enlightenment they now possess that they should continue to bear without resistance; in calm, serious, and respectful terms he informs the Government that, having travelled through all parts of the country, he has witnessed a change in the feelings of the people towards them, and he warns them that only by adopting a different system, and by making our rule really beneficial to the people, can we hope to maintain our anomalous Government, and to fulfil that which is, I trust, our destiny—to remain for ever the lords of India.
LORD MONTEAGLEsaid, that we had heard much of the double government of India, and undoubtedly if the facts proved before the Commissioners had been kept from the knowledge of the noble Earl during the whole period of his connection with the Government of India, such a convenient suppression of information could have been maintained only by means of an unexampled system of organised duplicity. He denied that the Members of their Lordships' Committee were responsible for not having obtained information upon the subject. They never were permitted to enter into the question of finance—they were deprived of all means of inquiry by the unexampled course pursued by the Government in closing the evidence, and precipitating the course of legislation. He thought that the facts stated by the noble Earl who had just spoken led to conclusions different from those at which the noble Earl had himself arrived. The noble Duke (the Duke of Argyll) had tried to persuade the House that these practices were confined to the Presidency of Madras; but he (Lord Monteagle) took upon himself very respectfully to deny that assertion. If from the year 1806 to the present time such atrocities had taken place at Madras and had been concealed from the knowledge of the Government, it was equally probable that in other parts of India similar mischief was prevalent, and that the Government knew nothing about it. But this was more than an inference, for there was distinct evidence in the Blue-book, that torture prevailed in other parts of India. Mr. Walter Elliot, one of the ablest civil servants of the East India Company, after stating the horrors perpetrated in the Madras Presidency, added—
"It is not to be supposed that abuse of authority by public officers is confined to Southern
996
India. It is the rule of administration in all Native States, and as these have fallen under British authority the system, though discountenanced, has not been eradicated. I can state, from my own knowledge of the precisely similar revenue and police management in parts of Bombay in which I have served or have visited, that similar practices must and do prevail; and the relation of the atrocities perpetrated by the Tannadari police, and the far more degraded and destitute condition of the peasantry in the permanently settled districts, leave no room to doubt that the same excesses are to be found in an even greater degree in Bengal,"
He therefore was not satisfied with the position in which it was proposed to leave this question. He was not satisfied with merely leaving it for the law officers of India to be instructed to prepare Bills on the subject. He wished rather to see them instructed to enforce the law, and so put an end to the practice. [The Duke of ARGYLL said, the law was not sufficient for the purpose.] Then why had they not long since made those laws stronger? But he relied much more strongly upon discussions like these than upon any laws that might be made, or any instructions that might be sent out to the Crown lawyers in India. He believed that the law was abundantly strong against these abuses; it was a more vigorous administration that was required; but debates like the present would reach India, and would be read by those who controlled the administration of justice there, and would compel the attention of persons in high station to the subject, and thus, without any change in the constituted Government, the end which all men of humanity had in view would be effected. He relied upon the opinion of Mr. Elliot to remove the supposition, if it had entered their Lordships' minds, that these abuses were confined to the Presidency of Madras. He regretted that it had been put forward as a matter of apology by the noble Duke for these practices—cruel and abominable as they were, as degrading to human nature, to those who inflicted them, and as cruel to their victims—that we had inherited these barbarous practices from barbarous times. They might as well embrace Mahomedanism upon the same ground, or excuse the worship of Juggernaut and other degrading superstitious customs, justifying ourselves on the ground that we had in like manner inherited these crimes from the original possessors of India. Let the Government possess the territory and the wealth of India, but let them not claim an inheritance of crime, which they would do if they extenuated

997
their own misdeeds by pointing out the greater misdeeds of their predecessors. It was our duty to recommend Christianity to the people of India, but it was not by permitting our taxgatherers to apply instruments of torture to the breast of a woman that we should recommend the Gospel of Christ to the Hindoos. He hoped that the Blue-book on this subject would be circulated, read, and understood throughout the length and breadth of the land. A feeling would then be raised that would prove irresistible. He knew that the measures of improvement recommended by the kind heart and courageous energy of Lord William Bentinck would never have been accomplished but for the aid of the public spirit of the people of England; and the public spirit of England should now be evoked to put down these abominable practices and to punish their perpetrators, or the people of Europe would believe that we continued to sanction these atrocities. If we acquiesced in these enormities we should desert our duty, disgrace our ancestors, cast aside the glorious precedents of the Munros and Mountstuart Elphinstones, and would become responsible for the misdeeds of their degenerate and unworthy successors.
THE EARL OF HARROWBYsaid, he did not think this debate should be allowed to close with the last words of his noble Friend who had just sat down. He could not believe that Europe would ever look upon the Government of this country as favourable to this practice, because Europe would remember that on inheriting a vast territory like India, it was an exceedingly difficult matter to extirpate at once all the evils so deeply rooted in the habits of the people. The only point, indeed, where exception could be taken was in this, namely, that the officials of India had not more generally and more frequently expressed their indignation at this practice; but even here some palliation might be found for them in recollecting the effect of a constant familiarity with the habits and modes of thought of the different classes of society. But these discussions in Parliament would reverberate among the English officials in India, and would re-temper their minds if they had become lowered by what passed around them. Abuses like these were not to be extirpated by Act of Parliament or by philanthropic declamation. It was most difficult to get rid of oppression when you had to do
998
with a people who would not complain. In the northern districts and in Scinde, where an independent spirit prevailed, it was possible to protect the people, but in the Madras and Bengal districts, where the spirit of the people was cowed, and where they looked upon acts of oppression as a natural consequence of rule, it was difficult to repress evils of this kind. What was it that prevented the existence of abuses in this country? Because an Englishman resented an evil and brought it to public notice; but the abject submission of a portion of the population was one of the difficulties in the way of good government in India, and they had to deal with a people who would often rather submit to any evil than travel a few miles to obtain redress. The Government had also to act over a vast surface of population, and to operate by means of inferior agents. He hailed, however, these discussions, as being calculated to produce a wholesome effect—they would serve to convince the people of India and Europe that the minds of Englishmen were not callous to these dreadful abuses; and they were a sufficient answer to a certain foreign writer who had attempted to defend the King of Naples by retorting upon us that far worse cruelties were perpetrated by a Protestant Government on the people of India. He hoped the discussion would have the effect of correcting such a gross misstatement, if it had been for a moment entertained. He had always thought the combination of the police and revenue departments a mistake, but it was supported at the time by Sir Thomas Munro, who was most friendly to the Natives. It was impossible to pledge the Government further, but their Lordships knew Lord Harris was now engaged in a close investigation of the practice of torture, with a view to applying the most efficient remedies.
LORD CONGLETONconsidered that neither the English nor the Indian mind would be satisfied, except by a complete separation between the revenue and the police departments. The book now before their Lordships' House proved not only that a wholesale system of torture existed in India, but showed that the combined revenue and police officers pillaged the people. He did not believe, after the public exposure which had now taken place of what was going on in India, that that system could be continued. The Native mind had grown too large in the last

999
twenty years for such a system to be perpetuated; and he did trust that the result would be the separation of the police and revenue departments.
THE EARL OF ALBEMARLE,in reply, said, he was glad to see the Government had evinced a disposition to do away with the ryotwarry system, and he rejoiced to find they were becoming converts to the principles he advocated on this question.
Motion, as amended, agreed to.
House adjourned till To-morrow.