Sitting of 21 July 1856

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—1° Proctors in Ecclesiastical Courts; Bishops of London and Durham Retirement.
2° Stoke Poges Hospital.
3° Charities; Hospitals (Dublin): Burial-grounds (Ireland); Mercantile Law Amendment; Lunatic Asylums (Superannuations) (Ireland); Joint-Stock Banks.

STANDING ORDERS.
COLONEL WILSON PATTENsaid, he would beg to move the adoption of the Report of the Standing Orders Committee, who had proposed certain alterations:— Of late a practice had grown up of moving long Amendments and new clauses on the third reading of Bills. During the present Session that practice had been carried out to such an extent that the principle of Bills had at the last moment been completely changed. The Committee on Standing Orders proposed, therefore, that no Amendments, except of a merely verbal character, should be introduced on the third reading of a Bill. Another and more important alteration which they proposed had reference to the revenues of India. By an Order, which dated from the Revolution, no Money Vote could be considered by the House unless it was recommended to them by the Crown. It had, however, been discovered in the recent discussion on the
1104
case of the Nawab of Surat, that no such rule existed with regard to India; and as the Indian revenues stood on precisely the same footing as the land revenues of the Crown, he did not see why such an exception should be allowed. The Committee therefore proposed the new Standing Order— "That this House will not receive any Petition or proceed upon any Motion for a charge upon the Revenues of the East India Company, without the recommendation of the Court of Directors, sanctioned by the Commissioners for the Affairs of India." He believed the hon. and learned Gentleman (Sir E. Perry) objected to the proposal, because he conceived that it would interfere with the right of the Indian subjects of Her Majesty to appeal to Parliament. That, however, he apprehended was a mistake. The natives of India would have precisely the same right as that possessed by the natives of this country. It would be open for any hon. Member to move on their behalf for a Committee of Inquiry or an Address to the Crown. The only other proposed alteration in the Standing Orders which he need mention was one to the effect that Committees might sit on Wednesdays or during morning sittings without obtaining the formal permission of the House.
On the Question being put, "That no Amendments not being merely verbal shall be made to any Bill on the Third Reading."
SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYsaid, he would beg to ask what was to constitute a "verbal" Amendment?
COLONEL WILSON PATTENsaid, the Committee intended by that term anything which would make the least alteration in the meaning of a Bill. The Committee had only determined by the casting vote of the chairman to admit of any alterations at all; but it was thought that cases might arise in which there might be some little inaccuracies which it would be desirable to correct. He would beg at the same time to suggest that this alteration should not come into operation till next Session.
LORD ROBERT CECILsaid, he thought the time chosen for the alteration of the Order was very unfortunate, seeing that the House had not long since had to reconsider its decision at the last moment. Under the proposed Order a Bill might be passed through Committee without Amendment, and reported the same night, and there would then be no opportunity of

1105
altering it; but the House, if it discovered any mistake, must reject the measure altogether.
LORD HOTHAMsaid, the Lords had of late years refused to receive Bills after a certain date; but they had themselves, no doubt accidentally, sent down important measures with in a very short period before the close of the Session. He would therefore suggest that it might be desirable for the House to pass a Standing Order similar to that adopted in the other House —namely, that after a certain date they would receive no Bills from the House of Lords.
MR. WILKINSONsaid, he was sorry the Committee on Standing Orders had not taken some steps to prevent the waste of time which occurred every week, in consequence of Members moving Amendments on the Motion for the adjournment.
Ordered, "That no Amendments, not being merely verbal, shall be made to any Private Bill on the Third Reading."
Resolved, "That the several Standing Orders relating to Private Bills, as amended by the said Committee, be agreed to."
Ordered, "That Standing Order No. 84, relating to Private Bills, be repealed."
Ordered, "That no Amendments, not being merely verbal, shall be made to any Bill on the Third Reading."
Ordered, "That on Wednesdays and other Morning Sittings of the House, all Committees shall have leave to sit, except while the House is at Prayers, during the sitting, and notwithstanding any adjournment of the House."
Motion made, and Question proposed,—
"That this House will not receive any Petition or proceed upon any Motion for a charge upon the Revenues of the East India Company, without the recommendation of the Court of Directors, sanctioned by the Commissioners for the Affairs of India."
SIR ERSKINE PERRYsaid, he should move that this Order be rejected, for he thought it ran counter to the whole course of recent legislation with regard to India, and which he considered would involve the denial of justice. The hon. and gallant Member (Colonel W. Patten) said that natives of India would be placed in precisely the same position as the rest of Her Majesty's subjects. That, however, would not be the case. A native of this country, having a claim against the Crown, would not come before the House of Commons at all—he would have his petition of right; therefore, the natives of India were not advantageously situated even with regard to Motions in the House of Commons for an Address to the Crown. The inconvenience
1106
of the proposed Standing Order was exemplified by the difference of opinion which had arisen between the Board of Control and the Court of Directors as to the claim of the Nawab of Surat. The right hon. Member for Carlisle (Sir J. Graham) had expressed his opinion that, if some order of this kind was not adopted, the purity of that House would be tainted; but, although he (Sir E. Perry) was most anxious that the honour and character of the House should not be impeached, he thought the natives of India ought not to be deprived of the power of appealing to Parliament when they had suffered wrong. For those reasons, he should therefore move the omission of the Order.
MR. VERNON SMITHsaid, he considered that the Standing Order was necessary for the protection of the Indian revenues, and would beg to remind the hon. and learned Gentleman (Sir E. Perry) that it had received the approval of all the Members of the Committee except himself. He hoped it would not be supposed that the adoption of the Order would deprive the natives of India of any power of appeal, for they would have the same means of access to that House to represent any wrongs of which they had reason to complain as were enjoyed by any of Her Majesty's subjects.
COLONEL WILSON PATTENsaid, he was willing to substitute for the words, "without the recommendation of the Court of Directors, sanctioned by the Commissioners for the Affairs of India," these words, "without the recommendation of the Crown."
SIR JAMES HOGGsaid, he wished to remove a misconception which existed, that natives of India could not sue the Government of India. The fact was, that the Indian Government possessed no privileges of exemption from legal proceedings, and that any individual could sue the Government of India, not only in the Supreme Court, but in any subordinate Court, the same as any individual, except in the case of a political matter.
MR. ROEBUCKsaid, he understood that the Nawab of Surat could not sue the East India Company.
SIR FITZROY KELLYsaid, there could be no doubt that, whenever the East India Company performed any act in its capacity of a private corporation, it was liable, like any other corporation, to be sued; but whenever the Company, as representing the British Crown, did any act

1107
—as, for example, becoming a party to a treaty—it was entirely irresponsible in any court of law. When a native Prince of India was either coerced or persuaded into a treaty with the East India Company, and when he gave up his dominions and his Sovereign power, he had no remedy in a court of justice, should he deem himself an injured party. He lost all the power of a Sovereign, and did not acquire the rights of a subject. It was a very important question, whether the revenues of the East India Company should or should not be affected by any Bill brought in without the assent of the Crown; but, as this Standing Order was altogether new, and as it could not receive that consideration at that period of the Session which it deserved, he would, if a division took place, vote against it.
MR. CARDWELLsaid, he thought the Order, as amended, a very wise and just Resolution. It would give to every subject of India that remedy which was now possessed in this country of appealing to the House of Commons, if he thought he had a claim on its revenues. If the rule was not merely a technical but substantially a wise and beneficial rule in this country, it was equally so with regard to India. The revenues of India were held in trust for the Crown, and he held that the charges on those revenues should be fenced about with the same checks and cautions which were thrown around the revenues of this country. The Bill relating to the Nawab of Surat, which had passed that House by a large majority, had been rejected by the House of Lords because it was introduced as a private Bill. So far, there was a denial of remedy. He should certainly support the Order.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
Resolved, "That this House will not receive any Petition, or proceed upon any Motion for a Charge upon the Revenues of India, but what is recommended by the Crown."
Resolved, "That the several Standing Orders relating to Public Matters, as amended by the said Committee, be agreed to."
Ordered, "That the said Orders and Resolutions be Standing Orders of this House, and do take effect at the close of the present Session of Parliament."
Ordered, "That the Standing Orders of this House be printed."

REVIEW OF THE SESSION.
MR. DISRAELI: Sir, I beg to give notice that on Thursday next, or any other time which may be more convenient to Her Majesty's Ministers, I shall call the
1108
attention of the House to the conduct of business during the present Session, and make a Motion for a Return of the Bills withdrawn during the same period.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would make his statement on Friday. Certain business has been fixed for Thursday, and it would be more convenient to take the discussion on his Motion on the following evening.
MR. DISRAELI: Very well, Sir, I shall make my statement on Friday.

THE GERMAN LEGION—QUESTION.
MR. MURROUGHsaid, he would beg, in accordance with the notice he had given, to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Clerk of the Ordnance whether it was true that, although the officers of the British army at Aldershot had been required to furnish their huts at their own expense, the huts occupied by the officers of the German troops there had been furnished for them at the public expense, and, that he might be in order, he would move the adjournment of the House so that he might be enabled to make a statement with respect to recent occurrences at Aldershot. When the Foreign Enlistment Bill was brought before the House in December 1854, its opponents pointed out to the Government the deplorable consequences which would ensue from the introduction of foreign troops into the service of Her Majesty. The anticipations of those gentlemen had been fully realised. Not only had the promise of the hon. Under Secretary for War, that the men belonging to the foreign legion, when they returned from the East, would be sent to some British colony, not been fulfilled, but it was rumoured out of doors that a very high and distinguished personage—
MR. WALPOLE: Sir, I rise to order. I do not wish to stand between the hon. Member and the House, but, having given notice of his intention to put a particular question to the Government, I do not think he can continue his observations. It is true that, in order that he might make a statement, he has moved the adjournment of the House; but he is bound, I apprehend, to confine himself to showing why that Motion should be adopted; otherwise it is obvious the public business might be exposed, from time to time, to very serious and unnecessary interruptions. I appeal to you, Sir, to decide whether the hon. Member is not out of order.
MR. MURROUGH: Sir, I concur with the right hon. Gentleman that I ought to have very strong reasons for adopting the course which I have now done, and, with the permission of the House, I will proceed to state those reasons. (Cries of, "Order!")
MR. SPEAKER: The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Cambridge has fairly stated what the rule of the House is—namely, that when a Member moves the adjournment of the House he ought to show some reason why the House should adjourn. The hon. Member for Bridport has not done so yet.
MR. MURROUGH: No, Sir, but I am prepared to vindicate my Motion. When assassinations have been perpetrated at Aldershot by German mercenaries—when English subjects are bleeding from the dirks of foreign hirelings— am I not justified in calling the attention the of the House to the subject? The country is indignant beyond measure. It feels that these foreign troops are countenanced by those who sit in high places. (Cries of "Order!") It is all very well for hon. Gentlemen to cry "Order ! "but it is our duty, as the representatives of the people, to inquire into these matters, and I am not aware that I am exceeding the privileges of debate in bringing so important a subject under the notice of the House. Sir, is it right or just that the officers of the German Legion, notwithstanding what has occurred at Aldershot and elsewere, should have their huts furnished to them at the expense of the country?
MR. SPOONER: Sir, I rise to order. You have stated that when an hon. Member moves the adjournment of the House he is bound to give sufficient reasons why the House should adjourn. Now, can any event, however deplorable which may have happened at Aldersot, be a good reason why this House should forthwith adjourn?
MR. SPEAKER: I have not yet heard from the hon. Member for Bridport any reason why the House should adjourn. The House will see that if one hon. Member be allowed to move the adjournment of the House, and upon that Motion to make a speech relative to a totally different subject, another may adopt the same course, and it will be practically impossible to carry on the public business.
MR. MURROUGH: I think, Sir, that no business of any kind should be proceeded with until we have some statement from Her Majesty's Government on the important question which I have introduced to the notice of the House. That is the reason why I have moved the adjournment of the House. (Cries of "Order!") I am speaking to order. I have no doubt hon. Gentlemen would be extremely glad to get rid of this question; but it is one of great interest to the country and to the Government, which has placed us in this dilemma. Are the assassinations at Aldershot to be left unexplained? Are the morals of the army, and indeed of the country at large, to be corrupted by a band of German brigands?
VISCOUNT BARRINGTON: I must say. Sir, that I think the hon. Member has now given us a reason why the House should not adjourn.
MR. MURROUGH: Sir, I feel, and many hon. Members feel with me, that the time has come when we should ascertain by what or by whose influence these German troops are maintained in this free country.
COLONEL FREESTUN: Sir, I rise to order. I really think the hon. Member should not be allowed to proceed.
MR. ROEBUCK: I do not think, Sir, any good can arise from this discussion, but let us not forget the old proverb that "what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander." Not so very long ago the hon. Member for North Northamptonshire (Mr. Stafford) having moved the adjournment of the House, proceeded to make a statement with respect to the naval review at Spithead. If he had a right to do that, I suppose the hon. Member for Bridport (Mr. Murrough) is equally entitled to make his statement, though I do not think he is adopting a very wise course.
MR. E. BALLsaid, he fully concurred with the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield, that the practice of the House was, on a formal Motion for the adjournment of the House, to allow statements to be made on different subjects.
MR. SPEAKER: I have no doubt that hon. Members, from time to time, have moved the adjournment of the House, in order to bring forward particular questions; but what I wish to point out to the House is, that if that practice be persevered in, it will be quite impossible to transact the public business.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: I apprehend, Sir, that, if the Standing Orders were strictly enforced, any hon. Member who had moved the adjournment of the House would be compelled to confine himself to that question. Through laxity and indulgence, hon. Members are occasionally permitted to diverge to other topics; but the House will observe that the hon. Member for Bridport is doubly out of order, because he has departed not only from the rules of the House, but also from a notice which he had himself given. I am ready to answer the question which he has placed on the paper, and, seeing that the hon. Member has given another notice for tomorrow with respect to the German Legion, I hope he will defer his observations till then.
MR. MURROUGH: Sir, I hope we shall hear something more from the noble Lord than a mere answer to the question of which I have given notice. However, I have no objection to postpone my observations till to-morrow, hoping that I may then have an opportunity of making a statement to the House. Meanwhile I trust the noble Lord will answer the question as to the huts occupied by the German troops.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: Sir, I am not going to enter into the subject to which the hon. Member has adverted— namely, the unfortunate collision which has taken place between the soldiers of one regiment and those of another. The particulars of which even have not yet reached me, nor do I know who were the aggressors. I deplore the event very deeply, but it is one not altogether without example, and I am bound to say that the general conduct of the regiments belonging to the German Legion has been most exemplary, and has met with high praise from all officers—both English and foreign —who have witnessed it. I now proceed to the question of the hon. Member itself. When the German Legion was stationed at Shorncliffe it was intended that it should remain there only a short time; and when it was removed to Aldershot, our intention was that it should stay there only until measures were taken for its final disposal— measures which, I trust, will very shortly be carried into execution. The hut furniture supplied to a British officer, as I am informed, consists of two chairs, a table, and fireirons. Anything beyond that he finds for himself. When the
1112
German Legion was stationed at Shorncliffe, an application was made for an additional indulgence in the shape of a soldier's bed and mattress. It so happened that at that time there was a quantity of those articles in store, and considering that the German troops were to remain at Shorncliffe only for a short period, they were provided with a number of them. On their removal to Aldershot the same indulgence was continued to them for the same reason—that their stay in camp was to be only temporary; I certainly do not think that the House will consider that that is an indulgence calling for any animadversion.
MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, he wished to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, in the opinion of the Government, the troops composing the Foreign Legion were available for garrison or for active duty within the United Kingdom?
VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: Sir, the Act of Parliament which authorised Her Majesty's Government to raise foreign troops allowed them to bring into this country a certain number of these troops for the purposes of drill and organisation; but it was never contemplated that they should, while here, he employed in any manner in which troops might unfortunately be required to act. I have no hesitation in stating that these German troops are in this country simply as in a resting place until measures, which are in contemplation, shall be taken for their disbandment: and although I trust that, in the present state of the country, it is utterly out of the question to suppose that any troops can be required for any such purposes as those to which the hon. Gentleman refers, I may add, that undoubtedly no foreign troops would, under any circumstances, be so employed.
MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, he wished to know if he was to understand that none of those foreign troops were to be available for garrison or for active duty in this country?
VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: They are not in garrison; they are encamped; and they must be somewhere.
LORD ROBERT CECILsaid, he wished to ask whether some of those foreign troops had not been in garrison at Dovor Castle?
VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: During the war they occupied a barrack at Dovor, where they had been assembled for the purpose of training.

COAL EXPLOSION IN GLAMORGANSHIRE —QUESTION.
MR. CAYLEYsaid, he would beg to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he intended to employ any special means to ascertain the real circumstances under which the disastrous loss of 110 lives had just taken place, from an explosion in a coal mine in Glamorganshire. The report stated 110 lives, but he had since been informed that 120 lives had been lost.
SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, he had received an account of the unfortunate accident in question, both from the coroner and the inspector of the district. The coroner stated that the inspector was on the spot two hours after the occurrence had taken place, and that he rendered very valuable assistance in the prosecution of the subsequent inquiry. But he added, that in the then state of the coal pit, and amidst the excitement naturally consequent on the calamity, it was impossible its cause could at once be thoroughly investigated, and the inquest had therefore been adjourned to the 28th instant. The inspector wrote to say that, considering the extent of the calamity, in which it appeared that 114 lives had been lost, he wished to have the assistance of two other inspectors in watching the inquiry; and he (Sir G. Grey) had accordingly directed that that assistance should be given. A thorough and searching investigation would take place.

CRIMINAL APPROPRIATION OF TRUST PROPERTY BILL—QUESTION.
MR. HADFIELDsaid, he wished to ask the hon. and learned Attorney General whether he intended to proceed this Session, with the Criminal Appropriation of Trust Property Bill?
THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, he was glad to find the hon. Gentleman had put a question which afforded an opportunity of stating what were his views with respect to that Bill. When he had first obtained the consent of the House to the introduction of a measure for the amendment of the law in reference to the criminal appropriation of trust property he had hoped to go on with it and to pass it in the course of the present Session. But he found that the Master of the Rolls and some others of the Equity Judges were of opinion that the Bill, as it had
1114
been introduced, might be productive of considerable mischief, inasmuch as it would enable trustees who had been guilty of fraudulent malversation to shelter themselves by refusing to give evidence before the Courts on the ground that they did not wish, and that they could not be required to criminate themselves. In consequence of the representations which had thus been addressed to him upon the subject, he had hesitated to go on with the measure. But on the other hand he had been very strongly pressed by many of the leading practitioners in the Court of Chancery to see whether he could not overcome that difficulty. After having further considered the subject, he had, he hoped, framed a Bill which would meet the objection he had stated. He now proposed to take away from trustees, who were called upon to answer in a Court of Chancery, the privilege of sheltering themselves under the plea of crimination, and to give them instead the same security as was possessed by bankers and others who were charged with the fraudulent appropriation of securities—namely, that if under the pressure of the Court they disclosed transactions in which they had been concerned, they should not, in respect of such disclosure, be subject to a criminal proceeding. With the introduction of such a provision, he hoped to be able to propose a measure which should put an end to the fraudulent appropriation of trust property. It would be too late, however, to carry such a Bill in the present Session, and he should therefore propose it early in the Session of 1857.

LOSS OF THE "EUROPA"—QUESTION.
CAPTAIN ARCHDALLsaid, he would beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, it having been announced by the Secretary of State for the Home Department that the Government would take into consideration the question of erecting some permanent memorial to the gallantry and self—devotion of the officers and men who were lost in Her Majesty's ship Birkenhead in February, 1852, the Government will not at the same time consider the propriety of erecting a monument to the memory of Colonel Willoughby Moore and the non-commissioned officers and men of the Enniskillen Dragoons, who lost their lives by the burning of the Europa transport ship on their passage to the seat of war in the spring of 1854? He wished

1115
to direct the attention of the noble Lord to the melancholy circumstances attending the loss of the Europa, and the noble and heroic conduct displayed by Colonel Moore and the Enniskillen Dragoons on that occasion, Colonel Moore refusing to leave the ship, though almost forced to do so, until the last man of his regiment had been saved.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, that Her Majesty's Government were perfectly disposed to commemorate by some permanent memorial that other act to which the hon. and gallant Member had referred, in which a number of British troops had afforded a splendid example of the indomitable courage and the heroic self-possession which had always distinguished our gallant national defenders.

THE CRIMEAN REPORT.
The Report of the Board of General Officers which sat at Chelsea, to inquire into certain charges contained against various officers in the Report of Sir John M'Neill and Colonel Tulloch, was brought up by—
MR. C. P. VILLIERS, who said: In moving, Sir, that these papers be laid upon the table of the House, I will ask leave to notice a statement of an extraordinary character that I am informed has been made in another place, with respect to this Report in connection with myself. I am told that a noble Lord, in complaining that the Report had not been laid upon the table sooner, ascribed the delay to the fact that I had drawn the Report, and that I had been dilatory in the matter for the purpose of serving the objects of the Minister of War. Now, Sir, the reason why I do not believe that this noble Lord has been correctly reported is, that if he made such a statement it is impossible for any man to have uttered a more unmitigated untruth; and I cannot, therefore, believe that the noble Lord has been correctly reported. I beg to state that I never drew the Report, and I never delayed its presentation to Parliament. The general officers drew their own conclusions from the evidence submitted to them, and were quite competent to do so; and I did not delay the presentation of the Report—because I had no power to do so if I had wished it, and I had no object or interest whatever in doing so. I do not believe that anybody deserving the
1116
least respect has ever offered any reason for supposing that I had done so. The noble Lord has been in constant communication with persons who have been connected with this inquiry, and I do not believe that anybody of the least authority has given him this information. He has not obtained it from Lord Hardinge, with whom he has been in frequent communication of late about a portion of these proceedings, for Lord Hardinge knows that all this noble Lord is reported to have said of me is unfounded in fact. Neither has the noble Lord had it from Sir Alexander Woodford, for I have applied to him to know if he considered that what was reported to have been said by this noble Lord was true, and whether he thought that, by any accident, anything could have been said or done by the Board that could have led the noble Lord into error. Sir Alexander Woodford's reply was that, as far as the Board was concerned, it was a gratuitous mistake, for it was perfectly untrue that I had ever wished or attempted to postpone the completion of the Report, and that nothing that had been said at or by the Board could for a moment justify such a thing being said; that the General officers had finished their Report as soon as they were able, and that they were much indebted for the assistance that had been rendered them from the Judge Advocate's office. The noble Lord could not have learned it from Lord Beauchamp, who that noble Lord had probably forgotten was in the same House as himself; for he rose, after the noble Lord had spoken, and, like a man of honour and a Gentleman, refuted the calumnies which he heard unjustly uttered against an absent person. I do not, Sir, therefore, know where the noble Lord got his information from, if he is correctly reported. It is further reported that this noble Lord imputed to me partiality during the conduct of the inquiry, and that I had abused the authority with which I was invested, in order to prejudice him. Sir, I think this House will support me in saying that I should degrade myself, as well as the office that I have the honour to hold, if I were to descend to notice such a charge. The proceedings were—fortunately for me—public; and that portion of the public who attended in the Court was able to judge of the conduct and demeanour of all those who were parties to the proceedings, and I hope the noble Lord is as

1117
ready as myself to abide by their judgment. The noble Lord complains that the inquiry was political in its character, owing to the circumstance of the Judge Advocate General being a Minister and attending the Court. Sir, so totally opposed is this to the fact, that I solemnly declare that I never, during the whole inquiry, asked or heard what were the politics of the general officers who composed the Board and of which I knew nothing, with the exception of the three who were in Parliament; but since the noble Lord has made this assertion I have inquired, and have been credibly informed that every one of the general officers is of the same political party as the noble Lord himself. Besides that, Sir, there was a gentleman who acted as private secretary to Sir Alexander Woodford, who was in the room the whole time when the doors were closed, who, as I believe, was a private friend, and, as I know, was a strong political partisan of the noble Lord, so that in that respect he had everything in his favour: and the noble Lord's judges, they who tried him, and who judged and acquitted him, were his own political partisans. But I hope, sir, I may not be misunderstood to imply that therefore they were actuated in the smallest degree by political motives. I should be ashamed of myself if I imputed this motive to them, because I am satisfied it would be untrue. I believe the general officers gave a careful, anxious, and honest consideration to the evidence which was submitted to them; and I believe that they did what, as judges, they were bound to do,—namely, decide upon the evidence that was laid before them; and I am bound to say I believe that, however incomplete the inquiry and insufficient the evidence may have been in Lord Lucan's case, yet the general officers, looking to what evidence they had to decide upon, have given a just verdict. For what purpose, therefore, the noble Lord wants to discredit the inquiry by casting these imputations upon those who have not injured him I cannot say—I have considered it a duty to myself to notice them, and I trust the House, when they consider that there is no other way, for a Member of this House to meet such charges than to refute them here as publicly as they have been made elsewhere, will consider me excused for having, in my own defence, intruded these observations upon them.
GENERAL PEEL: Sir, as a member of the Board of General Officers who sat at
1118
Chelsea, I have not the slightest hesitation in expressing my opinion that the charge adverted to by the right hon. and learned Gentleman as made by a noble Lord in another place, is perfectly unfair and unfounded. So far from the right hon. and learned Gentleman having been influenced by political feelings, or having attempted to interfere with the opinion of the Board of General Officers, I can safely assert that I know of no inquiry which has ever been conducted with less reference to political feeling. For my own part, with the exception of those three Members of the Board who have seats in this House and in the other House of Parliament, and whose political principles may therefore be assumed to be known, I have not the slightest idea what political views were entertained by the Members of the Board, and I am certain that all were men of far too high a sense of honour to have allowed themselves to be actuated by political principles in giving judgment on the professional conduct of a brother officer. The position of the right hon. and learned Gentleman, as regarded his relation to the Board, may have been an anomalous one, and the question may arise as to what position the Judge Advocate should hold in relation to the Court in inquiries of a similar character; but I can only say—and I am sure that I express the feelings of the whole of the Board—that I am at a loss for language sufficiently powerful to express the opinion of the advantage which the Board derived from the assistance of the right hon. and learned Gentleman.
COLONEL FRENCHsaid, he thought it was very inconvenient that a statement should be made in that House in reply to a charge made in the other House of Parliament. He himself had had no communication with his noble Friend Lord Lucan, but he felt certain that if he had made a wrong statement he would be ready frankly and fairly to withdraw it.
Subject dropped.

MERCANTILE LAW AMENDMENT BILL.
Order for Third Reading read.
MR. SPOONERsaid, he wished to call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Board of Trade to what appeared to him to be a defect in the measure. Under the 17th clause, as he understood it, a joint contractor who had been proceeded against by a creditor, and who had paid the sum required of him, could not recover from one of his partners

1119
more than that partner's original share of the liabilities, although the other partners should have become bankrupts; so that if there had been four partners, and if one had paid the debt, he could not recover more than one-fourth of its amount from one of the other three, in case the two others should have become bankrupts.
MR. LOWEsaid, that the Bill had been carefully considered in the other House; and all he could state was, that he had been informed the clause in question would not have the effect attributed to it by the hon. Gentleman.
Bill read 3°, and passed.

JOINT-STOCK BANKS BILL.
Order for Third Reading read.
Motion made and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."
MR. VANCEsaid, he objected to that provision in the Bill under which it would not be necessary that a certain number of directors should annually retire. By such a retirement, which was enforced in many banks, a great safeguard against fraud was afforded to the shareholders; and he believed that with such a safeguard the late frauds in the Tipperary Bank could never have been committed. He should, therefore, move that the Bill should be read a third time that day three months.
Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day three months."
MR. ROEBUCKsaid, he thought the best course the Legislature could pursue in that case was to let shareholders decide for themselves whether or not they should re-elect any Director. They must look to their own vigilance for their own security against fraud on the part of the Directors, and it would surely be unwise to prevent them from continuing their confidence in any particular individual.
Question put, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
The House divided:—Ayes 92; Noes 12: Majority 80.
Main Question put, and agreed to.
Bill read 3°, and passed.

THE INDIAN BUDGET.
MR. VERNON SMITH MR. VERNON SMITH moved, that the House resolve itself into a Committee on the East India revenue accounts.
MR. I. BUTTsaid, he rose, pursuant to notice, to call attention to the petition
1120
of his Highness Meer Ali Moorad (presented 27th June), and to submit a Motion on the subject of the confiscation of his revenues and territories by the Indian Government. He was very unwilling to interfere with the right hon. Gentleman, and prevent him from going into Committee, but in order to keep his observations strictly in order, he intended to move as an Amendment, "That the House resolve itself into a Committee to consider how far the possessions confiscated from the petitioner form a portion of the East India revenues." He submitted such an Amendment was perfectly in order.
MR. SPEAKERsaid, that the Motion before the House was not a Motion for going into a Committee of Supply, and therefore the hon. and learned Gentleman was not in order in bringing forward a case of grievance to a particular individual.
MR. I. BUTTsaid, the petition he had presented complained of a matter affecting the revenues of India, and the House was asked to go into Committee to consider the revenues of India; he contended, therefore, that he had a right to ask the House to consider how far those revenues were derived from property that had been taken from the petitioner.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, that the object of going into Committee was to enable his right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Control, to make a statement as to the revenues of India, and how they were applied. The matter brought forward by the hon. and learned Member was an individual grievance, which might be made the subject of a special Motion, but had no immediate connection with the business of the Committee.
MR. I. BUTTsaid, he would give way if the noble Lord would promise him Thursday for his Motion. He thought he was quite in order in stating the grounds on which he considered his Amendment to be regular.
MR. FITZROYsaid, he rose to order. It was not competent for a Member to argue a point of Order when Mr. Speaker had declared his proceeding was not in order.
MR. I. BUTTsaid, he would submit to Mr. Speaker that he was entitled to proceed.
MR. SPEAKER, the hon. and learned Gentleman certainly was not in order.
Motion agreed to.
House in Committee.

EAST INDIA COMPANY'S REVENUE AC COUNTS—STATEMENT ON INDIAN AFFAIRS.
MR. VERNON SMITH, in rising to make the annual official statement relative to the affairs of India, said that the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Mr. Butt) laboured under a misapprehension if he supposed that the Committee into which the House had just resolved itself was about to dispose of the revenues of India. The object of the Committee was a totally different one. During the discussion of the Act of 1853 it was felt desirable that some notice should be periodically taken in that House of the general subject of Indian affairs, and it was thought that the best mode of doing so would be by the person who filled the office of President of the Board of Control every Session submitting a statement of the finances of India, on which occasion any hon. Gentleman who wished to make any complaint, or to offer any observations connected with the administration of that distant empire, would have an opportunity of addressing the House. Nothing could be further from his desire than to preclude any case of grievance from being fairly brought under discussion; he wished the natives of India to know that the doors of Parliament were, opened wide to them; yet the hon. and learned Member for Youghal must be aware that if his Motion had been entertained before the House went into Committee, the effect would have been to get rid of what was termed the Indian budget for the present year; for it was not in his power, any more than it was in that of the hon. and learned Gentleman, to command another day for such a purpose. When he last addressed the House, on a similar occasion, he moved a series of Resolutions analogous to those submitted by his predecessor; but the hon. Member for Manchester (Mr. Bright) then moved an additional set of Resolutions, embodying the opinion of many hon. Members, that there should be some acceleration in the production of the Indian accounts, and also that the official statement on Indian affairs should be made at an earlier period of the year. While alluding to the hon. Member for Manchester, he must be permitted to express his deep regret at the absence of that hon. Gentleman, and more especially at the cause of that absence; for the presence of a man of such vigorous mind, and one so well
1122
capable of discussing Indian affairs, in which he had interested himself from a single desire to promote the welfare of his fellow subjects, of whatever colour or clime, would be always of valuable service to him (Mr. Vernon Smith), and, he believed, also to the House. The loss of the assistance of that eminent debater was all the more to be deplored, looking at the number of empty benches which the House now presented. With one part of the hon. Gentleman's Resolutions he had been unable strictly to comply. Although the season of the year was not now so late as when he last made his statement, the period of the Session at which it was delivered was nearly the same in both cases. For that, however, he was not to blame. If the House came to a Resolution in one year, it ought to be prepared to enforce it in the next. The reason why it bad not done so was doubtless because it gave the precedence over Indian affairs to the more exciting as well as more pressing questions of foreign policy, the negotiations for peace, and after peace had been proclaimed the urgency of domestic subjects. He had, however, been successful in fulfilling that part of the Resolution which enjoined on him the production of the Indian accounts at an earlier period than heretofore. His exertions in this respect had been seconded by the Court of Directors, and the local Governments had also responded to the whip made upon them with zeal and promptitude. The result was, that the accounts were presented on the 13th of March, instead of on the 18th of May, which had put the House in possession of the state of the entire finances of India two months earlier than usual. Together with the figures for the years 1853–4 and 1855–6 the sketch estimates for 1856–7 had been furnished to the Home Government—the greatest amount of progress ever yet made in the production of these accounts; and indeed he could not see how, with the sketch estimates of the coming year before them, they could well carry their anticipations of prospective revenue and expenditure much further into the future. For this improvement credit might, therefore, fairly be claimed. He would now read to the House the figures on which he founded the Resolutions that he intended to move, together with a comparison of the sketch estimates for 1856–7 with the actual accounts for 1853–4. For 1853–4 the figures were—

1123

I.

BENGAL—

£

Net revenue

8,096,682

Local charges

2,200,944

Local surplus

5,895,738

NORTH-WESTERN PROVINCES—

Revenue

5,656,674

Local charges

1,547,106

Local surplus

4,109,568

Military charges of Bengal and North-Western Provinces

6,026,336

Net revenues of ditto

13,753,356

Total charges of ditto

9,774,486

Surplus available for general purposes of India

3,978,870

II.

MADRAS—

Net revenue

3,315,513

Charges

3,539,334

Deficit

£223,821

III.

BOMBAY—

Net revenue

2,636,211

Charges

2,977,113

Deficit

£340,902

COMPARISON OF ESTIMATE, 1856-57, WITH ACTUAL RESULT OE 1853-54.

REVENUE.

Increase.

Decrease.

Ordinary—

£

£

Land Revenue

432,842

—

Customs

471,640

—

Salt

—

63,779

Opium

412,847

—

Tobacco (abolished 1853)

—

8,398

Post Office

—

26,665

Stamps

32,867

—

Mint

46,891

—

>Marine and Pilotage

14,978

—

Judicial receipts

35,061

—

Revenue of Straits settlements

21,596

—

Revenue of Coorg

—

3,779

Revenue of Nagpore

350,034

—

Revenue of Oude

1,698,914

—

Interest on debts due by Native States, &c.

—

2,400

Miscellaneous receipts, including sale of presents

104,012

—

Other receipts—

Proceeds of estates administered to by the late Registrar General

—

839

Proceeds of assets of the late Government in the Punjab and receipts from Rajah Golab Singh

—

29,513

Gain by exchanges

56,140

—

Total

£3,077,822

£135,373

Net increase of revenue

£2,942,449

EXPENDITURE.

Increase.

Decrease.

Payments in realisation of the revenue£

£

£

Charges of collection, &c

…

…

…

…

141,516

—

Allowances out of revenue by treaty

…

…

…

…

—

132,727

Sinking fund, Tanjore

…

…

…

…

—

84

Allowances to village officers, enamdars, &c.

…

…

…

…

—

75,570

Charges of the Nagpore territory

…

…

…

…

246,235

—

Ditto, Oude ditto

…

…

…

…

874,303

—

Charges in India—

Civil and political

…

…

…

…

472,067

—

Carried forward

…

…

…

…

£1,734,121

£208,381

1124

£

Total revenues of the several

Presidencies

19,705,080

Total charges of ditto

16,290,933

Total surplus of ditto

3,414,147

Interest on Indian debt

2,195,975

Charges defrayed in England

3,262,289

Total further charges on Indian revenues

5,458,264

Excess of expenditure over income

£2,044,117

This account had been put into a better shape for English eyes by his right hon. Predecessor, who had also in his new form commuted Indian into English money. A still further process of simplification, by substituting Company's rupees for sicca rupees, would, if possible, be effected.
He had now to submit the following comparison of the Estimate for 1856–7 with the actual result of 1853–4:—

1125

Increase,

Decrease.

£

£

Brought forward

1,734,121

208,381

Judicial and police

173,779

—

Public works, buildings, &c.

1,030,218

—

Military

—

193,996

Marine, Indian navy, &c.

72,882

—

Charges of the Straits settlements

5,854

—

Mint

—

98

Interest on debt.

—

394,922

Charges in England—

Dividends on East India Stock

—

2,970

Interest on home bond debt

43,761

—

Steam communication with India

—

10,611

Ditto, for extended communications, paid to Her Majesty's Government

—

27,289

On account—building, &c. a steam vessel for Madras Government, and

cost of coals for use of steam vessels in India

54,000

—

Transport of troops and stores

11,856

—

Furlough and retired military pay

143,692

—

Ditto marine ditto

196

—

Her Majesty's troops in India

—

403,693

Charges general (home establishments, &c.)

—

2,648

Absentee allowances to civil servants

28,560

—

Annuities of Madras Civil Service Fund

—

1,400

Retiring pay, St. Helena establishment

—

88

Her Majesty's establishments in China

10,944

—

Expense of transportation of convicts

—

4,606

Invoice of stores

474,688

—

Total

£3,784,554

£1,250,702

Net increase of revenue

£2,942,449

Net increase of expenditure

2,533,852

£408,597

IMPROVEMENT OF 1856–57 AS COMPAEED WITH 1853–54.

Excess of expenditure over income, 1853–54

…

…

…

…

…

£2,044,117

Excess of expenditure over income, 1856–57

…

…

…

…

…

1,635,520

Decrease

…

…

…

…

…

£408,597

That statement showed that his anticipation last year of the deficiency which would occur had fortunately not been fulfilled. He would now inform the House of the results of the Indian finances from 1852 to 1856. From 1852–3 there was a surplus revenue of £424,257. In 1853–4 there was a deficit of £2,044,117. In 1854–5 the estimated deficit was £2,670,518, but the actual accounts showed a deficit of only £1,708,627. The improvement in that year, amounting to £961,891, arose from increase of revenue to the amount of £615,837; diminution of Indian charge, £344,722; and diminution of home charge, £1,332. The estimated deficit in 1855–6 was £2,057,633, and in 1856–7, £1,152,109, which was much below the amount anticipated. He would now explain to the House the cause of this result. The House was aware that one of the principal items of expenditure in India was under the head of public works. It had been said that the entire deficiency in the Indian finances was caused by the amount of money expended upon public works, but
1126
that statement had, he thought, been disproved. He had certainly been inclined last year to over estimate the expenditure under this head, but he had since taken pains to ascertain the real state of the case, and with the assistance of one of the most intelligent accountants in his own, or, he believed, in any other public office (Mr. Leach), a statement had been prepared which would put the House in full possession of the facts. In order to ascertain what was the real expenditure upon public works he had directed that the statement should be confined to such expenditure as was incurred for works which could be fairly considered remunerative, for he thought a great mistake had been made, especially in Mr. Grant's Minute, so much alluded to last year, in taking into the account of public works expenditure upon repairs and matters of that kind, which were the ordinary incidents of an empire, as they were of an estate. The statement he had prepared was confined to reproductive public works, including improvements on military stations, for he considered that an outlay on barracks which

1127
promoted the health of the soldiers, and so contributed to a saving of valuable lives, was even in a pecuniary point of

Results of the Indian Finances in 1854–55, and as estimated for 1855–56 and 1856–57, showing the effect upon those Results of the Extraordinary Expenditure on Public Works above the average of former years:—

1.

2.

3.

Extraordinary Expenditure on Public Works, Civil and Military.

Average Extraordinary Expenditure thereon, in three years, 1851–52 to 1853–4.

Excess of Extra Expenditure on Public Works, above that Average.

Surplus Charge, including all extra Public Works in col. 1.

Surplus Charge, excluding amounts in col. 3.

Surplus Revenue, excluding all extra Public Works in col. 1.

£

£

£

£

£

£

Actual 1854–55

1,818,977

719,633

1,099,344

1,708,627

609,283

110,350

Regular Estimates 1855–56

2,109,962

719,633

1,390,329

2,057,633

667,304

52,329

Estimated

185 lacs, or

1856–57

1,734,375

719,633

1,014,742

1,152,109

137,367

582,266

The expenditure upon public works had, in fact, been the chief cause of the very considerable deficiency which existed, but it was consolatory to know that, but for such expenditure, there would have been an actual surplus of revenue. Before quitting the subject of public works, he must observe that he had yielded, as much as any one, to the excitement which existed in this country after the inquiry of the Committee, in 1852, as to the necessity of encouraging great public works in India; but he regretted that this notion had been pressed forward too eagerly, and had not been undertaken more gradually. The consequence of the excitement to which he referred was, that there arose throughout India an outcry for every description of public work. Letters were sent round to almost all engineers and other officials employed on such works, a stimulus was applied to the promotion of undertakings of that kind, and ill-digested plans, as well as those which had been carefully considered, were carried out. He might mention, in proof of his statement, that a proposal was submitted to the Government for the construction of a road from Lahore to Peshawur, at an expense of £4,000 a mile, or about half the expense of a railroad, and a railway was now projected over nearly the same ground. The operations for the construction
view fully justifiable. The right hon. Gentleman then proceeded to read the following statement: —
of the road had been, to a certain extent, checked; but he mentioned the circumstance to show the inconvenience of commencing such enterprises without due consideration. One of the most important items in the Indian revenue was the salt duty. The duty imposed upon salt had frequently been brought under the consideration of the House by the right hon. Member for Droitwich (Sir J. Pakington), who had, however, exercised great forbearance this Session. The right hon. Gentleman had last Session called for a Report on the subject of the salt trade, which he had not yet received. That delay was partly owing to the illness of the gentleman employed to make the Report. It had now come to hand; and, though the statements and recommendations in it had not yet received the sanction of the local Government, and still less that of the Imperial Government, every one who read it must admit that it was a most able and valuable Report. He would read only a portion of the conclusion of it to the House—
"It has for years—since August, 1748—been open to any to engage in the manufacture of salt, according to the English method, under Excise regulations. The only remaining question is, whether it is possible to introduce any system of Excise effectively where the common native process of manufacture is adopted. This question is now in course of practical solution. The

1129
Bengal Government, with the full concurrence of the Government of India, sanctioned, in September, 1854, a set of rules for granting licences to parties desirous of engaging in the manufacture of salt, upon any method, under an excise system; so that, in fact, in Bengal a system of excise has been in course of substitution for the monopoly arrangements for more than a year past. The whole correspondence on the subject will be found in the Appendix, and it appears to me that all that is necessary is to push on the present scheme through all the salt-producing districts, as far as it depends upon the authorities to do so. I am of opinion that the duty should at once be lowered from its present amount of 2 rupees 8 annas to 2 rupees per maund, the rate which prevails in the North-Western Provinces, the special additional duty of 8 annas, levied on the Allahabad line of those provinces, for the protection of the Bengal revenue, being, of course, discontinued at the same time. I entirely agree with the Board of Revenue, that by so considerable a reduction there would he a much greater probability of the price being at once reduced to the consumer, and a stimulus in consequence given to consumption, than if only a 4 annas abatement were made, as heretofore. I am not at all sure that it might not be ultimately and speedily beneficial to the revenue if the rate throughout the Bengal Presidency and the Punjab were at once reduced to 1 rupee 8 annas per maund, being double the rate prevailing in the Bombay and Madras Presidencies.
The proposal here made was a very moderate one; but he wished it to be understood that it was the proposal of the gentleman only who was appointed to draw up the Report. The Committee was aware that a very large—indeed, the largest portion of the Indian revenues was derived from land. There had always been considerable difficulty in saying how we should deal with the land revenue of India—it was a subject which had puzzled the greatest philosophers and statesmen; but he believed it was the general opinion that throughout the Madras Presidency it would be necessary to have a survey and fresh assessment, and that nothing effectual could be done till that survey was completed. In the meantime Lord Harris had not been insensible to the evils of a too heavy assessment, and he had expressed a desire that a reduction in many instances should take place. The line which Lord Harris had taken on this subject would be best explained by the following memorandum—
"His Lordship had no doubt that if the Government demand was fixed at 25 per cent, or one-fourth of the gross produce, 'not only would that be no loss to the general income, but that there would be in a short time a large which would be a large addition to it by the large quantity of land which would be taken into cultivation, and by the increased consumption of articles of import, both of which
1130
would be caused by the accumulation of capital.' But that the actual loss or gain to Government will be only known after the survey has been made and the assessment fixed; in the meantime, Lord Harris was 'disposed to think that the general out-turn would be far from unfavourable to Government.' It would appear that the Madras Government calculated that with four deputy surveyors general, the survey, &c., of the Madras Presidency 'will occupy twenty-two years, and that its cost will amount to 38,40,000 rupees, but that if the scale of operations is enlarged the period occupied will be shortened, arid the total cost will be diminished.' The papers connected with the proposed general survey of the Madras Presidency were submitted to the Government of India for orders, &c. It appears that that Government had informed Lord Harris of their 'unanimous' concurrence with the views and proposals of the Madras Government."
He believed the best authorities concurred in thinking that without a new survey and assessment it would be difficult to bring about an increase in the land revenue. It was satisfactory to find, however, that they were also of opinion, and Lord Harris among the number, that a reduction of the assessment would have the effect of increasing the revenue. Last year he mentioned that, among the productions of India, there was some hope of finding coal and iron. In doing so, he was guided very much by what had appeared in the Indian papers; but he was happy to find that the statement was corroborated by the opinion of Lord Dalhousie, who counted upon a valuable and abundant supply of both being obtained at no distant date. He need hardly say that if those important minerals were found in abundance in India, they would have an extraordinary effect in facilitating and accelerating the progress of that empire. There was another exceedingly valuable article of growth and manufacture in India to which he would for a moment advert, and that was cotton. Everybody could see the importance of securing from India a large supply of cotton, and he was happy to say that to a certain extent the experiments which had been made had proved successful. He would read to the Committee a note with which he had been furnished on the results of the cotton experimental cultivation in the Bombay Presidency with the New Orleans seed:—
"With the exception of the Dharwar Collectorate the endeavours of the Government to induce the ryots to cultivate the New Orleans seed has not been successful; indeed, in Ahmedabad, Surat, Broach, and other cotton districts, the American plant is reported to have been entirely neglected, or the quantity grown quite insignificant. However, the area cultivated with the indigenous plant was, in 1854–5, in excess of that of 1853–4

1131
in most of the cotton districts. In Dharwar, in 1854–5, the acres cultivated with the New Orleans seed were 63,298, against 41,403 acres in 1853–4, showing an increased cultivation in the former year of 21,895 acres; and apparently the ryots are now so convinced of the advantages of engaging in this cultivation that the American plant may be fairly said to have taken permanent root in this district, and that the indigenous cotton will have to give place to it. Therefore, under these circumstances, interference or aid from the Government to induce ryots to undertake the American cotton culture was no longer required in Dharwar, while in the other cotton districts encouragement on the part of the Government had not led to results of any consequence, or was likely to produce any permanent effect. Moreover, there are now scattered over the country Europeans prepared to purchase cotton, either of the American or native variety, of a quality suited to the English market, at remunerating prices. And further, it would appear that the prejudices of the ryots to the cotton saw-gin for cleaning the cotton was giving way, and that the use of it was becoming popular, as the ryots found that saw-ginned cotton obtained from the merchants a higher price than the cotton cleaned and prepared by the churka or native foot-roller; and that the work was done more speedily with the saw-gin than the churka, and full as cheap."
He also asked the attention of the House to the following very curious experiment:—
"Mr. Landon, a merchant, who has settled in Broach for cotton purposes, has established in that district a factory for making and preparing the saw-gin machinery. He has also erected a cotton factory—an experiment which appears to have been attended with signal success. For, it is stated, the yarns made at Mr. Landon's factory, 'exclusively of short staple Broach cotton,' fetched in the market 'nearly 10 per cent more than Manchester yarn of the same designation;' and that orders had in consequence been received sufficiently to keep the factory in constant work for some months."
Again, he was sorry that the hon. Member for Manchester (Mr. Bright) was not in his place, as he had ever taken a deep interest in this question, and would, no doubt, have been gratified to learn that something was doing towards increasing the cultivation of an article the production of which he had been most anxious to promote. He was not aware that there was anything further in the statement of the revenues of India which he need comment upon. He would only say that he saw nothing to lead them to despair of an increase in the revenue; but, at the same time, it was their duty also to look to other means of producing a surplus—viz., to a reduction in the amount of expenditure. It had been said that it was impossible to lay on fresh taxes in India. He was not so very certain of that, for on looking round he
1132
thought there might be found other things than now existed on which taxes might be raised. But, in the meantime, they had to look to the expenditure. The first great head of expenditure was the Indian army, and he would at once say on this point that it was next to impossible to suppose that they could effect any material reduction in that army. It had been said that a reduction might be made in the way of employing the native army more and the Queen's troops less. Now, he maintained it was necessary that a large proportion of Queen's troops should be kept up in India, and particularly that to substitute Indian cavalry for the Queen's cavalry was a proposal totally inadmissible. He believed that the presence of British cavalry in India was attended with a very wholesome effect; that they were exceedingly useful in promoting the rivalry, in teaching the Indian cavalry lessons of discipline, and exciting them to those habits of order and obedience which were of so much consequence to an army. He was happy to find that the first representation which he had the honour to make to Her Majesty on the subject of the Indian army had been received with great approbation. The Governor General said:—
"The Indian army, however, has still higher cause for congratulating itself on the gracious favour which the Sovereign has lately shown towards it, in raising its officers from the derogatory position in which they have hitherto stood, and in granting to them the recognition which until now has been denied to them, of their military rank in every part of the British dominions, and throughout the world."
Having received that compliment, it would be ungracious in the Indian army to wish to have withdrawn from them the presence of the Queen's troops. There were other questions relating to the Indian army, such as the substitution in greater numbers than at present of irregular for regular cavalry, which were still under the consideration of the Indian Government. He hoped that no hurried decision would be come to upon them. Reductions might be made in the Commissariat, the stud, and other departments; but to reduce in times of tranquillity to too low a scale was a mistake which he trusted would be avoided in dealing with the expenditure of the Indian army. He now came to the civil service. At a former period of the Session he was reported to have said, in reply to the Member for Devonport, that he thought the civil service in India ought to be reduced to the footing of the different

1133
colonial services. He never made any such statement. All he said was, that the civil salaries of India had remained almost stationary, while those of the Colonies had been very much diminished. He thought that the Indian civil servants ought to be highly paid, and that the best men ought to be enticed thereby to go out, but he did not admit that the Indian civil service was the only service which required a man to go to a distant and unhealthy country, and which sent him home jaded and worn out. The climate of the West Indies and many other places was, in some respects, as bad as that of India. On the other hand, the salaries of the Indian civil service were upon a scale far beyond that which existed in any other profession. He knew of no other service in which a young man of twenty could enter at £350, or in which a person could rise from £350 to £4000 per annum; but let it not be supposed that be desired anything to be done immediately in the way of reducing the civil salaries of India. To touch existing interests would be the worst possible economy, even if it were not unjust; but it would be the duty of the Indian Government to keep the advantages of reduction always in view, and to reap them whenever practicable. Reduction, it was said, would be followed by peculation. He did not believe it. Lord William Bentinck made great reductions in his time, and no ill ensued. In the worst times of Indian peculation and corruption salaries or allowances from trade were high enough. Economy was a most offensive virtue everywhere, but especially in India. Financial reformers had in England the support of the House of Commons and the public press; whereas in India the only public opinion was that of the civil service itself, which was naturally averse from a reduction of its own salaries. It might be said, indeed, that the only person whose duty it was to preach economy was the unfortunate officer who bore the title of President of the Board of Control. He was glad to state, however, that in June a despatch was sent out recommending very considerable reductions and—which at the same time touched another subject of great importance, allowing public loans to be contracted for public works to the extent of £1,000,000 for the next two years. It was to be hoped that the contents of that despatch would obviate the necessity of sending out an accountant to India. A system of audit already existed, there, and
1134
the proposal to establish a separate audit here would require the most attentive consideration, because it in fact took the power from the Indian Government and placed it in other hands. Having thus gone through the revenue and expenditure of India he should now proceed to describe the political position of that country at the present moment. Since his statement last year some disturbances had occurred in India. At that time, speaking upon the authority of the Governor General, he declared that the whole of India was tranquil. He believed he might repeat the same statement now, because in India temporary effervescences could not fairly be said to disturb the general tranquillity of the empire. But it so happened, curiously enough, that at the moment he was speaking last year an extraordinary species of insurrection—known as the Santal rebellion—was in the act of breaking out. To some extent that insurrection showed negligence on the part of the authorities of India. If there had been a proper police, or if the authorities had been warned by certain circumstances which must have attracted the attention of sagacious men, the Santal insurrection might have been anticipated and instantly quelled. An ample report upon the cause of the insurrection had been received from India, and the Court of Directors had written a despatch, stating their views upon it. Mr. Bidwell, the late Commissioner in the Santal districts, who took great pains to ascertain the cause of the Santal outbreak, was of opinion that the primary cause was the great dissatisfaction of the tribe on account of the oppressive exactions of the mahajans, or money-lenders, and the corruption of the naib-sezawals (police-officers and collectors of the land tax), and in some places oppression on the part of the railway employés, and the little check they received from the Government authorities. The Government of India considered that the outbreak was caused by the want of early attention to the complaints of the Santals, of the oppressions they suffered from the mahajans (native revenue and police officers) and zemindars; and in one instance the Lieutenant Governor considered that they had been ill-used by a railway official. The local officers were greatly blamed. The above appeared to have been the exciting causes of the rebellion, fanned by religious fanaticism—the leaders making their followers believe that they were accompanied by an incarnate deity, under

1135
whose orders they acted. Although some few instances of that insurrection had been more recently reported, it was believed that the great body of the Santals were settling down peaceably and quietly. The country had been declared a, non-regulation province, and had been placed under the control of a Commissioner, with a deputy Commissioner and four assistants. These officers were vested with judicial powers, and would administer speedy justice to the Santals, who would thus be relieved from the oppressive exactions of the mahajans, police and revenue officers, and zemindars. A new police force was under organisation, and until that was efficient, two regiments of infantry and one of irregular cavalry would remain in the Santal territory. The Santals were not to possess warlike weapons without authority, but were to be employed upon the public works, and paid for their labour. Stores of grain and salt were to be prepared for the destitute Santals, and the payment of the rent was to be thrown over three years. These were supposed to be the causes and remedies of the Santal insurrection, which was an outbreak the more extraordinary, seeing that the Santals had been always regarded as a most quiet and inoffensive race. The next point to which he must advert was the mission to Ava. That mission had not been successful to the extent of obtaining a treaty with Ava, which Lord Dalhousie did not greatly regret; but the reception which we had met with there was everything that could be desired; great honour had been shown us, and the mission had resulted in bringing about that description of friendship which was much wanted between the States. Another point of very considerable importance, to which he had alluded last year, had reference to our relations with Persia. Independently of anything that had occurred in the shape of a diplomatic rupture with Persia, the Persians had, it appeared, thought themselves justified in marching upon Herat. It was not quite clear, from the accounts which had been received—such was the confusion of histories and relations—whether they had been able to occupy Herat. He believed that the Affghans would be so unwilling to allow the Persians to enter Herat that they would themselves repel them; and as Dost Mahomed had obtained possession of Candahar, he would be able, it he liked to attack the Persians in Herat,
1136
to repulse them. It was quite impossible that this country should allow the Persians to obtain possession of Herat. By an engagement which they had entered into in 1853 with the English Envoy, they bound themselves not to interfere in the affairs of Affghanistan; and, therefore, if it were true that they had gone to besiege Herat, they had distinctly violated their engagement with this country, and it was clear that we could not allow our treaties to be trampled upon and our honour to be insulted with impunity. If the Persians, therefore, did not retire from Herat some means must be taken to vindicate British honour and to expel them from that place. In making his present statement he must not omit reference to one of the most important events which had taken place in regard to our Indian Empire—he meant the acquisition of the kingdom of Oude. He had presented, nearly two months since, the whole of the papers upon that subject, and as no Member of either House had thought proper to notice it, he presumed that there was a general consent in the opinion that the acquisition of Oude was a reasonable achievement for Lord Dalhousie to accomplish. Should such not be the opinion, he should be perfectly prepared at anytime to defend that step, but at present he should only state the cause of the transaction, and the motives of the Government. Lord Dalhousie, finding from the statements of repeated Governors General, including Lord Wellesley, Lord W. Bentinck, and Lord Hardinge, that the position of Oude was derogatory to the dignity and credit of the Indian Government, and that the different schemes which they had tried one after the other had failed to effect such an improvement as was desired, determined, after eight years' glorious government in India, not to leave that country with Oude in the condition in which he had found it. In consequence, in July last he sent a letter to the Court of Directors, stating his views upon the subject; and that letter, which was backed by unanimous minutes from all his Council, reached this country at the end of September. The persons who coincided in Lord Dalhousie's opinion were the men of all others whose principle was opposed to all aggression upon native princes, who were commonly known as the advocates of government by native rulers rather than of the system of annexation, and among them were General Sleeman, General Outram, and General Low. All

1137
the authorities that could be gathered together agreed that Lord Dalhousie was justified in the view which he took of that transaction. Lord Dalhousie having sent home those reports, the Government did not act upon them immediately, although the pressure was great, because Lord Dalhousie was then about to retire from India. A month or six weeks were spent by the Court of Directors and the Board of Control in consideration. At length, having regard to the prudence and ability which Lord Dalhousie had exhibited during his rule in India, Her Majesty's Government determined to point out to him to some extent what they considered would be the best course to pursue, while at the same time they left an ample discretion in his hands. Lord Dalhousie's conduct proved that the Government had been well justified in placing that confidence in him, because the moment that the power was conferred on the noble Lord he took what he (Mr. Vernon Smith) regarded as a most manly course. e called it a manly course, because it would really have savoured only of hypocrisy to deal in any other way with that unfortunate monarch—unfortunate from his own vices and debaucheries. He (Mr. Vernon Smith) was very indifferent whether that transaction were designated as an annexation, an acquisition, or a cession; but he denied that the Government had any general policy of annexation, if by that were, meant the grasping of everything which came within arm's reach. Such was not the annexation of Oude. Men might approve the annexation of Oude and condemn that of Pegu and Nagpore, for each case stood upon distinctive features of its own. He had heard people say that we had no more right to annex Oude than the Emperor of Russia had to annex Turkey; but Russia was not responsible for what took place in Turkey, while we were responsible for what occurred in Oude. For whatever mischief happened within our ken in the East, and which it was in our power to suppress, we were held to be liable; and therefore every evil which existed in Oude, under the eyes of our President, to which it was thought we could put an end, was not unreasonably imputed to our charge. It would not do to hold one morality at Calcutta and another at Lucknow—to say that what was good in one place was bad in another, or vice versâ; and he was perfectly prepared on these grounds, whenever it should be
1138
questioned, to defend the acquisition of Oude as a most important step, which was rendered necessary by the circumstances of the country. As regarded the condition of the people of Oude since the annexation of that province he would read to the House a letter upon that subject from the Governor General of India, dated May 3, 1856, in which it was stated—
"Oude remains perfectly tranquil. Some of the zemindars holding armed forts, and among them the Thelsepore Rajah, have availed themselves of the option given them by General Outram, and have paid part of their arrears in guns, which are taken at a valuation, although nothing in the shape of coercion or threat has been used to make them do so. The ryots continue, as from the beginning, to show the best proof of satisfaction and confidence, by flocking back to tracts of country which were rapidly becoming desert and jungle, owing to the population being driven away, either by oppression practised on themselves, or by the feuds and ravages of the zemindars in the neighbourhood. I have no doubt this confidence will spread and increase with the progress of our three years' temporary settlement, teaching them, as it will, that their rent henceforward will be fixed and moderate, and that everything they possess beyond that rent will be their own without fear of extortion."
Since he had last addressed the House upon the subject another lapse had taken place, as the dynasty of the Rajah of Tanjore had become extinct, and there had not appeared to be any necessity for founding a new one. He would next proceed to state to the House what had been the progress in domestic affairs in India since last year. One of the most important questions connected with domestic progress in India, and one which excited the greatest attention in this country, was that of railways, and he would shortly state what progress had been made in that respect. The East Indian Railway had at present 121 miles open, and was in expectation of opening to Rajmahal, a distance of 190 miles, by the end of the present year. The Great Indian Peninsular Railway was at present open as far as Caurpoolie, a distance of ninety miles from Bombay. The Madras line was ready to be opened to Arcot, a distance of seventy miles. The Baroda Railway Company had made great progress in staking out and commencing their line towards Ahmedabad. The Scinde Railway Company had been equally expeditious in the works on their line towards Kurrachee. The surveys for new lines now in progress, or about to be commenced, were that of a line to Nagpore, from the Great Indian

1139
Peninsular Railway Company's line on the north-eastern extension; that of an extension of the present Scinde line to Lahore; and that of a new line from Calcutta eastwards to Dacca. The progress of these railways was of the very utmost importance, and ought in every way to be encouraged. For his own part, he had seen with the greatest pleasure a proposal which had been made a short time back for establishing a railway in India without a guarantee from the Government. The system of always requiring a guarantee for works in India was in many respects a most unfortunate one for that country, because it, to a great extent, tended to discourage private enterprise, besides the heavy charge upon revenue such as he had previously shown to the House. He was not prepared to sanction any scheme which might be proposed, simply because it had been proposed by private enterprise, but every scheme which afforded fair prospect of advantage ought to be, as far as possible, encouraged. The subject next in point of attraction to the railways was the telegraph, and its progress in India had been very curious. The subject of the electric telegraph had been reported on by Lord Dalhousie in his minute of February, 1856, from which it appeared that the electric telegraph had now been in operation in India above a year, and the results were most satisfactory. The construction of the lines commenced in November, 1853, and up to February last 4,000 miles had been completed. The total cost of the work had been upwards of £200,000 sterling, or at the average rate of about £50 a mile. The receipts during the past year have been upwards of £20,000, and they had gone on increasing every month. The estimated cost of working the line was about £30,000 a year. The actual cash receipts, therefore, even in the first year amounted to more than two-thirds of the working expenses, while the charges for messages were lower than on any other line in the world. Dr. O'Shaughnessey, through whose exertions and superintendence this great work has been carried out, stated that he had been perfectly successful in establishing the direct transmission of signals and messages between Agra and Bombay and between Agra and Pesbawur—
"So that an answer is obtainable within two minutes from one end of this line to the other through 1,600 miles of line, in which eight rivers are crossed by submerged cables of upwards of 40,000 feet in length."
1140
The Government of Oude was transferred to the East India Company on the 7th of February last. On the same day operations were commenced for putting down the telegraph wire, and within eighteen days a telegraph of fifty-two miles in length, including a cable of 6,000 feet across the Ganges, had been substantially constructed and successfully worked. Dr. O'Shaughnessey had been one of those who had taken a most active part in the establishment of the telegraph in India, and several schemes proposed by that gentleman had not yet been carried into effect. One of those proposals was to connect India with England, and that scheme, if carried out, would enable him to obtain an answer from Calcutta in six minutes and a-half; so that, hereafter, if an hon. Member asked him a question when the House met, he might hope to afford him an answer before it rose. The condition of the postal service in India had been much improved since last year, and he had every reason to believe that eventually communication with India would be more rapid and would be cheaper than with many of the other colonies of this country. There was one other point to which he wished to refer—he alluded to the report of the Law Commissioners. The Law Commissioners had, in the third and last year of their existence, furnished the House and the country with a very able and valuable Report. He had been informed that he had given great, but he must say unintentional, offence to some members of the Commission by sending that Report to India. Now, the House would bear in mind that a great deal must be done by the Legislative Council, and the jealousy of that body was well known. If, therefore, he had acted without their assistance, they would not have been favourably disposed towards his plan; but his object had been as much as possible to work through that body, as being the only way fully to carry out the views of the Commissioners. Some of the proposals of the Commissioners were, from their very nature, incapable of any other but an Indian consummation. In the adoption of this course, he had been justified by the opinion of the Governor General, who said, that to have acted upon the Report of this Commission without transmitting it to India, would have given the greatest offence in that country. The Indian Government and the Legislative Council would have thought themselves most contumeliously treated. One principal

1141
point was, the amalgamation of the Sudder and Supreme Courts. This amalgamation, if compulsory, might have given great offence, because, while the Supreme Courts were accustomed to accuse the Sudder Courts of a want of law, the latter retorted by accusing the Supreme Courts of knowing nothing of India; and it was most desirable that, if possible, this measure should he carried out with the assent of both classes of courts. While speaking on the subject of amendment of the law, he might mention what had been frequently inquired in this House, that a patent law had been adopted in India, and was waiting for the consideration and sanction of the Court of Directors and of himself (Mr. Vernon Smith). One of the matters on which the Government of India most required amendment was the police, which was, in his opinion, by no means in a satisfactory state. He had already, in speaking of the Santal insurrection, referred to the defects of the police, and he believed that its faults were common to the whole of India. In Bombay there had been established a new system, by which the police would be placed under the immediate direction of the Government; and it was desirable that some experience should be obtained of the working of this system before any alteration was made in the police systems of the other presidencies. The whole subject was, however, under consideration of the noble Lord who had recently gone out to India as Governor General. Another question incident to this one of police was that of the torture, the existence of which had been brought to light by the meritorious exertions of his hon. Friend and colleague the Secretary of the Board of Control (Mr. Danby Seymour). He could assure the House that everything which was possible was being done for the eradication of this horrible system. It was unworthy of any one connected with the Indian Government to extenuate it, or to say that it was not torture, but only bodily pain. All these excuses were utterly puerile and contemptible. Neither would he consent to the fabrication that we had derived it from the native princes. Our business was to improve and to teach the natives how to live. For him, it was quite enough that revenue had been extorted by the infliction of bodily pain. Lord Harris, the eminent Governor of Madras, was perfectly sensible of the horrors of this system, and had taken the greatest pains to suppress it. His (Lord Harris's) opinion was, that
1142
it to a great extent resulted from the high rate of assessments; and that a re-adjustment of assessments would get rid of it. That, however, must be a slow operation, but in the meantime Lord Harris had set a careful watch upon this system, and was prepared to punish with the severest penalties—for there had undoubtedly been a want of severity in the penalties hitherto inflicted, and with dismissal from the service of any person who was convicted of the infliction of torture. The Indian Government, among other instructions, sent out an order that an Act should be passed for the enforcement of severe penalties for this offence. The law advisers thought that such an Act would be useless, and that the only way to suppress this evil was to separate the revenue from the police system. He (Mr. Vernon Smith) thought that this would be an excellent measure to adopt; but it was one which would involve considerable expense and would require much consideration, because we should have to decide whether we would establish an European police or would trust wholly or in part to native officers. He, therefore, could not help thinking that Lord Harris had not decided rightly in omitting to pass the Act to which he had referred. It was true that by regulations, adopted so late as the years 1816 and 1819, very heavy penalties were imposed for acts of torture, but it was clear that these regulations had never been enforced; and he thought that the passing of a new Act would have more effect than the renewal of old ones. He could not help thinking that when Lord Harris himself considered the matter, he would see that if no new Act were passed the opinion would prevail that, as hitherto no notice had been taken of this system, so no attention was intended to be paid to it in future. It was to him (Mr. Vernon Smith) most marvellous that successive Governor Generals, including among them a man of the greatest vigour and assiduity, Lord Ellenborough, should have gone out to India and returned without the slightest knowledge of the existence of this system of torture. He could not attribute it to any defect on their part, but must suppose that it arose from some fault of the system that such a thing should pass without being observed by them. He had been blamed for the strength of the observations which he made upon this subject last year; but he must say that he considered Government responsible for what had occurred under their rule. If

1143
they said they knew nothing about it, that was as good as saying that they did not perform the functions of governors. The next question to which he should call the attention of the House was, that of the introduction of an improved system of education. A new system had been recommended by his right hon. Friend the late President of the Board of Control (Sir C. Wood) in a despatch dated the 19th of July, 1854; and measures had been taken to carry those recommendations into effect by the appointment of directors, inspectors, and visitors of schools, the passing of rules for universities, the distribution of grants, and by other means. In the north-western provinces a new class of schools termed halkabunda (or circuit) had lately been established under the auspices of Mr. Reid, the Director of Public Instruction in those provinces; these schools were spreading rapidly over the country. The main cost of them was defrayed by the landed proprietors and cultivators by an assessment, voluntarily contributed by themselves, of 1 per cent on the Government revenue. Mr. Reid believed that, if this subscription could be generally obtained, a school might be established in every fifty and a half square miles of the country with no expense to Government but that of supervision. In the Bombay Presidency public libraries for the use of the natives have now been established in eight different districts, besides eight native libraries in the town of Bombay, which contained English as well as vernacular works, and were supported chiefly by local subscriptions. At Sholapore the subscriptions for a library and an English and Mahratta school amounted to 2,700 rupees, besides books. At Sattara they were 1,200 rupees. Among the Government grants was one of 4,000 rupees, given to the native students' "Literary and Scientific Society" towards a building for a lecture-room, laboratory, museum, and library, for which private subscriptions had been raised amounting to 10,000 rupees. The members of the institution hold a meeting once a month for the transaction of business, and reading essays in English; once a fortnight two meetings were held for a similar purpose in the vernacular. At these vernacular meetings large and interested audiences assembled, to witness experiments and illustrations of natural science, and to discuss questions bearing on the moral and social improvement of the people. Seven girls' schools, at present
1144
containing 450 children, are supported by the society, and two infant schools were under their superintendence. They already issued two monthly vernacular publications, and had undertaken to publish a series of papers in Mahrattee and Guzerattee, similar to Chambers's Information for the People. All this is the more remarkable as coming from a native society, themselves having experienced the benefits of education, and desirous of diffusing its advantages among their countrymen. This was the progress which had been made by education in India. It had not been so rapid as he could have wished, but attention had been called to this by the Home Government, and he hoped that the defect would soon be remedied by the more active exertions of the local authorities. In referring to this subject, he must not omit to notice the consequences which had resulted from examinations for the civil service in this country. He last year stated the result of the first petition for employment in that service. It was, no doubt, a matter of some regret that the number of candidates who had presented themselves for examination this year was not so large as it had been the year before, but it was not to be apprehended that this cause of complaint would continue. In looking back to the examinations of last year he rather lamented the extreme severity of the tests applied. He was bound in sincerity to admit that the questions put to the candidates alarmed him, not only for his own ignorance, but he had been assured that many Cambridge wranglers had been very much surprised by them. Except in the case of the professor of Italian, whom he reappointed, he had thought it advisable to select new examiners, and he had been so fortunate as in this year to obtain the services of one very competent gentleman from Trinity College, Dublin. The result of the examinations might be thus stated:—The total number of candidates examined is 56, whereas last year it was 112 (just double the number). The relative number of the candidates from the principal Universities in 1856 and in 1855 are as follow:—From Oxford, in 1856, 10; in 1855, 19; from Cambridge, in 1856, 14; in 1855, 32; from, London, in 1856, 3; in 1855, 4; from King's College, London, in 1856, 6; in 1855, 3; from other English schools, &c., in 1856, 4; in 1855, 12; total, English, in 1856, 37; in 1855, 70. From Edinburgh, in 1856, 1; in 1855, 3; from Aberdeen, in 1856, 2; in 1855, 5;

1145
from other Scotch colleges and schools, in 1855, 7; total, Scotch, in 1856, 3; in 1855, 15. From Dublin, in 1856, 8; in 1855, 14; from Cork, in 1856, 3; in 1855, 5; from Belfast, in 1856, 2; from Carlow, in 1856, 1; from other Irish colleges, in 1855, 2; total, Irish, in 1856, 14; in 1855, 21. From abroad, in 1855, 3; from at home (private tuition), in 1856, 2; in 1855, 3—i. e., English colleges, &c., in 1856, 37; in 1855, 70; Scotch, in 1856, 3; in 1855, 15; Irish, in 1856, 14; in 1855, 21; abroad, in 1855, 3; private tuition, in 1856, 2; in 1855, 3; total, in 1856, 56; in 1855, 112. One or two particulars with respect to the examinations might not be uninteresting. The plan heretofore pursued contemplated two examinations—the first, a general one; the second to take place after the lapse of one or two years, an examination in law and the Oriental languages. That system was established under the sanction of Lord Ashburton, Mr. Macaulay, and Mr. Lefevre. It was excellent in theory, but when it was brought to the test of practical experience, the second examination was seen to be surrounded with such difficulties that Mr. Macaulay had himself recommended that it should be relinquished. Strange as it might appear, it was not less true that it was found almost impossible to procure the means for a sound legal education in this country. The only substitute was a certificate attesting that the candidate had attended a certain number of lectures, but this was a very unsatisfactory expedient, for such certificates did not vouch for the candidate's proficiency, and were regarded merely as matters of routine. The difficulty as regarded the Oriental languages was almost as great; and another obstacle arose on the question of certificates of moral conduct, it being impossible to ascertain what became of the candidates during-the interval between the first and the second examination. Taking into consideration all the circumstances of the case, he determined that the better course would be to give up the second examination altogether, and to send them out after they had undergone one examination only. He had provided a professor of Arabic and Sanscrit, but it was a little discouraging to find that not more than one candidate presented himself for examination in these studies. It was one of the principles on which Mr. Macaulay's minute was founded that in conducting these examinations care should be taken not to
1146
examine a candidate in anything which, in the event of his being rejected, might be considered as lost time; and very possibly it was the knowledge of that fact which induced candidates to believe that it would not be necessary for them to "get themselves up" in Arabic and Sanscrit. With regard to the mode of examining, he had himself introduced what he deemed to be a very important alteration, a vivâ voce examination. The reason why he had done so was that he had always been of opinion that such a method of examination afforded a better test than any other of a man's moral qualities—his courage, his readiness, his aptitude, his self-possession. He confessed that he was not without his doubts as to whether the plan of competition would furnish any better guarantee for such qualities than the old system afforded, but, at all events, there was some approach to a test in a vivâ voce examination, and therefore he had adopted it. He had attended one of those examinations, and was struck with the readiness and proficiency exhibited by the candidates. Nor was his experience singular. He was happy to say that it was corroborated by the testimony of Mr. Dasent, a gentleman of great abilities and attainments, whose services he had been so fortunate as to secure for the examination of candidates. Mr. Dason had at first a strong prejudice against the practice of vivâ voce examination, but he now admitted that it had worked well, and that its result was most satisfactory. In justification of this statement, he would read the following extract from a letter he had received from Mr. Dasent:—
"I beg leave to inform you that, in my opinion, the result of the vivâ voce examination in English History has been highly satisfactory. It gives me the greater pleasure to be able to make this statement, because I was one of those who at first thought the amount of vivâ voce examination for the Indian Civil Service disproportionate to the paper-work. Out of fifty-four candidates who answered to their numbers at the vivâ voce examination, I find that seven are classified in my notes as 'very good,' and have obtained fifty marks—the greatest amount which I am enabled to give. Of the rest the great majority are classified 'good' and fair,' averaging about thirty marks. Ten or twelve are 'indifferent,' with about fifteen marks each, and only three are marked 'bad,' and may be considered to have failed. I think this result is worthy of mention, especially as the examination often led the candidates into minute historical details in which no mere memoria technical, or cramming, could have given them any assistance."
And the best, by the way, was an Irishman. He confessed that he was much

1147
gratified by the perusal of Mr. Dasent's letter, for he regarded it as a most satisfactory statement, coming from one who was well qualified to pronounce an opinion on the subject. With respect to the general merits of the competitive system it must be admitted that the question assumed a different aspect in India and in England. For his own part, he thought that it was a mistake to suppose that, as a general rule, the civil service in this country opened a suitable field of exertion to men of high ambition and proportionate ability. In India, on the contrary, it did open such a field. There able and ambitious men were needed. The civil service was a fitting sphere for them, and in it they were sure to rise to eminence. He would not be understood, however, as concurring in the opinion which a distinguished Member of that House had not hesitated to express—that patronage was "an odious and a hurtful thing." He repudiated that sentiment altogether, and rather favoured the doctrine of the right hon. Member for Buckinghamshire—that patronage, well exercised, was one of the noblest attributes of power. What more delightful task could there be than to befriend merit, and to prevent talent from pining in obscurity? It so happened that during the period he had held his present office not a little patronage had passed through his hands. He mentioned the fact for the sake of alluding to a subject brought under his notice last year by the hon. and learned Member for Enniskillen (Mr. Whiteside), who, upon a similar discussion to this, had called attention to the circumstance that Irishmen were totally excluded from the Indian Bench. Finding this statement to be to a certain extent correct, he deemed it his duty to rectify so anomalous a state of things, and of three judgeships in his gift he had presented two to as many members of the Irish Bar, and one to an Irish Gentleman. He had appointed two gentlemen to the Court of Directors as nominees for the Crown; and, though sensible of the distinguished merits and services of Sir G. Pollock, he had not re-appointed him, simply because it was, he believed, the intention of the Legislature that the office should he held only for a stated period, and that it should not be perpetuated in the same hands. He had nominated General Vivian for one of the vacancies in the direction, and Sir Henry Rawlinson to another. He could not quit
1148
this part of the subject without expressing the great satisfaction it had afforded him to engage for his own department the services of so distinguished an Indian administrator as Sir George Clerk. He mentioned these facts to show that the distribution of patronage, which had given rise to so much reviling of late, need not deserve all the reproaches cast upon it. Nothing had been more gratifying to him in all his public life than to be able to select for important public situations men with scarcely one of whom he had been personally acquainted, but whose high qualifications promised to be of the greatest service to India. He felt that he had already trespassed too long for the attention of the House, upon subjects for which, however, his remarks had been far too short to do justice to their unquestionable magnitude. He had passed hurriedly over topics which, if they had related to matters nearer home, might well have occupied weeks in their discussion. As it was, however, he had only to thank the House for the indulgence extended to him. The question of the right government of India was, perhaps, one of the most difficult problems that asked the solution of statesmen. The time had been when the rulers of that vast empire looked to nothing but the amount of revenue which they could extract from its people. Since then, however, thank God, a better day had dawned upon its many races and creeds, whose governors were now endeavouring to accomplish something for their social improvement. To interfere with their religion was to tread upon delicate ground—indeed, too tender to be touched by any man of moderate caution, not to say of even ordinary wisdom. The proper mode of improving their religion was by improving their morality; and this could be achieved only by setting them an example of inflexible honesty and good faith. This was the true policy which the Indian Government had to pursue; and in that policy he trusted they would be successful. He was too well aware that the wheel of political fortune might waft to the heights of Indian authority a man of no more than ordinary understanding and a resolute sincerity of purpose, but he would yield to none in earnest interest for the happiness of the inhabitants of India, early imbibed from those whose talents he could not hope to imitate, but whose zeal he aspired to equal, and now enhanced by the awful responsibility of the trust in his hands. It had

1149
been observed even by practical philosophers that it would be a proud day for England when she resigned to the inhabitants of India, well-educated, civilised, and regenerated, the sway which she now held over them. Such a result he could not anticipate that he should ever live to see. If, however, it occurred in his time, he, for one, should tremble for the consequences. What, then, was his own belief? Why, that it would indeed be a proud day for England when, maintaining her rule over this distant and populous empire, she could yet say that to the utmost of her power she bad advanced the physical prosperity of a people which the ancient dynasties of their despots never cared for, and had given them intellectual gratifications which their native rulers never knew. The right hon. Gentleman concluded by moving a formal Resolution, embodying the result of the accounts given in his speech.
SIR ERSKINE PERRYsaid, that the closing remarks of the right hon. Gentleman must have gone home to the hearts of all who took an interest in the welfare; and progress of India. It was deeply to be regretted that so few persons belonging to that category were present in that House. Questions relating to India were, unfortunately, not very popular; and independent members who broached them in that House were almost invariably greeted with a growl from the representatives of the Indian Government. He was glad, however, to see that during the last year that apathy had somewhat given way, in consequence of discussions in both Houses of Parliament, and some valuable steps had been gained. The public mind had at length become impressed with the conviction that the East India Company was no more than any other body of stock-holders, having no connection, moral or physical, with India. It was also seen that the Court of Directors was a paid department of the State—a body of trustees for the Crown for the time being, their remuneration consisting partly of salary and partly of patronage. It had likewise been made clear that the finances of England were responsible for any deficiency in the revenues of India; and the Torture Report had shown that the people of that country were very poor, and unable to bear the burdens imposed upon them. It followed from these facts that the Indian Government ought to be as scrupulously economical in its expenditure
1150
as those who administered the funds raised from the English public. The East India Company, however, appeared to be blind to those principles, and were in the habit of treating the revenues of India as if they were still their own corporate funds. Nay more, they claimed to do this without the sanction of the Board of Control. The litigation in which they occasionally took part did them but little credit. In the Dyce Sombre case they recklessly spent enormous sums of money. When the Rajah of Coorg, after his deposition, sued them for his share in one of the public funds of the country, the Company urged a plea which, if put forward by any responsible department in this country, would have aroused general indignation and risked the safety of any Ministry. They asserted a right to appropriate this property of the Rajah as booty of war. That litigation was also commenced by them without the sanction of the Board of Control. Again, when they engaged counsel to resist the claim of the Nawab of Surat before a Parliamentary Committee, instead of giving the ordinary fee of £50 or £100, they gave a retainer of no less than 1,000 or 1,200 guineas. Such a wasteful expenditure of public money would not be allowed in the affairs of England. He likewise very much doubted whether the East India Company were legally entitled to expend the revenues of India either for such purposes as he had just mentioned, or in the payment of pensions to ex-Governors General. By an old statute, which limited the power of the East India Company while they remained a corporate body, with regard to the expenditure of their funds, it was provided that they should not bestow pensions exceeding £600 a year upon any of their servants without the sanction of the President of the Board of Control. A subsequent statute of 1813 enabled them to grant gratuities; but it appeared to him that in 1833, when all the corporate funds of the Company were taken from them, their power to expend money for those purposes totally ceased. He would like to hear the opinion of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General and the Solicitor General upon this point, and he thought it was the duty of the President of the Board of Control to examine carefully the Act of 1833, with a view of ascertaining what were the actual powers of the Board of Directors with regard to the expenditure of the revenues of India. In

1151
his opinion, the power exercised by the Company in making those grants was unconstitutional, and the pensions which they conferred, chargeable upon the revenues of India, far exceeded in amount those which were bestowed upon servants of the Crown in this country under the authority of an Act of Parliament. It might be said that a pension granted to a deserving Governor General was within the scope of the powers of Government, but in that case the House of Commons ought to be consulted, and if the Court of Directors acted without its sanction, they assumed powers which they did not possess. The Governor General was entitled to 240,000 rupees, or about, with the exchange, £27,000 a year; but if he were in the receipt of any other pension, annuity, or salary, Parment had directed that that should be deducted from the amount of rupees, so that the salary of the office should be the sole recompense. Now, if Parliament had declared that amount to be the salary of the Governor General, how could a power be permitted to a branch of the Government and the Court of Directors to grant a pension of £5,000 without first consulting Parliament? It was said the President of the Board of Control had power to revise the acts of the Court of Directors; but it was almost impossible for one man to resist the grant of a pension to one who in a few days might become his colleague. Up to the time of Lord Hardinge the power of granting pensions had fallen into desuetude, though he was prepared to admit that £1,500 a year was granted to Sir George Barlow out of the corporate funds. In 1846 a pension of £5,000 a year was granted to Lord Hardinge, under the authority of the 33 Geo. III.; but, though it came within the words of the Act, in his belief it did not come within the spirit. The recent grant of £5,000 a year to Lord Dalhousie did not even come within the words of the Act, as he was not at the time in the service of the Company. He, therefore, complained that the President of the Board of Control did not exercise sufficient supervision over the Court of Directors in spending their revenues. With respect to the financial statement of the President of the Board of Control it was not calculated to allay those fears as to the condition of the Indian finances which had been excited by the accounts formerly laid before the House. Lord Dalhousie had issued a Minute, comprising 180 paragraphs, which described
1152
the condition of India as most flourishing, and, if implicit credit was to be given to the statements contained in that document, no doubt could be entertained of the prosperity of our Indian Empire. They had, however, heard a very different statement that night from the President of the Board of Control, having been told that there would still be a very large deficiency in the revenue for the year. Lord Dalhousie, referring to the deficiency of the last three years, attributed it to the enormous expenditure which he said the Government were now making on account of public works, and he stated that in 1853–54 a sum of not less than £2,325,000, had been expended on those public works. There was a marked discrepancy, however, between that statement and the one published in the accounts laid before Parliament under the sanction of the President of the Board of Control, for the expense of public works, exclusive of repairs and military buildings, was put down at £1,659,771, and military buildings at £293,000, making a total of £1,952,771, while the account presented by the Court of Directors showed for public works a sum of £618,703, and for military buildings £282,376—in all 901,079. Now. he wished to ascertain the cause of that great discrepancy. When he, some time ago, referred to the deficiency in the Indian revenue, he had considerably underrated the amount, for he did nut then take into account the deficiency in cash balances which amounted to £5,592,000. In point of fact, the deficiency in the last years for which accounts had been furnished—namely, 1853–54, amounted to the large sum of £8,136,040. Lord Dalhousie, in his Minute, gave the public to understand, that by the territorial acquisitions secured during his tenure of office, £4,000,000 had been added to the revenue of India; but the noble Lord only made out that amount of revenue by not giving one item of charge against it. He did not charge against the revenue one farthing for the expenses of the civil and military government of those territories. He credited the Punjab with £1,500,000 of revenue, whereas it had been shown that there was an annual deficiency of £59,000. For Sattara, he put down a revenue of £150,000, while there was an actual deficiency of £22,000. Nagpore he stated at £410,000, whereas it had been proved that no larger a revenue had been derived than £100,895. On the subject of opium,

1153
Lord Dalhousie said, the revenue derived from that article had increased from £2,730,000 in 1847–8, to £4,700,000, in 1854–5, whereas the real facts were, that the gross receipts from opium were £4,609,740, and the charges to be deducted amounted to £1,017,280, leaving as revenue only £3,592,460. If the civil servants of India did not keep the accounts better, they could not wonder that such men as Lord Ellenborough and others should ask for the accounts being properly audited. The President of the Board of Control had told the Committee, that he did not despair of an increase of revenue in India, and indicated his belief that fresh sources of taxation might be opened up in that country, and also that something might be done in the way of cutting down charges. He (Sir E. Perry) did not know where those fresh sources of taxation were to be found, and he did not think the civil service would gain much by the curtailment of emoluments. The true source of economy, he apprehended, was not in cutting down salaries, but in calling into the service the natives of India in much larger proportion than now, and giving to them the principal offices under English superintendence. The President of the Board of Control had alluded to his (Sir E. Perry's) views with respect to the Law Commission appointed by his predecessor, but he must say, notwithstanding what had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman on this subject, that in the course he had taken he had not shown himself alive to the urgency of the occasion or to the circumstances that demanded his interposition. All the witnesses who were examined in Parliament concurred in recommending first, that the law Courts in India should be amalgamated; and, secondly, that a Commission should be appointed here to frame a code of procedure. The Commissioners, whose services the President of the Board of Control obtained, were—the Master of the Rolls, the Chief Justice of the Common Pleas, Sir Edward Ryan, Mr. Cameron, Mr. Hawkins, Mr. M'Leod, and his right hon. Friend below him (Mr. Lowe). Those gentlemen devoted their unremitting attention to the subject for two years, they did so without remuneration, and after the conclusion of their labours they found that, instead of making any use of them, their Reports were to be sent to India, to be disposed of in the same way as Mr. Macaulay's "Criminal Code." But its members, of course, soon became tired of suggesting reforms
1154
which were not carried into effect; and the Commission was brought to an end. To show the feeling which existed among the Members of the Commission, he might read the letter which one of them—Chief Justice Jervis—wrote to the Secretary:—
"May 22, 1856.
"My dear Sir—I decline to sign the third and fourth Reports of the Indian Law Commissioners. I consented to act as a Commissioner upon the express understanding that we were to endeavour to frame a code of procedure for all India, and with this understanding applied myself diligently to the subject, and, with the aid of the other members of the Commission, succeeded in framing a code which, I believe, is well calculated to meet the exigencies of the case, and which is certainly infinitely better than any that has been proposed by the authorities of India. If I had supposed that the Commission would be used to postpone legislation, and that the subject would ultimately be shelved by a reference to the Indian Government, I should not have consented to act; and, considering that a slight has been cast upon the Commissioners by the course which has been taken, I decline to take any further part in the proceedings of the Commission.
"I am, yours faithfully,
"JOHN JERVIS.
"N. B. Baillie, Esq., Secretary, &c."
One of its recommendations was, that the Supreme Court should be abolished, and another formed in its stead. The Legislative Council in India, however, was not competent to carry out such an organic reform. His right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Control had stated, that no one who had sincerely at heart the progress of India would desire a slight to be passed upon Indian legislation; but he (Sir E. Perry) could unhesitatingly affirm that, however efficiently certain details might be carried out by the Indian Legislature, all organic legislation must proceed from this country. The right hon. Gentleman had playfully, but somewhat pointedly, alluded to hot-headed Indian reformers who were constantly pressing him on. He hardly thought that he (Sir E. Perry) could come under that category, for he had at no period proposed reforms which had not obtained the full concurrence of Government. The reform which was most urgently called for in British India was a reform in the administration of justice, and he deeply regretted that the Report to which he had just alluded had, to use the words of Chief Justice Jervis, "been shelved." He wished now to say a few words upon the annexation of Oude—a transaction in which solemn treaties had been put aside, and the honour of England, to a certain extent, tarnished. On a former

1155
occasion he charged the Marquess of Dalhousie with being the author of that annexation; but he now found that the late Governor General pointed out the impolicy and injustice of annexing Oude and dethroning the King. The noble Marquess said, in one of his documents:—
"The reform of the administration of the province may be wrought, and the prosperity of the people may be secured, without resorting to so extreme a measure as the annexation of the territory and the abolition of the throne.
"The King's consent is indispensable to the transfer of the whole or any part of his Sovereign authority to the government of the East India Company. It would not be expedient or right to endeavour to extract his consent by means of menace or compulsion."
How was it that, holding such doctrines, the Marquess of Dalhousie became the instrument of carrying out the system of coercion against Oude? Simply, because the Government at home ordered him to dethrone the King and take possession of his dominions. In a despatch, dated 21st of November, 1855, the Court of Directors said:—
"Your Government, in communication with the officiating resident, Major General Outram, is in a condition to judge, and, perhaps, to ascertain whether the prospect of your declaring the treaties cancelled, and our connection with the Oude Government at an end, would be so alarming to the King as to render his acceptance of the treaty proposed to be tendered to him a matter of virtual certainty. Unless such be the conviction of the Governor General, the alternative should not be offered to the King; and in that event, without expressing any opinion on the principles laid down by the several Members of Council (principles, be it observed, discussing the right of the Company to annex Oude), we are fully prepared to take the responsibility of authorising and enjoining the only other course by which our duties to the people of Oude can be fulfilled."
In conclusion, he trusted that in future, his right hon. Friend would bring on the Indian debate at an earlier period of the Session. A lengthened discussion would then ensue, which would tend greatly to the benefit of India; for he ventured to say, that no debate upon the subject had ever taken place in that House without great good resulting to India; and he was satisfied that the more public opinion was called to the Government of that country, the more would that Government be brought into consonance with the principles which ought to distinguish our rule of that great empire.
SIR JAMES HOGGsaid, that his hon. and learned Friend who had just sat down had attacked the Court of Directors; but
1156
he did not know that he ought to be surprised at that, seeing that his hon. and learned Friend could not talk about India without attacking the Court of Directors, and that he seemed to consider that a violent attack upon the Court was synonymous with promoting the interests of India. His hon. and learned Friend had partially called attention to the subject of Oude, and he (Sir J. Hogg) should, therefore, partially reply to him. He quite concurred with his right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Control in the anxious wish that that subject might be fully discussed in Parliament, because he believed that the almost unanimous opinion would be that the Government of India had acted wisely and justly in the measures which they had adopted towards Oude; and, perhaps, the only difficulty which they would have would be in accounting for the length of time to which they had deferred the carrying out of those measures. Notwithstanding what his hon. and learned Friend had said, he maintained that the annexation of Oude was the act of the Marquess of Dalhousie. If his Lordship had thought fit to avoid the responsibility, after running a glorious career in India of eight years, he might have returned home laden with honours, and he might have escaped the toil, the trouble, the anxiety and the comments of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Devonport, if he had avoided the responsibility of settling the affairs of Oude. Lord Dalhousie was within a few weeks of leaving India, but he knew the importance of the subject, and he knew also that, whatever the talent, or however high the character of his successor might be, it required the weight and authority of his name to carry that measure into successful operation. He did carry that measure out; the success had been complete; and the state of the prosperity of Oude and the happiness and contentment of the people resulting from the change of rule were such as no hon. Member would, he apprehended, attempt to deny. His hon. and learned Friend said,— "Although you have the aid of £1,000,000 of revenue from Oude, mark what is your public deficiency;" and his hon. and learned Friend made that remark when he had an account in his hand showing that the revenue of Oude for the year had only amounted to £280,000, the reason being that there had been all the extraordinary and unavoidable expenses of the annexation with no corresponding increase in the

1157
revenue. He had no doubt, however, that in future years there would be an income from that source of quite £1,000,000. A discussion had taken place in the Council relative to the annexation of Oude. In that discussion it was said by some members of the Council, "Let us enter into a treaty with the King of Oude, and tell him that if he will not sign the treaty the European troops will be withdrawn; and he knows full well that if they are withdrawn his dynasty cannot last an hour longer, and, perhaps, even his life will be in danger." On the other hand, it was said that such a course was pregnant with danger and with difficulty to the people of Oude, and that it would be better to say at once that England was responsible for the good government of Oude, and that, in order to secure good government, it was necessary to annex that kingdom. He himself did not wish to contend that one country had a right, under general circumstances, to annex the territory of a neighbouring State on account of misgovernment; but in the present case, by the treaty of 1801, England was responsible for the good government of India, and under that responsibility the Government of the King of Oude had been maintained by British bayonets, until at length the experience of fifty years had demonstrated that to continue such a support would be not only to sanction, but virtually to participate in the enormities which were committed in that kingdom, and the result of the annexation of Oude had been, that the people of that country were most thankful at being relieved from the tyranny under which they had for so long a period lived. With reference to the observations of his hon. and learned Friend respecting the Law Commissioners, he would only say that the labours of those distinguished men would be best turned to a satisfactory result by referring their Report to the Legislative Council in India, in order that local experience might he brought to bear upon the subject. That course had been judiciously adopted by his right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Control, and he regretted that any one should have taken umbrage at it. When the Commission was first appointed, the words of the Act appointing it implied that the result of it should be carried into execution by the Legislature at home, and he had then pointed out the inexpediency of having Imperial legislation upon a local subject, and those words had, consequently, been altered. What required
1158
alteration more than anything else was the course of procedure in India, and his right hon. Friend, in his (Sir J. Hogg's) belief, had acted very wisely in referring the matter to the Legislative Council in India instead of rashly introducing a Bill into Parliament, for, in fact, the only point which ought to be dealt with by the Imperial Legislature was the jurisdiction of the Admiralty and Vice Admiralty Courts. The hon. and learned Gentleman had also referred to the cash balance in a particular year, and had pointed out the deficiency which had taken place; but he (Sir J. Hogg) thought it might have occurred to him that the balance to which he had referred, and the subsequent deficiency, were the natural consequence of Lord Dalhousie's great financial operation. The cash balance had been allowed to get large, in order to pay off the holders of 5 per cent paper who did not wish to convert it into 4 per cent paper, and the subsequent deficiency had been caused by the payment of old debts. The hon. and learned Gentleman had likewise commented on the different statements in the several accounts with regard to the expenses of public works; and that no doubt might have been a fair subject of complaint had it not been fully explained by his right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Control. In the Minutes of last year, in the expenditure for public works, was included the expense of repairs of roads and of military barracks, and any one reading the account would perceive the enormous expenditure which had been most properly incurred for new barracks. In the present account the amount under the head of public works did not include repairs and military buildings. The hon. and learned Gentleman denied, also, the right of the Court of Directors to make a grant of a pension to a Governor General, and said there was no Act of Parliament to justify such a transaction. He (Sir J. Hogg) would admit that there was no Act of Parliament to that effect, but he contended it was a power inherent in the governing body. The particular Acts of Parliament which had been referred to were all restrictive of that power which they, by implication, admitted to exist. The 53 Geo. III. c. 155, was passed to prevent the Court of Directors from granting large pensions, but did not include the Court of Proprietors, and to remedy that omission the 55 Geo. III. was passed. The hon. and learned Gentleman allowed that the

1159
law officers of the Crown differ in opinion from him, but still maintained that the Court of Directors had no such power. His hon. and learned Friend should, however, have referred to an Act of Parliament, passed a few years since, in which there was an express opinion upon that point. When a pension was granted to Lord Hardinge he could not receive both pension and salary as Governor General, because of the restriction that a Governor General should receive no payment but his salary. The Act of Parliament which was passed in consequence declared that, "when the Court of Directors shall have passed such a Resolution, which Resolution has been sanctioned by a general Court of Proprietors of the said Company, and confirmed by the Board of Commissioners for the Affairs of India, in the manner required by law to give a full effect to such Resolution, &c.," that was a declaration of Parliament that the Court of Directors, with the approbation of the proprietors and with the sanction of the Board of Control, had all the authority necessary to give effect to any Resolution. He would only say a few words upon the introductory remarks of the hon. and learned Gentleman. Those remarks were strongly condemnatory of the Indian Government, which a few years since had been spoken of by colonial reformers in that House as a model system. The hon. and learned Gentleman had accused the Court of Directors of squandering the public money, and referred to a particular case. The facts of that case were simple. A gentleman left a large sum of money (£200,000) for a great public institution in India, and appointed the Court of Directors trustees for that purpose. The will was disputed on the ground of insanity on the part of the testator. That allegation might or might not have been true, and all the Directors could do was to take the opinion of a court of law upon the subject. It was true that a court of law had mulcted the East India Company in costs, and that on the judgment upon that occasion there was rather an imputation upon the Court of Directors, but it was equally true that that imputation had been removed by the Court above, which in its judgment expressly stated that the Court of Directors would have abandoned their duty had they not taken the matter before a competent tribunal. Then the hon. and learned Gentleman had referred to the case of the ex-Rajah of Coorg, and said that the East India Company
1160
had plunged into litigation; but the fact was, the ex-Rajah instituted a suit against the Company, and all that the Directors had to do was, as in any other case, to take the opinion of a court of law upon the question in dispute. That surely was not "plunging into litigation." Then the case of the Nawab of Surat had been referred to. He thought the House had had enough of Surat lately, and would not dwell much upon that subject. The hon. and learned Gentleman, however, had spoken of the enormous fee—as much as £1,000 or £1,200—paid to a counsel in that case. Until he heard that statement, he was totally ignorant of the fee which was paid, that being a matter always left to the discretion of the Company's solicitor. He, however, found that the fee paid for reading through a mass of papers extending over fifty years, and for attending the Privy Council, where large fees were paid, was in reality only 500 guineas. He was glad to find that those were all the charges which could be brought against the Company by the hon. and learned Gentleman, who had even allowed them a qualified degree of praise. His (Sir J. Hogg's) right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Control and the Board of Directors were zealously, and he hoped not unsuccessfully, endeavouring to promote the welfare of India, and he trusted that a persistence in the good cause which the hon. and learned Gentleman admitted they were now pursuing would meet with his (Sir E. Perry's) approbation, as well as that of the country at large.
MR. HEADLAMsaid, he had listened with pleasure to the able statement of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Control, but there was one subject which, in his opinion, deserved some further consideration—he meant the manner in which the proceedings of the Indian Law Commissioners had been for all practical purposes set aside. It would be remembered that an Indian Law Commission had been in existence since 1837, and had made an immense number of valuable Reports, which, in consequence of the delays in communicating with India, and the uncertainty of relations between the home authorities and the Indian authorities, had come to nothing. A second Commission was appointed, not to go again into the whole subject of Indian law and procedure, but to have referred to the Reports made by the previous Commission, and to select those recommendations which could be

1161
best carried into effect. It was clearly the understanding of those Commissioners that they were to investigate the Reports of the first Commission, and, that being done, they believed that legislation would thereupon take place. The second Commission was to Report, not to the East India Company, but to Her Majesty. That Commission produced three valuable Reports; but not only had those Reports not been made use of, but the Commission itself had been brought to an end. The Commissioners reported on three specific subjects—first, as to the practicability of establishing a simple and uniform system of procedure; next, as to the amalgamation of the two primary Courts; and, thirdly, as to the amalgamation of certain of the Sudder Courts. Those were the subjects as stated in the letter of instructions addressed to the Commissioners by the right hon. Baronet then at the head of the India Board (Sir C. Wood), who added that, when the Commissioners should have completed their Report on these subjects he would address them again as to the further inquiries they were to institute. The Commissioners accordingly made their Report, when, instead of receiving further instructions, they received a letter from the Secretary of the Board of Control, informing them that it was not the intention of the Government to apply to Parliament for an Act to continue the Commission, and that the Board of Control thought it desirable at once to bring the Commission to a close. Under those circumstances, it could not be wondered at that the Gentlemen appointed to that Commission, as well as others who were interested in the improvement of the law of India, should require more clear and explicit information from the Government than had as yet been given as to the course they proposed to take with respect to the other matters which, in the first instance, were delegated to those Commissioners to investigate.
MR. LOWEsaid, that, as one of the persons constituting the second Commission, he thought it right to say two or three words on behalf of his colleagues and himself. Certainly great labour had been bestowed by the Commissioners in their inquiries into the subjects submitted to them. He could confidently say that their object in devoting themselves to that labour was, not that they might derive any particular or individual credit from it, but a desire to benefit India, and to supply those
1162
objects which that country needed, and which were not to be supplied elsewhere. He could say, both as a Commissioner and as Secretary of the Board of Control, that both he and his colleagues undertook the duties of the Commission with the notion and understanding (as he believed it was also that of the President of the Board of Control himself) that the result of their labours was not to be sent out and reported upon in India. Whether their recommendations were to be carried into effect or not, still they never understood that what they did recommend was to be sent to India for revision. Had they known or believed that such a course was to be pursued, he very much doubted whether they would have undertaken the labour imposed upon them. He differed from the hon. Member for Honiton (Sir J. Hogg), when he said that the Legislative Council of India could accomplish all that was wanted, except as regarded the Admiralty and Vice-Admiralty Courts. The Commission examined into that subject, and they came to a contrary conclusion. They believed that the Members of the Supreme Council of India could not accomplish what was required without an Act of the Imperial Legislature. With regard to the course which had been taken towards the Commissioners in the matter, he could only express it as their sentiment that they felt it somewhat hard, after the labour they had bestowed on the matters submitted to them, that the result of those labours should be sent back to India to be reported upon by persons whom some of them had a right to consider inferior to themselves. The House would think it not unreasonable I that the Master of the Rolls and the Chief Justice of the Common Pleas should feel it rather a reflection upon their judgment that their labours should be subjected to such a revision on the part of Indian officials. With regard to what had fallen from the hon. Member for Newcastle (Mr. Headland), he did not think the Commissioners made any complaint at the Commission being put an end to. That was quite a matter for the Board of Control and the Government to consider. But what they did complain of was, that their labours should be submitted, not to a Council for the purposes of legislation, but to other persons, that they might give their opinion upon subjects with which it was generally believed they were not competent to deal.
MR. OTWAYsaid, he wished to correct an erroneous impression which the hon. Baronet (Sir J. Hogg) had certainly conveyed to the Committee with regard to a lawsuit in which the East India Company had not figured very much to their advantage. The hon. Baronet had asked whether a large sum of money having been left for public purposes in India, it was not the duty of the Court of Directors to endeavour to obtain that money, and to establish the sanity of the testator. The hon. Baronet had declared that the Board were actuated by public spirit in what they had done, but he entirely omitted that the Directors had a very large pecuniary interest in the success of that lawsuit. There was no doubt that those gentlemen were in a great measure induced to persevere in the course they pursued by the private advantage which they and their friends would have derived from the bequests left by Mr. Dyce Sombre. The statement of the hon. Baronet that the Court above had acquitted the Board of Directors, and had absolved them from the payment of the costs in which they were cast by the Court below, was by no means accurate. Dr. Lushington, who delivered judgment in the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, had only allowed them one set of costs, and the Directors would actually have to pay between £12,000 and £14,000 out of the revenues of India on account of that lawsuit. Of that sum he (Mr. Otway) should require a very strict account from his right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Control, who had made a statement in that House which had given great satisfaction to many Gentlemen—namely, that he had not at all decided as to whether he should allow those costs to come out of the revenues of India. With respect to the expenses in the case of the Nawab of Surat, he had heard that those also were enormous. But, look at the whole amount spent by the Directors in law expenses. In 1854 that item figured for £10,500, in 1855 for £13,000, and in 1856 for £16,500, and in the next account the Committee might depend upon it that, reckoning the cost of proceeding in the two cases he had mentioned, and in the just claims which the Company were engaged in disputing, £16,000 would go a very little way towards defraying the law expenses for 1857, which he suspected would be enormous. Had there been time, he should have taken exception to
1164
many things in the Minute of Lord Dalhousie. No doubt that nobleman was entitled to great credit for much of what he had done in India, and for the public works he had carried out there; among which might be mentioned improved means of communication, and the introduction of the electric telegraph. But, on the other hand there had been occurrences during his administration which it was impossible to approve. The annexation of Oude had been mentioned, and some stress had been laid upon the treaty of 1801, but no mention was made of the treaty of 1837, by which the Indian Government bound themselves, in the case of any misgovernment on the part of the King of Oude, to take possession of the country and govern it in the King's name, and at a certain time to restore it. [Sir J. W. HOSG: There is no such treaty]. He was quite aware that the hon. Baronet would say the treaty had not been ratified, but that was not the opinion of Lord Brougham, and of others. The non-ratification only applied to one article—the seventh—in that treaty. Now, he could imagine a case in which you might take possession of a neighbouring State, but when, as in this case, a solemn treaty forbade such a course, he maintained that it was most unwarrantable to ask the King to abdicate, and when he failed to comply to eject him from his throne. With respect to the question of public works, there certainly was a remarkable discrepancy in the three accounts which had been given, but, even making allowance for the facts, explained by the hon. Baronet (Sir J. W. Hogg) it was impossible that the deficit could have been caused by the expenditure under that head. He would suggest that on a future occasion a separate statement should be furnished of the public works, and that the Committee should have detailed to them every year an account of the sums expended on public works of a remunerative and the expenditure on those of an unremunerative character. That so many princes and gentlemen of India should come here to procure restitution of sums wrested from them by the Indian Government, he considered, brought disgrace and discredit upon the country. If the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Control read the continental papers, he would find that no subject was more commented upon by them to our reproach than that. The subject of torture

1165
could not, he thought, stand in a better position than it did at present. No one could now deny that it been systematic and continued—that the East India Company were acquainted with the practice and with the character of the police—that they established the system with a clear view of its power and its objects—that they knew how to prevent torture, but they never attempted to apply the remedy. From the most recent accounts which he had received from India he learnt that torture, although he hoped diminished in amount, still continued, and in one part of that empire there was danger of the officials falling again into their old paths. On the whole, he thought that the Report, and more than the Report, the evidence, justified his right hon. Friend (Mr. V. Smith) in saying that the Court of Directors was particeps criminis. The remedy was to be found in the separation of the revenue and police functions. He had heard with dismay that we were likely to go to war with Persia, and he trusted that the anticipations of his right hon. Friend (Mr. V. Smith) would not be realised. He was, on the whole, satisfied with the statement which had been made, and hoped that next year the right hon. Gentleman would be able to announce that the state of India was as flourishing as he had that night described it to be.
MR. DANBY SEYMOURsaid, that it was impossible that, with such an empire as India, we should be without princes and other claimants, such as those to which his hon. Friend (Mr. Otway) had referred, at the seat of Imperial Government. Almost all existing claims were, however, of long date, and such as the existing administration were not responsible for. Gholah Mohammed returned to India, as he supposed, quite satisfied. The case of the Ranees of Nagpore involved an intricate question of succession, in which neither the Crown nor the Indian Government had the slightest interest. In the case of the Carnatic stipendiaries, he (Mr. Seymour) was interested before he had the honour to hold his present office. The suggestions which he made as a private Member had been, to a great extent, acted upon. The commutation of the pensions for grants of land in the Presidency of Madras was being carried out, and nearly all the claimants were satisfied. There had been a question as to the abolition of a Nawab-ship of the Carnatic; but it had been decided by all the authorities in India, and by
1166
the Government at home, that that nawab-ship should cease. With respect to the observations that had been made relative to the expenditure on the public works, he must admit that there was a discrepancy between the accounts; but he would remind his hon. Friend (Mr. Otway) that Mr. Grant's statement was merely an approximative one, and that that gentleman had added items for repairs, barracks, &c., which swelled the sum to a greater amount than appeared in the Revenue table. Henceforward the accounts would be made out on a new and improved system, which would not allow of any such discrepancies as had too often occurred under the old plan. Orders had been given to make up the budgets of the various public works with the greatest possible accuracy, and he hoped to lay them on the table next year. Estimates of such works as appeared necessary in all parts of the empire had been prepared by the respective engineers, and the most pressing wants of the population, measured by a regard to the amount of money that could be spent upon the undertaking, would regulate the order in which the various projects would be commenced. The great object should be to relieve the masses of the people from over taxation; for when that was done the revenues of India would increase with marvellous rapidity, and the country would soon yield that golden harvest which in ancient times it used to afford. He had lately received communications from Madras, which stated that the reduction effected in the land tax had been followed by a large investment of capital in the cultivation of the soil, an increase of profits, and a considerable augmentation of the revenue of the Presidency. The same was the case, he had been informed, with Trichinopoly. He agreed with those who stated that law reform was the great want of India, and that, too, was the opinion of his right hon. Friend (Mr. V. Smith). Cheap and speedy justice was wanted in India, and the want of it and of men well trained to fill the bench and the bar was felt as a serious evil. Law reform, indeed, would be one of the greatest boons that could be conferred on India. The question of education was also an important one, and his right hon. Friend had stated that the excellent Minute of the late President of the Board of Control (Sir C. Wood), which had hitherto worked so well, should be carried out as extensively and effectively as possible. However, with respect to education, he rejoiced to be enabled

1167
to state that it was spreading rapidly; and it was admitted on all hands that there was an intense thirst for it throughout the entire empire. The people were industrious as bees, and the difficulty with Hindoo schoolboys was not to get them to work but induce them to play. The success of the female schools was also most gratifying, and the Parsee schools in Bombay were also most successful. The natives had a great desire for an education based on the English system, and the books most used were those published by the Committee of National Education in Ireland. Another interesting feature was the tendency of capital to go to India. Allusion had been made to a railway which was about to be constructed without a guarantee. He had that morning had an interview with the enterprising promoter, Mr. Harrison, who lately most successfully established the Bombay Gold Company. That railway, which was projected to reach from Calcutta to Chittagong, had come out into the market on Friday last, and had been favourably received. He did not know if it would answer, but he mentioned it as a sign and a symptom of the fact that India was an increasing field for enterprise. Then with regard to cotton-spinning, the establishments which had been put into operation at Pondicherry, at Calcutta, and other places, were important—not from their size, but from the promise they held out: yarn, which had hitherto been exported from England, might be made in India, and a trade arise which would lead to a large interchange of capital between the two countries, and go some way to solve the question whether this country could not be rendered independent of America with regard to cotton. Then, again, there was the Euphrates Railway scheme, which was supported by the Turkish Government, and which was part of a largely-developing system of communication between England and India, which must go to increase their mutual wealth. If education was spread, if justice was rendered cheap and easy, and mercantile enterprise was spread over the country, it was to be hoped that every blot would be removed from the administration of the revenue, every illegal exaction done away, and every case of torture made to cease, and that a new day would dawn on India—a result which was to be brought about more by the moral impress of the English mind upon that country than by any species of enactment.
MR. I. BUTTsaid, he thought the debate
1168
of that evening had proved beyond all doubt that free discussion in Parliament should be brought to bear on the minutest details of the Government of India. If there had been any listlessness exhibited, it must be ascribed to the lateness of the period at which the Indian Budget had been introduced. Earlier in the evening he had been anxious to bring under discussion a grievous wrong inflicted on one of those native Princes who had petitioned the House of Commons, but he had been stopped on a point of Order. Some short time ago he had presented a petition from one of the remaining Princes of Scinde, to whom had been left a shred only of his territory. That petition contained very strong charges, and he should not have presented it if the allegations had not been borne out by the facts. At so late an hour (twelve o'clock) it was, of course, impossible for him to bring the subject forward; nor did he think that in a general discussion this particular grievance could be considered with advantage. He thought it due, however, to the character, both of the Indian Government and of the East India Company, that the statements in that petition should be answered (if it were possible to answer them) during the present Session. So strong were the allegations of the petition that the Printing Committee had, as he thought quite unnecessarily, omitted the names of the persons implicated. He would now, however, give notice that on Thursday evening he would move for papers connected with the subject, and if discussion were put off on that occasion it would not be from any fault of his.
MR. MANGLESsaid, he could not, in justice to the body of which he was a member, allow the statements which had been made to their disadvantage to pass unnoticed. The hon. and learned Member for Devonport (Sir E. Perry), and those who agreed with him, in speaking of the Indian Government, were in the invariable habit of confining their attention exclusively to the failures and shortcomings of that body, and entirely overlooking the amount of good which it had done. No system of administration on earth could endure so unfair and one-sided a test. England itself could as little stand it as India. The hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Otway) had commented on the treaty of 1837 between the Indian Government and the King of Oude. The result of the alternative suggested by the hon. Member

1169
would have been that the East India Company would have been obliged to take possession of the Government of Oude after the streets of Lucknow hail flowed with blood. It seemed to be supposed that the East India Company were guilty of hypocrisy in maintaining that they were responsible for the good government of Oude, but forty years ago Mr. Mill, in his History of British India, had laid it down that the East India Company were responsible for all the miseries inflicted by the native Governments which they protected and supported. With regard to the deficiencies of the police system, the Government had always been sensible of them, and measures were now in progress to remedy them. He quite agreed in the expediency of separating the police from the revenue department, and he had himself advocated that separation upwards of twenty-fire years ago. With regard to the views of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Control with respect to the emoluments of the civil servants in India, he considered that they were not only unsound but inaccurate. It was a mistake to say that the civil service was most corrupt when best paid. It was no doubt most corrupt when its members made most money, as was shown in Mr. Macaulay's Essay on the Life of Lord Clive, and he should earnestly deprecate any unwise reduction of the salaries of the Indian civil servants, which should give them a shadow of an excuse—and a miserable excuse it would be admitted—for indulging in the dishonest practices there described. From a Return which he held in his hand, he found that, comparing the year 1827 with 1854, the amount paid to the civil service had greatly decreased, notwithstanding the large increase in the number of civil servants. Injustice had been done, he thought, to the civil servants in the matter of torture. When so many eminent Indian officials, Governors General and others, had been ignorant of its existence, was it not a fair inference to draw that it was not so general as commonly supposed? All the inquiries which had been made had been confined to the Madras Presidency, where the people were exceedingly poor, and where the land tax was paid by small cottiers, but in Bengal and the north-western provinces it was extremely unlikely that torture could exist. In the Mofussul the revenue was paid by the zemindars, and there was not a single Government revenue officer in the province
1170
by whom torture could be inflicted. [Cries of "Divide !"] Although he had intended to reply to other statements that had been made in the course of the discussion, he would not oppose the wish of the House to bring the debate to a conclusion.
MR. VERNON SMITHsaid, he must beg to explain, with reference to the Report of the Law Commission, that he was not aware that any compact had been entered into with the Commissioners that their recommendations should at once become law. From communications he had had with his noble Friend (Lord Canning), he entertained no doubt that the recommendations of the Commissioners would be carried into effect as speedily as possible. The Commissioners on the Penal Code had also reported, and he hoped the Legislative Council would be enabled at an early period to give effect to the most important suggestions contained in their Report.
MR. OTWAYsaid, he understood that Mr. Theobald, the Professor of Law at the Calcutta Institute, who had first brought the subject of torture in India under the notice of the hon. Member for Poole (Mr. D. Seymour) had been dismissed from his office. He (Mr. Otway) did not mean to intimate that that Gentleman had been dismissed in consequence of the part he had taken with reference to the question of torture, but there could be no doubt that the course he had pursued had not tended to bring him into favour with the authorities. He would, however, beg to ask whether the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Control was aware of the cause of Mr. Theobald's dismissal, and whether it was connected with the part that gentleman had taken in the denunciation of torture?
MR. VERNON SMITHreplied that he was not aware of the fact of Mr. Theobald's dismissal, but if it had taken place with the sanction of the Governor General of India, or of the Council, he thought he could say that it had not been the consequence of Mr. Theobald's denunciation of the system of torture. He (Mr. V. Smith) could not conceive that the Governor General or the Council would act so unjustly.
Resolutions agreed to.

1. Resolved, "That the total net Revenues of the Bengal Presidency, for the year ended the 30th day of April, 1854, amounted to £8,096,682 sterling; and the Charges thereof for the same period, other than Military Charges, amounted to £2,200,941 sterling.

1171

2. Resolved, "That the total net Revenues of the North Western Provinces, including the newly acquired Territory, for the year ended the 30th day of April, 1854, amounted to £5,656,674 sterling; and the Charges thereof for the same period, other than Military Charges, amounted to £1,547,106 sterling.

3. Resolved, "That the net Revenues of Bengal and the North Western Provinces, together, for the year ended the 30th day of April, 1854, amounted to £13,753,356 sterling; and the Charges thereupon, including the Military Charges, amounted to £9,774,486 sterling, leaving a surplus available for the general Charges of India of £3,978,870 sterling.

4. Resolved, "That the total net Revenues of the Madras Presidency (Fort St. George), for the year ended the 30th day of April, 1854, amounted to £3,315,513 sterling; and the net Charges thereof, for the same period, amounted to £3,539,334 sterling, showing an excess of Charges over Revenue in the above Presidency, of £223,821 sterling.

5. Resolved, "That the total net Revenues of the Bombay Presidency, for the year ended the 30th day of April, 1854, amounted to £2,636,211 sterling; and the net Charges thereof, for the same period, amounted to £2,977,113 sterling, showing an excess of Charges over Revenue in the above Presidency of £340,902 sterling.

6. Resolved, "That the total net Revenues of the several Presidencies, for the year ended the 30th day of April, 1854, amounted to £19,705,080 sterling; and the Charges thereof amounted to £16,290,933 sterling, leaving a surplus Revenue of £3,414,147 sterling.

7. Resolved, "That the Interest on the Registered Debt of India paid in the year ended the 30th day of April, 1854, amounted to £2,195,975 sterling, and the Charges defrayed in England on account of the Indian Territory in the same period amounted to £3,262,289 sterling, leaving a deficiency of Indian Income for the year ended as aforesaid, to defray the above Interest and Charges, of £2,044,117 sterling.

House resumed.

BISHOPS OF LONDON AND DURHAM RETIREMENT BILL— QUESTION.
SIR JAMES GRAHAM: Perhaps it will be for the convenience of the House if the noble Lord at the head of the Government will state when he proposes to move the second reading of the Bill respecting the future incomes of the Bishops of London and Durham.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: I shall propose that the Bill be read a second time to-morrow.
SIR JAMES GRAHAM: At the morning or evening sitting? [Viscount PALMERSTON: In the evening.] Will the noble Lord have any objection to lay upon the table the correspondence which has taken place between the Bishops of London and Durham and Her Majesty's Government with respect to the terms upon which those
1172
right rev. Prelates have stipulated that their resignations shall be given in?
VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: That correspondence was laid before the House of Lords, and there will be no objection to its production.

PAROCHIAL SCHOOLS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
On the Question that the Lords' Amendments to this Bill be considered,
THE LORD ADVOCATE THE LORD ADVOCATE moved that Clauses 12 and 14, imposing a test on schoolmasters, be left out of the Bill.
MR. HENLEYsaid, he did not quite understand the Motion which had been made, but he supposed the object was to reinstate the two clauses which were struck out by the House of Lords. He was sorry that the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate thought fit to disagree with the Lords' Amendments. The Bill was intended to improve the system of education in Scotland, by increasing the salaries of the masters and providing for inspection, &c. So far, everybody was in favour of the measure, but the clauses which had been struck out proposed to sever the connection of the schools with the Church of Scotland. Now, he was surprised that this severance should be attempted, because the whole system of education in Scotland had always been looked up to as worthy of imitation, and they were told the same creed was taught by all denominations in that country. The Free Church party, he was informed, exacted what was called a test from their own professors and schoolmasters, and he could not understand on what ground the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate contended that the masters of the parochial schools should not come under some sort of test.
THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, he greatly deplored the course which had been taken in another place on this Bill; and he called upon the House to persist in the principle which they had hitherto maintained on this subject. He thought that when the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Henley) came to inquire a little more into the question, he would considerably modify his views. It was just because the people of Scotland nearly all held substantially the same creed, as the right hon. Gentleman had observed, that this Bill was necessary. The Presbyterians of Scotland, consisting of nine-tenths of the community, were taught the same catechism and held the same faith, and that being the case it was thought undesirable that

1173
at least one-half of the people of Scotland should be ineligible as masters of the national schools. The Bill was accordingly brought in to improve and amend the system of education, and to provide that that exclusion should no longer exist. It was not proposed to sever the connection between the Established Church and the schools. The heritors and ministers were to have the power of electing the schoolmasters left in their hands, but it provided that their choice should not be restricted to one denomination. That was the whole question. The House had affirmed the principle over and over again, and by a majority of two to one they sent the Bill, with that provision, to the other House. It had been said in another place that the majority in that House was unworthy of consideration, because it consisted chiefly of the borough Members of Scotland who had no interest in the matter; but he contended that the borough Members had a very deep interest in this question, as it was from the agricultural districts the boroughs principally received those who were employed in them, and the education of those districts must therefore be to them a matter of great importance. They had, in his belief, a far greater interest in the question than the landowners who never sent their sons to the parochial schools, and who had merely to pay the schoolmaster because they bought their land with that burden resting on it. He had been told that this was a Free Church Bill. He could only say that he was offered terms from the other side of the House that would have had the effect of letting in all the Free Church teachers while it kept out others; but those terms he refused, so that there could be no pretence whatever for calling it a Free Church measure. It seemed to him that to keep up a test not to exclude Episcopalians, against whom it was originally levelled, but to exclude one-half of those persons whom it was intended to protect, would degrade the national schools of Scotland to the rank of schools belonging to a mere denomination. The House had already condemned the test as exclusive and unjust. He sincerely hoped it would continue to do so; but, in the event of its being foiled in the attempt to place the schools on a national basis, it would be its duty to declare that the parochial schools of Scotland had no further claim to favour than those of any other denomination.
MR. JOHN MACGREGORsaid, as the
1174
representative of the City of Glasgow, he wished to thank his right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate for the Bill, which, although it did not go far enough in the way of reform, was nevertheless a measure for which the people of Scotland would be most grateful to the House of Commons.
LORD HADDOsaid, he could not avoid expressing his astonishment that the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate should insist so pertinaciously on the retention of a clause which, if adopted, would be barren of any practical result. He considered that he was contending for a shadow. The clause, as it originally stood, was sure to be inoperative; for, as had been admitted by a noble Lord, a foremost supporter of the Bill in another place, the landed proprietors of Scotland were too strongly in favour of a religious test to have elected schoolmasters who were not known as members of a particular denomination. He would ask, then, why should such a clause be pressed forward with a tenacity that was likely to endanger the passing of a Bill which contained so much that was useful? The clause said that no schoolmaster should be required to make a confession of faith. Did that mean that when a school was vacant the patron was not to require from the candidates a declaration of their religious opinions? That declaration, whether made by word of mouth, or conveyed in a letter, would be tantamount to a confession of faith, and might be made a condition, not perhaps of the instalment in office, but of the preliminary examination. The passing of the clause would no doubt nominally, though not practically, place the members of the Free Church on a footing of equality with those of the Established Church; but the House was bound, before taking such a step, to consider whether in doing something agreeable to the Free Church it would not be inflicting great injury upon other parties. It was believed in Scotland that the existing test was the best security that could be had for religious teaching in the schools; and he was sure that the absence of any recognition that the schoolmaster had a religious duty to perform would be viewed with great disapprobation and apprehension.
MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, the admission of the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate that if he had framed the clause so as to include the Established Church and the Free Church, the Bill would have

1175
been received with universal approbation, fully justified the other House of Parliament in amending the Bill as they had done. It would be impossible to satisfy a whole community; but the Lord Advocate had shown them that he had wilfully rejected terms which would have quieted the apprehensions of a great majority of the Presbyterians of Scotland. The truth was, that the Lord Advocate, in order to favour the pretensions of certain would-be schoolmasters, was carrying on a system of persecution against the existing teachers in the national schools, who were very inadequately paid.
MR. BLACKsaid, he would remind the House that there were three sections of Presbyterians in Scotland, the Established Church, the Free Church, and the United Presbyterians. They were all of nearly equal magnitude, and the Lords' Amendments, if agreed to, would therefore prevent two-thirds of the people of Scotland from availing themselves of the advantages to be derived from the Bill.
SIR ARCHIBALD CAMPBELLsaid, he thought that if the Established Church and the Free Church acted together, the third section of Presbyterians alluded to by the hon. Member would be found a very small minority. The Government had made no effort to advance the cause of education except by introducing Bills which they did not pass, and they alone would be to blame if incompetent schoolmasters were to teach the people of Scotland for another year.
MR. W. LOCKHARTsaid, he was of opinion that a change in the present parochial system of Scotland would be very injurious to the country.
MR. ELIOTT LOCKHARTsaid, he would appeal to the noble Lord at the head of the Government not to allow agitation upon this subject to be kept up year after year.
Lords' Amendments considered; several agreed to; several disagreed to; several amended, and agreed to; others agreed to.
Committee appointed, "to draw up Reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to the Amendments to which this House hath disagreed:"—The LORD ADVOCATE, Viscount DUNCAN, Sir GEORGE GREY, Viscount MONCK, Mr. FITZROY, and Mr. KINNAIRD:—To withdraw immediately; Three to be the quorum.
The House adjourned at a quarter before Two o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1a Sheep, &c. Contagious Diseases Prevention; Hospitals (Dublin; Burial-grounds (Ireland); Lunatic Asylums (Superannuations) (Ireland); Joint-Stock Banks; Criminal Procedure; Accessories, &c. Offences of a Public Nature; Treason and Offences against the State; Forgery; Malicious Injuries to Property; Offences against Property; Offences against the Person.
2a Consolidation Fund (Appropriation); Income and Land Taxes; Stamp Duties; Racehorse Duty; Coast-guard Service; Corrupt Practices Prevention; General Board of Health Continuance; Militia Pay; Cursitor Baron of the Exchequer; Lunatic A sylums Act Amendment; Deeds (Scotland); Judicial Procedure, &c. (Scotland); Criminal Justice; Poor Law Amendment (Scotland); Court of Appeal in Chancery (Ireland).
3a Court of Chancery (Ireland) (Receivers); Coatham Marriages Validity; Indemnity; Nuisances Removal, &c (Scotland); Episcopal and Capitular Estates Continuance; Customs (No. 2); Railways Act (Ireland) 1851, Continuance;
1064
Turnpike Acts Continuance (Ireland); Bishops of London and Durham Retirement.
ROYAL ASSENT—Church Building Commission; Court of Exchequer (Scotland); Saint Sepulchre's Manor (Dublin); Mercantile Law Amendment (Scotland); Registration of Voters (Scotland); Revenue (Transfer of Charges); Survey of Great Britain, &c.; Drainage (Ireland); Grand Juries (Ireland); Statutes not in Use Repeal; Dwellings for Labouring Classes (Ireland); Aldershot Camp; Incumbered Estates (Ireland); Prisons (Ireland); Police (Counties and Boroughs).

REGISTRATION OF TITLE DEEDS— QUESTION.
LORD LYNDHURSTsaid, he had a question to put to his noble and learned Friend on the woolsack in reference to the registration of title deeds. Two or three years ago a Bill was introduced by his noble and learned Friend for the registration of title deeds. It was referred to a Select Committee, and afterwards came down to their Lordships' House, where it was passed by a large majority, and then sent down to the other House. What subsequently became of it he did not know, except that it had not passed into law. It appeared, however, that a Commission had been subsequently appointed to inquire into the subject; and the questions he wished to ask his noble and learned Friend were—first, whether that Commission had made a Report?—secondly, if not, what was the reason of the delay?—and, thirdly, whether there was any probability of a Report being made? He could not sit down without expressing in the strongest terms his regret, that various important measures which had been introduced into the other House of Parliament, and various other important measures which had been sent down from their Lordships House, had, during the present Session, been either lost or abandoned. He never recollected, in any Session, so wholesale a destruction of measures.
THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, the answer to the first question was, that the Commission had not made a Report. That Commission was appointed under the following circumstances. The Registration of Titles Bill passed that House with very general, though not universal, concurrence, but it did not get a very favourable reception in the other House; it was referred to a Select Committee, who reported against it, but thought that a different plan for the registration of titles would be expedient,

1065
and recommended that a Royal Commission should be appointed to consider the whole subject. The consequence was, that in the following year—1854—a Commission was appointed to look into the subject; as he had already stated, they had not yet made their Report. With regard to the probability of their reporting, he might state that he had communicated privately with the Solicitor General and others who were on the Commission, and they assured him that the Commission was looking very attentively into the subject; but that they found, as he confessed he had anticipated, a great deal more difficulty in devising some tangible plan than they at first imagined. He believed, however, that they would make a Report, and he understood also that they had embodied the plans which they recommended in the shape of a Bill, which would be laid on the table of the House. He had himself prepared the heads of a Bill for a very modified registration, but he was stopped at an early period of the Session from introducing it, by the intimation that the Report of the Commission suggesting a more extended scheme would shortly be laid before Parliament; and, unless he got that Report during the recess, he should unquestionably introduce the smaller measure. With regard to the remark of the noble and learned Lord respecting the withdrawal of Bills, he shared in the regret he had expressed as to the abandonment of several important measures; but, at the same time, he was prepared to show that a considerable number of very useful ones had been passed in the course of the Session.

THE RAJAH OF COORG—QUESTION.
THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDEwished to put a question to the Government with respect to the treatment of the Rajah of Coorg by the East India Company. The Rajah was a prisoner of State at Benares, and some time ago he applied to the Company for leave to come to England chiefly for the purpose of superintending the education of his daughter, whom he wished to be brought up as a Christian. He obtained leave of absence for one year; at the expiration of that period he applied for an extension of leave, but it was positively refused by the Company, and as he did not return they stopped that portion of his allowance which he received in this country, the rest being applied to the support of his relatives at
1066
Benares. A more tyrannical and unjust proceeding could not well be imagined. The Rajah's medical advisers had told him that this country was more healthy for him than India; but the East India Company had sent their physician to examine him, and he said there would be no danger in his returning to India by a sea voyage, at a certain time of the year. One very important fact was, that the Rajah was prosecuting a suit against the East India Company in the Court of Chancery, and that they were demanding his return to India at the very time when his presence in this country was of the utmost importance. He (the Marquess of Clanricarde) could scarcely believe that the Government knew anything of these circumstances. He wished to ask the noble Duke (the Duke of Argyll) what were the reasons of the Company for insisting on this nobleman's return to India, and why they had withheld the allowance which they had contracted to give him while in this country?
THE DUKE OF ARGYLLsaid, the noble Marquess seemed better informed upon the details of the Rajah's case than he was, for he had not seen any of the papers, and was only acquainted with the general state of the facts. He believed that the Board of Control had no power whatever to compel the East India Company to pay the allowance which they had withheld from the Rajah. The noble Marquess had stated the facts correctly, and by his statement that the Rajah was a State prisoner, he implied that the Company had power to require the return to India of this prince, who was considered in that country to be a prisoner at war. The Company could either have given or withheld leave of absence, and therefore it was not an act of tyranny on their part to refuse to allow him to remain in England beyond the period which had been specified. He understood the local Government of India considered it was objectionable that native princes should remain permanently in England, expending here the revenues which were given to them by the East India Company. The noble Marquess had insinuated that the object of the Company in demanding the Rajah's return to India was to impede the suit which he was carrying on against them; but he could not conceive that they were actuated by any such reason. It was perfectly obvious that by the employment of lawyers he could prosecute that suit as well in India as in England.
THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGH THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGH rose to confirm the accuracy of the noble Duke's statement, that the Board of Control had no power whatever to compel the Court of Directors to pay the Prince the sum they agreed to give him during the year he had leave of absence. The noble Marquess had stated the facts of the case correctly, and he (the Earl of Ellenborough) must say that, taking into consideration all the circumstances, the conduct of the Court of Directors, in refusing payment to the Prince, was very ungenerous and unwise; but, at the same time, he agreed with the noble Duke that it was neither for the advantage of native princes, nor, generally, for the advantage of the Government of India, that those princes should come and reside in this country in order to prosecute their claims. He had himself privately advised the Rajah of Coorg, four years ago, to return to his own country, being quite confident that it would be more to his own credit and comfort to rest in the midst of his family at Benares, where he was very much respected, than to reside as an individual unknown in this country; and he now publicly renewed that advice. As to the suit against the East India Company for the recovery of his property, he could not comprehend how a question of that kind between two Sovereigns—for such they were—could be made the subject of inquiry before the English Court, of Chancery; and he believed it would be found, in the course of the investigation, that the property neither belonged to the Court of Directors nor the Government of India, nor the Rajah, but to the Crown, and that it had been misappropriated by the Government of India. If this Prince were dispossessed of his property in consequence of military operations, it clearly, as the prize of war, belonged, not to the Government of India, but to the Crown; and if the Crown asserted its right, the Rajah would be deprived of all excuse for not returning, and the Company of any reason for conducting themselves towards him in a manner most ungenerous and un—courteous. He should, therefore, strongly recommend the noble Duke to suggest to the law officers of the Crown to inquire into the matter.

SUMMARY DISMISSAL OF THE MILITIA IN IRELAND—QUESTION.
VISCOUNT DUNGANNON VISCOUNT DUNGANNON rose to ask the Secretary of State for War—Whether he had received any official communication
1068
of the Dismissal of fifty-seven men of the City of Limerick Artillery Militia, from Youghal, on the 5th instant, who were suffered to depart, many of them, with scarcely any clothing, and who had to proceed all the way to Limerick with only six-pence allotted to each individual? And, also, Whether it was correct that 240 men were discharged on the 10th instant from the Curragh, belonging to the Mayo Rifles, to find their way home, with only one day's pay allotted to them? It appeared, that on the 5th of July notice was given to the Limerick Artillery Militia, that such as were disposed to avail themselves of the permission, might at once proceed to their homes. About fifty-seven men availed themselves of the permission, and they were accordingly suffered to go home; but in what manner? They were deprived of their clothing, and given sixpence each, to enable them to proceed from Youghal to Limerick. On their way to Limerick they were obliged to pass the night under haystacks or in open fields, and they reached that city in a state of destitution and nakedness. It was also stated that on the 10th of July 240 men were dismissed at the Curragh from the Mayo rifles, and sent on their journey homewards with only one day's pay allotted to each of them, He had that morning learnt further that 240 men of the Queen's County Militia had been dismissed with much the same amount, and entirely deprived of their clothing, and consequently had to go about begging for raiment. It might be replied that all this was strictly according to regulations; but if such were the regulations they reflected very little honour on the country, and very little credit on the Government; and though he admitted that distress did not justify crime, yet he thought that if these men had committed any thefts, the moral responsibility would rest on those who had driven them to that course of conduct. They could not forget the circumstances under which the militia had been embodied. They would not forget the alacrity and readiness which every class of persons had shown to serve the country during the late war; and he must ask was this a fair return for such alacrity and such readiness, and for such faithful services? It might be said that these men could have applied to the parishes through which they had passed; but if they had done so they would have been sent to the next union-house; and he must ask whether the union-house was the place for

1069
those who had had the honour to wear Her Majesty's uniform? They knew not, in the present aspect of Europe, how soon the services of the militia might again be required; but was it likely that such treatment as this would ultimately tend to the advantage of Her Majesty's service and to the interests of the State in general? The Irishman was, above all others, susceptible of the feelings of gratitude, but he was equally alive to a sense of injustice and ill-treatment; and therefore the House must not be surprised if a knowledge of these facts should extend to every quarter in Ireland. He was afraid that the Government would find that they had been influenced on this occasion by a feeling of false economy. The present state of Ireland was tranquil, but that would not justify the Government in turning loose a large body of men without the means of support or the hope of employment. He had been led to believe that the disembodiment of the militia in Ireland—would not have taken place until after the harvest. But he found that the disembodiment had been fixed for not later than the 7th of August; and he must say that a more inconvenient and inappropriate time could not be selected, as at that period employment would be scarce, and difficult to be obtained. He understood that it was intended to call out the militia for twenty—eight days' training in each year, He was afraid that when the time came the muster in Ireland would be a sorry one. The feelings which existed on this subject would become general in Ireland, and he believed he might say, as a notorious fact, that from Ireland had sprung many of the most gallant and brave soldiers who had distinguished themselves in the service of this country. He did not mean to say that the Government was bound to find employment for these men; but, surely, it would have been better to have dismissed them with proper clothing, and with a sufficient gratuity. He hoped that the noble Lord the Secretary for War, would be enabled to say that these statements were unfounded; but if that, unfortunately, should not be the case, then he trusted that his noble Friend would be enabled to state that this proceeding had not been approved of, or received the sanction of Her Majesty's Government. One satisfactory result would at least arise from his putting this question—it would show the people of Ireland that in both Houses of Parliament there were Members who
1070
were willing to take up their case, and to fix public and parliamentary censure upon, those who might deserve it. The noble Lord concluded, by putting his question to the Secretary for War.
LORD PANMUREsaid, the noble Lord's first question related to the dismissal of fifty-seven men of the City of Limerick Artillery Militia from Youghal on the 5th instant, and the noble Lord drew a very melancholy picture of their condition at the time of their discharge. He could only state in answer to that question that he had received no such information, either officially or privately; and he apprehended that had such an occurrence taken place it must have come to the knowledge of the Lord Lieutenant, who had recently been in Limerick, and his Lordship would have taken care to apprise him of it. In answer to the noble Lord's second question, as to the discharge of 240 men from the Curragh with only one day's pay, he had to state that the men were permitted—not discharged—to retire from the regiment and go to their homes, in order to find employment, which they had been led to expect was open to them. They were allowed the proportion of pay and gratuity due to them up to that time, and thus provided for the journey home they quitted the service. With regard to the disembodiment of the militia he had already stated that it was the intention of Government that the disembodiment should take place at a time when the men could be employed in the harvest. He saw nothing in the present state of Ireland to prevent them doing this, and justice required that they should deal with the Irish militia in the same way that they dealt with the English and Scotch, and this would be done.

THE SLAVE TRADE IN THE BRAZILS.
THE EARL OF MALMESBURY THE EARL OF MALMESBURY rose to move, that an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty for Copies of any Correspondence that has lately taken place between Her Majesty's Government or the British Envoy at Rio Janeiro and the Brazilian Government on the subject of the Slave Trade. As he saw that the correspondence had been promised to the other House of Parliament by the noble Lord at the head of the Government, he might assume that the noble Earl (the Earl of Clarendon) would at once concur in his Motion. It might be supposed, therefore, that he need not detain their Lordships, but the subject was one of paramount importance,

1071
and he might have no other opportunity of calling attention to it during the present Session. It appeared that owing to a correspondence, which he could not describe in any other terms than as ill-judged, the Brazilian Government were greatly offended with the Government of this country, and the discussions that had taken place in consequence in the Representative Assembly of Brazils appeared to threaten a dissolution of the amicable relations between the two countries. It seemed to him that there was scarcely a single country the friendship and alliance of which were of greater consequence to Great Britain than the friendship and alliance of the Brazils. It was entitled to English sympathies, as well from its position as from its character. Without offending that Government or the Sardinian Government, he might say of Brazil that it was the Sardinia of South America; for, while the other States of South America, with the exception of Chili, were almost all under the despotism of republican anarchy, the Brazilians were enjoying a constitutional Government and every day reaping increased prosperity. Looking at it through our material interests, their trade with Great Britain was immense; and, looking forward to the changes and chances which might affect our relations with the United States, there was no country the alliance of which would be of greater consequence than the Brazils, supposing, unfortunately, that we should be at war with the United States. If we should then be on unfriendly terms with the Brazils, privateers might be sent from the Brazilian coast to annoy our trade, and adventurers from the United States might thus inflict very great injury upon our commerce. Great Britain had always been on very good terms with the Brazilian empire; but at times there had been disputes with it, not in reference to any points of policy, but in relation to the slave trade, which used to be carried on with great barbarity and to a great extent in the Brazils. In 1826, a treaty was made with the Brazilian Government for the total abolition of the slave trade, and mixed courts were appointed for the trial of offences. Matters, were, however, shortly afterwards in so unsettled a state in the Brazils that the slave trade was not suppressed as was desired; and in 1845, the noble Earl (the Earl of Aberdeen), who was then Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, took a strong step, which he would not find fault with, as it answered its purpose,
1072
and was, perhaps, necessary at that time. An Act of Parliament was passed, prohibiting all Englishmen from carrying on the slave trade, permitting British cruisers to capture all vessels engaged in the slave trade within Brazilian waters, and empowering them to cruise in all Brazilian waters and to seize slave vessels under the very guns of Brazilian fortresses. No stronger step could have been taken—nothing could be more insulting to an independent nation, and the Brazilian Government naturally felt the deepest indignation and anger, although they were obliged to submit to the superior force of this country. Years passed on, and partly by the efforts of our cruisers—and, it was only justice to say, partly in consequence of the sincere and loyal co-operation of the Brazilian Government—the slave trade in that country decreased most rapidly. In 1852, when the Earl of Derby came into power, he (the Earl of Malmesbury) found that the irritation and humiliation of the Brazilian Government were exceedingly great, for they thought Great Britain had legalised a kind of piracy for the purpose of abolishing the slave trade. Of course, no Act of Parliament of this country could interfere with international law, but the Act of Parliament protected those who acted under it. The Government of Lord Derby thought the time had come when the action of this law might be modified, and said they felt so much confidence in the loyal intention of the Brazilian Government to suppress the slave trade, that they would—not abolish that Act—but suspend it. From this time the Act had remained suspended, and the slave trade had decreased most rapidly, so that in the course of two or three years not more than two or three slavers were seen on that coast, and they had been captured and taken. About the end of 1855, however, a slaver managed to land a cargo—and it appeared that forty-seven of these slaves were kidnapped and taken up the country. Out of those forty-seven, ten or twelve made their escape, so that not more than about twenty of these slaves were carried into the interior. It surely would have been sufficient to have pointed out this to the Brazilian Government, and to have asked for an explanation; but, instead of that, Mr. Jerningham, our Chargé d'Affaires at Rio, presented a note to the Brazilian Government, the terms of which, to say the least, were most un-courteous. He might not be in order, and it would certainly be anomalous if he

1073
were to read the supposed despatch, as published in the public journals, when he was moving for a correct copy of the correspondence; but he did not exaggerate the fact in characterising it as most un-courteous. Mr. Jerningham, after stating the extreme disappointment of the English Government at the laxity of the Brazilian Government, proceeded at once to say that, if there were any repetition of such a ground of complaint, the humiliating Act of 1845 would be put in force; and, not satisfied with that mortifying threat, he further said that British vessels would enter the harbours and rivers of the Brazils and seize the slavers, and that, if the Brazilian courts did not convict the offenders, English courts would be found to have the courage to do so. He had hoped that, from the moment the noble Earl entered the Foreign-office, a certain style which pervaded the correspondence of that office would be at an end. The style he alluded to commenced in the year 1830, and continued to the year 1841. It then disappeared, but it began again in the year 1846, and continued to the end of the year 1851. It was a very peculiar style. Whatever the circumstances, the stereotyped despatch opened by expressing the unqualified displeasure of Her Majesty's Government, and concluded with some menace. The Minister of Foreign Affairs always sounded his trumpet from the highest note in the gamut, and the consequence was he could never use any other note without descending in the scale. He did not think that was a judicious mode of conducting our foreign affairs, because strong nations retaliated by insolent replies, and weak nations retained a dislike to the English Government rankling in their minds, and, perhaps, leading to a dislike of the English people. Although he might have had to find fault with his noble Friend (the Earl of Clarendon) for exhibiting too much of the fortiter in re, he never anticipated having to accuse him of the want, as in this case, of suaviter in modo. The note from the Brazilian Minister in reply, displayed great anger and mortification, but was written in very dignified language. He did not wish to quote the note, but the Brazilian Minister said he had explained this very case to Mr. Jerningham that he had shown Mr. Jerningham that many of the slaves had been recaptured, and that he had promised to recapture as many more as possible. That interview took place
1074
early in February, and the note was written on the 7th of March. He supposed that in the meantime a despatch had been received from the Foreign Office in reply to the first account of the transaction which was sent home. The Brazilian Minister subsequently showed that only twenty slaves remained not recaptured, and he said the pursuit was stopped because the prevalence of yellow fever made it certain some of the troops would be lost. The Brazilian Minister detailed the difficulties incident to the geographical nature of the country, and closed his despatch by expressing his astonishment at the humiliating threat of the English Minister, when on the 4th of February Mr. Jerningham had complimented the Brazilian Government on the capture of the Mary Smith. When the Brazilian Chambers met—and he would say in passing that he had been much surprised at the talent which had been shown in their debates—great indignation at such a note being presented to the Brazilian Government was expressed by all parties. The King sympathised with that disapprobation. The public press, to a unit, was very violent against us, and two of the most distinguished speakers denounced our conduct as most unjust and insulting. Other members of the Chambers, perhaps with less judgment, but not with less power of mischief, said very openly—
"If we are merely to be considered as the slaves and servants of Great Britain—if Great Britain is to inflict these threats on us, perhaps to be followed by stronger measures, the only thing we can do is to form other alliances."
And then they plainly set forth the advantages of an alliance with the United States, observing that, with respect to slavery, they would meet with no difficulties whatever. He would ask the noble Earl whether such an alliance between the Brazils and the United States was desirable for this country? Considering the amount of our trade with the Brazils, their political position and their descent from our most ancient allies, the Portuguese, he conjured the noble Earl to pay that respect to the Brazilian Government which he thought they deserved, not only because it was our interest to respect them, but because they had really done their best to put an end to the slave trade. Of the good faith of the Brazilian Government he had proof in 1852, when he advised his noble Friend (the Earl of Derby) to suspend the Act. He had now also private

1075
information to the same effect, on which he could depend; and, as the slave trade could only be stopped by the determination of the Brazilian Government to stop it, he entreated the noble Earl not to restrain himself—for there was no danger from him of useless and insulting threats—but to restrain the rude and mischievous zeal of his subordinates. The noble Earl concluded by moving for the correspondence referred to.
THE EARL OF CLARENDONwas understood to say that he concurred in a great deal which had fallen from the noble Earl. He thought the noble Earl had not exaggerated the importance of a good understanding between the Brazils and this country, and had correctly described the advantages to be derived from it, and he could not but regret the coolness that had arisen between the two countries. The noble Earl had accurately described the increasing prosperity of the Brazils, and the great advantage which must accrue from our alliance with a constitutional Government, which was in a state of settlement and tranquillity compared with the other States of South America. He thought, also, that we ought to be extremely grateful—and that gratitude had been constantly expressed in Parliament, in the press, and in official despatches—to the Brazilian Government for the manner in which they had co-operated in putting down the slave trade. He also took the same view as his noble Friend in reference to the Act of 1845. The Act was not in operation at the present moment, and the Brazilian Government were perfectly aware that Her Majesty's Government had no objection to alter the provisions of that Act, if provisions of equal stringency, or at all events having the same objects in view, were secured by treaty. Such a treaty was under consideration two years ago, but the Brazilian Government objected to grant the same conditions. Negotiations were still pending between the two Governments upon this point. It was, therefore, the fault of the Brazilian Government and not our fault that the Act still existed, and with it the power of menacing the Brazilian Government. But, although the slave trade had been effectually put down, there had been certain occurrences within the last year and a half which raised well-founded apprehensions that the trade might be re-established. The Brazilian Government had neglected to take any measures for effectual colonization
1076
and immigration, whereby to secure a supply of labour. The slaves had died off, and there had been a remarkable mortality, owing to cholera and yellow fever. The consequences were, that the hands for field labour were very short, the price of slaves had risen enormously, and the temptation to engage in a very profitable trade had greatly increased. As some years ago 60,000 slaves were imported annually, their Lordships would have some idea of the enormous profits derived from this nefarious traffic, and with rising prices apprehensions were naturally excited that attempts would be made to supply the slave market. Those attempts were made last year, and upon a very considerable scale, the parties no doubt speculating upon the duration of the war in which we were then engaged, and the consequent difficulty of sending a sufficient naval force either to the African or to the Brazilian coast to prevent the renewal of the traffic. In the course of the last year notice was given by the Brazilian Government to the President of the province of Pernambuco, that a slaveship was expected to land her cargo upon that coast. The vessel did arrive, and exactly at the spot which had been indicated; but the police were all absent, and it was only after some time, by the act of a gentleman residing in the vicinity, who took on himself the duties of the police, that about 160 of the slaves were seized. The vessel was a schooner of 130 tons only, which had on board no less than 250 slaves. So little vigilance had been used, so little desire existed to prevent the introduction of the cargo, that two days after the arrival of the vessel one person went down and carried off forty of the negroes, and two days later another person selected sixty others. Representations were made upon the subject to the Brazilian Government, couched in terms of courtesy, such as the noble Earl had prescribed, and such as became the spirit of friendship which had always existed between the two Governments. Complaints of negligence and connivance were made against the President of Pernambuco, who not only would not allow the police to prevent the landing, but also would not permit any inquiry to take place upon the spot, but removed the investigation to a place six leagues from that where the landing had been effected, and where all eye-witnesses of it could easily have been procured. Moreover, in order that the gentleman who had seized the 160 slaves

1077
should not give evidence upon the subject, the President included him in the list of persons accused, and thus prevented him from being examined as a witness. When these facts came to his (the Earl of Clarendon's) knowledge, he instructed Mr. Jerningham, in the event of nothing being done by the Brazilian authorities, and of no action being taken by the Brazilian Government, in consequence, to inform that Government that it would be the duty of Her Majesty's Government to enforce the operation of the Act of Parliament to which the noble Earl had referred. He would read an extract from the despatch of Mr. Jerningham, He wrote on the 14th of March:—
"That he had learnt with pain and disappointment that the course taken by the Imperial Government and the Imperial authorities in recovering the Africans who were stolen at Serinhaem, and in following up the prosecution of the real individuals implicated in the whole of that slave-trade affair, is far from being satisfactory; and, in consequence of instructions which the undersigned has received from Her Britannic Majesty's Government, who have approved of the conduct and zeal which Her Majesty's consul, Mr. Cowper, manifested upon the above attempt at slave trading, the undersigned begs to intimate to the Brazilian Government that if they do not use their utmost efforts in discovering the real aggressors in this or any other similar acts of slave trading, and in prosecuting them with all the rigor of the law, and punishing all such as have been engaged in such slave-trade transactions, that the British Government will be obliged again to put in force the provisions of the Act of Parliament of 1845; and that while British cruisers will exercise on the coast, in the rivers, and in the harbours of Brazil, that watchfulness and activity which the agents of the Brazilian Government neglect to use, British courts of justice will pronounce those sentences of condemnation from which Brazilian courts may be found to shrink. The undersigned, after so many assurances on the part of the Imperial Government that they were using their utmost vigilance and energy to suppress the slave trade, and to punish offenders, regrets that the lax and unsatisfactory manner of the proceedings in the province of pernambuco should occasion him to be obliged to signify to the Imperial Government the line of conduct which Her Majesty's Government will infallibly adopt in crushing and extinguishing all slave-trade transactions, if the Imperial Government do not command and force their own authorities to do their duty."
It was under those circumstances that Mr. Jerningham felt himself justified in acting upon his instructions, and in addressing to the Brazilian Government that notice to which the noble Earl had referred. It was perfectly true that the Brazilian Government was angry at that communication. It was also perfectly true that debates
1078
took place in the Brazilian Chambers upon it, and that the Brazilian Minister had addressed to himself a remonstrance, urging that it was a mortification to the feelings of the Brazilian Government. He (the Earl of Clarendon) had replied, of course, that it was not the intention nor the desire of Her Majesty's Government to mortify the Brazilian Government, and that they desired to maintain the most friendly relations with it; but that the notice had been given from a fear that, owing to the altered circumstances of Brazil, great preparations were being made for the renewal of the slave trade, and it was intended in a friendly manner to put the Government of that country upon its guard that it might take proper steps in that matter. He trusted that all ill-will, such as had been alluded to by his noble Friend as having been manifested in the Brazilian Chambers upon this subject, had disappeared, and that the Government there had recognized the justice of the representations which had been made, as indeed he believed was the case, for it had already removed the President of Pernambuco from his post, and had given the best proof of its sincerity in undertaking to suppress the slave trade by appointing in his place the former Minister to this country, than whom a more honourable or upright man did not exist. Under these circumstances, and after the explanations which had been given, he hoped the Brazilian Government had ceased to entertain any ill-will upon this question, and had acquitted Her Majesty's Government of any wish to inflict mortification upon them. With respect to the papers for which the noble Earl had moved, some of them were already printed with other papers relating to the slave trade, and the remainder of the correspondence, which had occurred since March last, would be laid before Parliament next year.
THE EARL OF ABERDEENsaid, the Act referred to had been introduced by himself ten or eleven years since, although with very great reluctance. He believed that Act was justified at the time by the circumstances which then existed, but undoubtedly it was a measure of extreme severity, only to be justified by strong necessity. At the time of the passing of the Act he had assured the Brazilian Government of his regret at having to propose such a measure, and that nothing would give him greater pleasure than being able

1079
to move for the repeal of that Act. He had even hoped that the time for repealing the Act had come, and only yesterday he had been prepared to communicate with his noble Friend the Foreign Secretary upon the subject; but he regretted to find that what he had imagined had been completely effected by the Brazilian Government had not taken place, and that there were some symptoms of a renewal of the slave trade. Under these circumstances, he could not blame the threat, as it was called, of a renewal of the Act; but he hoped, from what had taken place, that the conduct of the Brazilian Government was, and would continue to be, such as not only would render unnecessary any enforcement of the Act, but would also speedily render its total repeal justifiable and practicable. He quite agreed with the noble Earl opposite as to the interest of this country in cultivating the alliance of the Brazilian Government, for the conduct of that Government stood in favourable contrast with that of other Governments in South America. The interest we had in maintaining friendly relations with Brazil, the extent of our commercial relations with that country was such as to be a matter of paramount importance. Therefore, while approving of the energy of the measures adopted, he hoped that by kindness and conciliation the noble Earl would be able, before long, to place matters on the most satisfactory footing with the Brazilian Government.
THE EARL OF MALMESBURYagreed with his noble Friend that the Brazilian Government had proved their loyalty by appointing the gentleman alluded to in place of the President of Pernambuco. He was satisfied with the explanation of the noble Earl (the Earl of Clarendon) to a certain extent; but he thought that all that had been obtained from the Brazilian Government might have been obtained in a different manner—without the presentation of a note of remonstrance, which was an official document of extreme character. It was with the manner and not with the spirit of the communication that he found fault. He by no means wished to discommend his noble Friend's anxiety to put down the slave trade; but he did think that his noble Friend or his agent had been extremely mistaken in the manner in which they had conducted the correspondence with the Brazilian Government.
Motion agreed to.

ISMAIL AND RENI—DIPLOMATIC INTER COURSE WITH RUSSIA—QUESTION.
THE EARL OF MALMESBURYsaid, he now wished to ask his noble Friend (the Earl of Clarendon) another question of which he had given notice—namely, whether it was true that the two fortresses of Ismail and Reni, which were included in the cession of that portion of the territory which the Russian Government had made over to Turkey by the treaty of Paris, had been, as he was informed they were, totally and entirely dismantled? It was manifest, he thought, that the territory of the Delta was of little use as a bulwark to Turkey if no fortresses were maintained there. While Ismail stood as a fortress no Russian army could cross the Danube without leaving those fortresses in their rear; whereas if they were once destroyed, the whole geographical face of the country in regard to an invasion by Russia would be in the same state as before the war. Considering then that the Allies had taken a great part of Sebastopol; that they had also taken Kinburn, Kertch, Eupatoria, Kamiesch, and some of the fortresses on the Circassian coast, it appeared to him that we had had nothing like a fair exchange, even supposing that Ismail and Reni remained untouched, and still less was that the case if these places were reduced from the condition in which they were when the propositions of Austria were made to their present defenceless state. He wished to ask his noble Friend, therefore, if it were true that these fortresses had been dismantled before their evacuation by the Russians? If they had been, whether it was the result of any agreement which had been come to at the Congress at Paris? Whether the Turkish Government would not be obliged to maintain fortresses in the same position?—for in the case of a guaranteed country like Turkey there
should have been a condition that the fortresses should be maintained. He would also ask whether any fortresses were to be rebuilt on the right and left bank of the Danube; and if so, by what soldiers they were to be garrisoned?—for it was of consequence, if fortresses were to be maintained there, that they should be garrisoned by troops who would be free from the temptation of Russian intrigue. There was another question to which he was desirous of calling the attention of his noble Friend. With some degree of hurry after the peace was concluded, his noble Friend dispatched

1081
Lord Wodehouse to St. Petersburgh as Minister from the British Court, and that noble Lord had been there for at least a month; but never yet, to his (the Earl of Malmesbury's) knowledge, nor he believed to the knowledge of any one of their Lordships, had any Minister or representative appeared at St. James's from the Russian Court. Now, without being extremely punctilious upon such points, it was nevertheless desirable that diplomatic usages should be studied a little more minutely, and that we should not run any risk of jeopardising Her Majesty's dignity by sending an envoy to Russia without ascertaining that one was coming to represent that country in England. He should like to know, therefore, why no accredited Minister had yet arrived from St. Petersburgh; and when he might expect to see the Court of Russia represented at the Court of Her Majesty?
THE EARI OF CLARENDON: I will answer the questions of my noble Friend in the order in which he has put them. With regard to the question as to the fortresses of Ismail and Reni, I cannot exactly state what has been actually done as to those Danubian fortresses, because the Commissioners appointed to settle the frontier of Moldavia have been occupied with other business, and have not yet been able to give their attention to the state of those fortresses. I have heard this morning from St. Petersburgh that there had been no report received there of what had been done upon the subject. I have no doubt, however, that those fortresses have been dismantled, and I think it is a very unusual proceeding on the part of the Russian Government—a very unfortunate mode of inaugurating the peace. There were no regular precautions taken or arrangements made in the Treaty of Paris about the manner in which those fortresses should be given up. I should have considered it almost an affront to require any explanation as to the way in which a thing was to be done with regard to which there could have been no difference of opinion. I understand the Russian Government to assert that they considered that they had a right, until the boundary of the frontier was marked out, and until the country had been given over to the Allies, to demolish any fortresses on the Danube in the same manner as the Allies had to demolish the works at Sevastopol, But there is this very great distinction. Since the peace has been signed nothing has been demolished
1082
by the Allies, nor any act of aggression committed; whereas the dismantling of the fortresses of Ismail and Reni took place after the peace was signed. We being in possession of Eupatoria, of Kin-burn, and, more particularly, of Kertch, we might, in retaliation, have destroyed all the public works of those places; but we considered that, as soon as peace was signed, the places became Russian, and it would have been dishonourable on our part to meddle with those works; and, on the same principle, we contend that from the moment the peace was signed Russia had no right to meddle with these Danubian fortresses. Such, my Lords, is the opinion of Her Majesty's Government on this subject, and it has been communicated to the Court of Russia; but we have as yet received no formal answer on the subject. There is another fortress to which my noble Friend has not alluded—that of Kars—concerning which I have made some inquiry from the Russian Government. The answer which I have received is, that the moment peace was signed an Imperial order was sent to Kars directing that nothing there should be destroyed—otherwise the destroying of the citadel of that fortress would have been an express violation of the Treaty of Paris; but it was stated that owing to the disturbed state of the country, those orders were delayed on the route, and before they arrived some destruction of the works had already taken place; the moment, however, the Imperial mandate reached no further damage was done. There has been a report that on a part of the territory that is to be ceded to Moldavia certain Crown lands have been sold, and the answer to an inquiry on this subject is, that some authorities were proceeding to sell Crown lands, but that the Russian Government admitted that they were no longer theirs to deal with, and the sale had been stopped. The Russian Government have stated in the strongest terms that their object is to carry on everything connected with the peace in the most faithful manner, and I can only hope that for the future nothing will occur to destroy the confidence which, after peace has been established, should exist between the different countries. With regard to the arrival of the Russian Minister in this country, I have to say that we received an official intimation from Baron Brunow when he came to this country to deliver a letter to Her Majesty, that Count Creptowitch had been appointed Minister

1083
to this country. As he had been so long in coming, and this country was left without a representative of Russia, which was somewhat disrespectful to Her Majesty, I inquired at St. Petersburgh the reason of the delay, and I have been informed that the Minister will be here at the end of the month, and that the delay had been the result of unavoidable causes.
THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGH: When the Russian Government ceded the territory on the left bank of the Pruth, of course they ceded at the same time the fortresses situated in that territory. It had been invariably the custom, so far as his memory went, when fortresses had been ceded, to insert provisions in the treaty detailing the manner in which they should be given up, and whether the guns, ammunition, archives, and plans should be included; and if the noble Earl now complained that Ismail and Reni had been dismantled the fault was his own, for not taking the precautions which all Governments had hitherto adopted of making such provisions as he had referred to. He regretted that in this instance, and in the other less important instance his noble Friend had referred to, there should be the least glimmer, or the least appearance, of any misunderstanding between this country and Russia with regard to the performance of the treaty.
THE EARL OF CLARENDON: The noble Earl's remarks are founded upon the cases of fortresses which were named in the treaty. In this instance they were not named.
THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGH: Just so.
THE EARL OF DERBY: The not naming the fortresses to be surrendered was, in his opinion, au additional instance of neglect on the part of the noble Earl. The value of the ceded territory, in fact, consisted in these fortresses; and the omission to name them is, I repeat, an additional instance of negligence on the part of the noble Earl, The noble Earl admitted that in this case Russia had acted towards us, if not with a breach of faith, yet with the breach of an understanding, whilst, in another case, she had treated us with considerable discourtesy, which did not augur very well for the continuance of the patched-up peace that had been concluded. He should be glad to know, as the noble Earl had received some answer from the Russian Government with regard to his remonstrances on the subject
1084
of Kars, whether he had also received any answer, and if so, what answer, to his remonstrances as to the other fortresses, Ismail and Reni.
THE EARL OF CLARENDON: I must remind the noble Earl that it was not with reference to these fortresses that the territory on the banks of the Danube was ceded by Russia, nor did they form the most important part of that territory. The object of that cession of territory by the "patched-up peace," as the noble Earl terms it, but which peace has given great satisfaction to the country, was that Russia should not have access to the Danube by the continued possession of that territory. In answer to the noble Earl's question, he begged to say that he had not received from the Russian Government any conclusive reply to the communication addressed to them on the subject of Ismail and Reni.

CONSOLIDATION OF THE STATUTE LAW.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR rose, pursuant to notice, to call the attention of the House to the Second Report of the Commissioners for Consolidating the Statute Law. The subject, he said, was one of rather a dull and uninviting character, but he trusted that, considering its great importance, their Lordships would allow him for a few moments to occupy their attention. It would be in the recollection of some of their Lordships that, immediately after the Session of 1854, Her Majesty was advised by the Government to issue Her Commission to a number of distinguished legal functionaries and persons who filled high stations in the law, authorising them to Consolidate the Statute Law, as far as they should consider it advisable, with power to introduce into that consolidation any portion of the common law of the land which they might think necessary to make it work smoothly and well. In accordance with a suggestion from a noble and learned Lord not now present (Lord Lyndhurst), it was made an instruction to the Commissioners not merely to consolidate the existing law but to offer any recommendation which occurred to them as to an improved method of future legislation. He need hardly say that the whole task was one of almost overwhelming difficulty. The Statutes of this realm were contained in about forty quarto volumes, printed, as their Lordships were aware, in very small type and presenting the most uninviting aspect. They numbered

1085
altogether about 15,000. At the outset, he might observe that the appointment of this Commission partook in no respect of a party character. The first point to which the attention of the Commissioners (among whom were Lords Lynd-hurst and Brougham, Lord Campbell, Sir J. Jervis, Sir Frederick Pollock, Sir James Parke, Vice Chancellor Page Wood) was directed was as to the mode in which they should proceed. It was suggested that there ought to be a sort of general sketch of the whole of those Statutes, ranged under different heads, each of which should be consolidated into one or more Statutes; and this was to a certain extent set on foot, but was found to be almost impracticable. The Commissioners formed themselves into sub-committees, and it was an instruction to one of them to endeavour to improve and simplify the language of the existing Statutes. In the endeavour, however, to improve and simplify the language in which these Statutes were couched, and to introduce any portion of the unwritten law which seemed necessary, such extreme difficulty was soon experienced that the course determined upon was to make a general and improved classification, and then to proceed to consolidate under these different heads the different Statutes. The subject was divided into criminal law—law relating to property, and the law relating to mercantile matters. That did not exhaust the subject, but it went a long way to do so. The Commissioners made a Report at the end of the last Session of Parliament, and stated what they had done; the Bills, however, upon which they were employed were not in a state to be introduced to Parliament. They found that their work would be useless unless an improved method of legislation were adopted for the future, for otherwise, very soon after consolidation was effected, the work would have to be recommenced and done over again. In their Report laid before Parliament last Session they, therefore, made the following suggestion—
"We, therefore, beg leave to submit to your Majesty that in our opinion the most effectual method for insuring simplicity and uniformity in, or otherwise improving, the form and style of future Statutes, would be the appointment of an officer or board, with a sufficient staff of assistants, whose duty it should be—To advise on the legal effect of every Bill which either House of Parliament should think fit to refer to them, and, in particular, on the existing state of the law affected by the proposed Bill, its language, and structure, and its operation on the existing
1086
law; and also to point out what Statutes it repeals, alters, or modifies; and whether any Statutes, or clause of Statutes, on the same subject-matter are left unrepealed or conflicting; so that the House may have at its command the materials which will enable it to deal properly with the Bill."
This subject was fully considered during the recess, and early in the present Session of Parliament the Commissioners came to the unanimous conclusion that the step here recommended was absolutely necessary, in order to put legislation upon a creditable footing for the future. And this is a course which the Government intend to recommend. It was necessary, however, that such a course, if taken, should be taken at the beginning of the Session of Parliament. The Commissioners had suggested, and the Government intended to propose, the appointment of an officer who should perform with regard to public Bills duties in a great measure analogous to those which were performed for private Bills by the Examiner of Private Bills, with this difference, however, that he was to be appointed by both Houses of Parliament. There was a precedent for that in the Examiner of Standing Orders, who was the same individual for both Houses, and was appointed by both Houses. Of course it would not be his duty to interfere in any way with the policy of Bills, which necessarily rested with the Legislature. It often happened, both in Bills introduced by private Members and by the Government—there being no person whose immediate duty it was to look into the public Bills to see how far they harmonised with existing laws, how far they clashed with current legislation, and how far their language was such as ought to be adopted—that blunders crept in which caused the greatest confusion, and often necessitated the repeal of the Bills themselves in the course of the next Session. Scarcely a Session elapsed without an instance of this. The appointment of such an officer would have the beneficial effect in stopping the grosser part of this evil. He had said that the Statute-book contained 15,000 Acts; but many of them would not be called laws in any other country; for they were mere matters of regulation. It had always been the policy of this country to refer to the Legislature matters which in other countries were ordinarily mere matters of administration, such as the regulation of the army and navy, financial matters, local legislation, and the like. The moment these Acts had done their duty,

1087
there was no longer any necessity that they should retain a place on the Statute-book; they were merely temporary enactments, they laid down no general rule of conduct, and they were not laws in the proper meaning of the word. At the beginning of this year the Statute Law Commission—one of whom was Mr. Coulson, whose experience in these matters was of great value—had taken the trouble to analyze the Acts passed last Session. They were 134 in number, and sixty-eight of them were merely temporary enactments, into which nobody would ever need to look when they had served the particular purpose for which they were passed. Less than one-half were laws properly so called. In bulk the difference was greater. The whole legislation of the Session occupied 1,005 pages, and of these only 226 pages were occupied by laws properly so called. There was now in existence one classification of Bills—namely, their separation into public and private Bills. It had occurred to the Commissioners that this classification might be carried much farther, by separating the annual and temporary Acts from the others. That would reduce the bulk of legislation to one-third of what it would otherwise be; and of that third one-third related only to India and the Colonies. By means of this classification the actual statute law would be reduced to the smallest space. With that view he proposed to call attention to the recommendations of the Commissioners, and the Government early next Session proposed to establish such an officer as he had already described, and he hoped both Houses would acquiesce in the appointment of some Committee, such as that which existed with regard to Private Bills, who should be in communication with this officer. During the past Session a great number of Bills had been prepared by the Statute Law Commission, some of which might have been laid before Parliament, but that he himself had not had time enough to look through them with sufficient care to be able so introduce them on his official responsibility. Others had not yet been revised by the public departments to which they related. For instance, a Bill had been prepared for the consolidation of the whole law relating to stamps, which had been laid before the Board of Stamps, but which could not, of course, be laid before Parliament until it had received the alterations which that Board might suggest. The consolidation of the criminal law had
1088
been undertaken by Lord Wensleydale, the Lord Chief Justice of the Common Pleas, Sir Fitzroy Kelly, and Mr. Greaves, who had been formed into a Committee for that purpose. They found that there were some offences as to which consolidation would be inconvenient, and even impracticable in a great measure. There were a great many offences arising out of certain Acts done in respect to the Customs, and it was thought that the consolidation of the Customs Acts would be imperfect if it did not contain the criminal part as well as the civil part. Again, the same remark applied to the bankrupt laws:—if a bankrupt did not surrender he was liable to serious penal consequences, but to introduce that class of offences into a general measure relating to crimes and punishments would have induced the necessity of explaining the laws with respect to bankruptcy. Therefore, these two classes of offences were omitted in the Bills in question. Another class of offences which would not be found in the Bills were offences relating to religion. There was a number of old statutes on that subject, which, on consideration, the Commissioners thought it best at once to ask Parliament to repeal, because they related to the habits and usages of a bygone day. In some instances these Acts would now almost excite a smile, and, as much time would be required to consolidate all the statutes on this subject, that part of the business stood over, and was not embraced by the Bills he was now speaking of. With these exceptions, the Statute Law Commissioners had comprehended in six statutes all the law relating to indictable offences, classed under the heads of offences of high treason, of offences against public justice, against the person, of larceny and theft, of malicious injury to property, and of forgery, which he now laid upon their Lordships' table. Besides these, there was embodied in another short Bill all the Acts relating to the law with regard to principal and accessory in criminal cases, and in an eighth Bill was consolidated all the Acts relating to criminal procedure on indictments, juries, &c. These measures, the Commissioners believed, embodied all the enactments of forty Acts of Parliament, and portions of 150 others, and from his own inspection of them, he believed that they did all that they professed to do. It was necessary for him to add that, after all, unless these Bills were taken, he would not say absolutely on trust, but much more so than was done

1089
with respect to an ordinary Bill introduced for the first time, consolidation would be-come impossible. He did not mean to say that oversights might not have been committed, but they might afterwards be remedied. It would be for Parliament to decide whether, on looking over some portion of the measures, it was satisfied with the diligence bestowed on them, and would not, therefore, subject them to that strict investigation which an entirely new enactment would require. In order to justify such a demand on the confidence of Parliament, a short report would accompany each Bill, pointing out any slight alteration in the existing law whenever it was found absolutely necessary to make such alteration. The rule which the Commissioners laid down for their guidance in framing these Bills was to make no change in the law, but in some few cases it had been found that that rule could not be adhered to. It had also been an object with the Commissioners to maintain, as nearly as possible, the language of the Acts they consolidated; but inasmuch as they found that the same offences were described sometimes in one set of words, and at others in another, they had adopted that set of words which they thought the best, and adhered to it throughout. At present the written laws of the country extended over forty volumes, and embraced some 15,000 Acts of Parliament. The Commissioners thought that the whole might be reduced to about 300 (some were sanguine enough to say 250) statutes, which might all be brought within the compass of three or four moderate-sized volumes. He would now lay the Bills on their Lordships' table; but he proposed to go no further with them than the first reading in the present Session, and to leave them to be considered during the recess.
The noble and learned Lord then presented the following Bills—
A Bill for consolidating the Statute Law of England relating to Criminal Procedure by Indictment [Criminal Procedure Bill]. A Bill for consolidating the Statute Law of England relating to Accessories to and Abettors to Indictable Offences [Accessories, &c. Bill]. A Bill for consolidating the Statute Law of England relating to Indictable Offences of a Public Nature [Offences of a Public Nature Bill]. A Bill for consolidating the Statute Law of England relating to Indictable Offences against Her Majesty the Queen and Her Government [Treason and Offences against the State Bill]. A Bill for consolidating the Statute Law of England relating to Indictable Offences by Forgery [Forgery Bill]. A Bill for consolidating the Statute Law of England
1090
relating to Indictable Offences against Property by malicious Injuries [Malicious Injuries to Property Bill]. A Bill for consolidating the Statute Law of England relating to Indictable Offences against Property by Larceny and other Offences connected therewith [Offences against Property Bill]. A Bill for consolidating the Statute Law of England relating to indictable Offences against the Person [Offences against the Person Bill].
Which were severally read 1a: —

FORMATION, &c., OF PARISHES BILL.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into a Committee, and for Standing Orders, No. 37 and 38, to be considered in Order to their being dispensed with, read: Said Standing Orders considered and dispensed with: House in Committee accordingly.
Clauses 1 to 8 agreed to.
LORD PORTMAN LORD PORTMAN moved the omission of Clause 9, which empowered a Bishop, upon application from the minister or churchwardens of a church, to direct that a portion, not exceeding one-half, of the alms or voluntary contributions collected in the church or otherwise during the year, should be applicable to the maintenance of the minister and service of such church. His Lordship said that this power to authorise the Bishop to divide the alms collected at the offertory for the poor or for other purposes was founded upon a totally new principle, to which he entertained serious objections. Those persons who had contributed money for any particular charitable object would not like to see it applied, under the authority of the Bishop, for an entirely different object. Take, as an example, this case—a minister is in want of money, he obtains the aid of a very popular preacher, and asks for alms for a charity for the blind. The topic is one to arouse the feelings of every one—a large sum is contributed—the minister applies to the Bishop to divide the alms of the year, and thus obtains a considerable sum which was intended for the blind. This scheme is a part of the new so—called "Sacerdotal system," and requires to be checked. He feared that the clause would either cause great discord between the minister and his congregation, or else put an end to almsgiving in churches altogether. As it is necessary to make any Amendments before the question on the whole clause is put, he would wait until the alterations about to be proposed were discussed, and at the right time he would move to omit the whole clause, for if this principle is once admitted it will be ap-applied to all the parishes of the kingdom,

1091
though it is pretended that it is only to be applied in certain special cases.
THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURYsaid, that the clause was in the Bill when it came up from the other House; but he did not like it then and he did not like it now. It had been introduced into the Bill in the Commons, where it was adopted without a division; and although he did not like it he did not intend to oppose it, because there were conflicting parties in the Church, and the introduction of the clause had tended to produce a harmony of feeling and to secure the passing of the Bill through the House.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsuggested an Amendment which would meet the difficulty—namely, to add after the words "or otherwise" in the last line but one the words, "not collected for any special purpose."
THE EARL OF HARROWBYstrongly objected to the clause. If it were permitted that the money collected in the church should be appropriated to other purposes, without any person being consulted but the minister or the churchwarden, people would withhold their alms and the poor would suffer. No aid was so gratefully received or so usefully distributed as the money collected at the offertory, which was distributed by the clergy, who generally accompanied the gift with kindly and useful advice. He advised their Lordships to leave the arrangements for the minister to depend upon the spontaneous good will of the parishioners. The proposal of his noble Friend (the Marquess of Salisbury) would meet a peculiar phase of the objection, but would not cover the whole of the case.
THE EARL OF DERBYthought it right to remind his noble Friend who had just sat down, and those other noble Lords who were not present on the Committee, that this clause must be considered, not on its own merits, but as taken in connection with another clause. Considerable objection had been, in the first instance, taken to the third clause; and that clause was postponed till the Committee came to the consideration of Clause No. 9. In all previous legislation on this, subject, it was required that where a district church was proposed to be established, there should be a certain positive endowment of £150 a year guaranteed in the first instance. But it was obvious that in populous parishes that would be found to be a very poor provision for the clergyman; and by
1092
Clause 3 of the present Bill there was a waiving of that preliminary provision of an endowment of £150; but to meet that state of things Clause 9 was introduced, for the purpose of providing that wherever the endowment did not exceed £200, there should be this power of applying one-half the voluntary collections to the maintenance of the clergyman and the service of the Church. This Bill had been most carefully and deliberately considered by the other House. It had gone through a Select Committee there, and had come up to their Lordships' House recommended by a large majority. It was a measure which must be taken as a compromise between persons entertaining different views in regard to Church property. The Bill had also been sent before a Select Committee of their Lordships' House, who had given the measure their most careful attention. Such being the circumstances under which the Bill now appeared before them, he thought they would be hardly dealing fairly with the House of Commons if, at the present period of the Session, they made such an Amendment in the Bill as would endanger its passage through Parliament. He, therefore, hoped their Lordships would view the measure as a whole, and not reject the clause immediately under consideration. He did not think the clause unreasonable in itself, but was prepared to accede to the Amendment of his noble Friend near him (the Marquess of Salisbury).
THE DUKE OF SOMERSETopposed the clause, which he considered the most objectionable feature of the Bill. The Amendment of the noble Marquess did not go far enough to remove his objection. He should move to omit the word "or," between, the words "minister and churchwardens," for the purpose of inserting "and;" for although he was opposed to the whole clause, he was anxious, if it could not be omitted, to make it less obnoxious by making the application to depend on the actions of the minister and both the churchwardens, one of whom would represent the parish.
THE EARL OF WICKLOWthought that the clause was calculated to check parochial charities in all places where the Bill applied.
THE BISHOP OF OXFORDsaid, he knew many instances in which the church could not be supported at all if a portion of the collections were not carried to the

1093
use of the minister. He did not think such an appropriation could have a repressing effect upon charity. Although the clause was a new clause, yet it was a correlative of the novelty of the whole Bill itself, and was an attempt to meet the spiritual wants of the populations in new and ill-provided districts by voluntary contributions. He regarded the clause as absolutely necessary to the Bill, and if it was omitted he must withdraw his support of the measure.
THE EARL OF HARROWBYcould see no necessity for mixing up two objects—the support of the clergy and the assistance of the poor. He thought it would be better to leave persons to contribute to either without forcing them to contribute to the other, whether they intended or not. He thought it would be better to withdraw the clause.
After a few words of explanation from the Bishop of OXFORD and the Earl of DERBY,
On Question, that the word "or" stand part of the clause, their Lordships divided:—Content 20; Not Content 20.
As the rule of the House is, that when the division is equal, it passes, pro negante, the word "or" was omitted.
THE DUKE OF SOMERSETthen moved to insert the word "and."
Their Lordships again divided:—Content 20; Not Content 20.
The word "and" was not inserted.
LORD PORTMANthen said, as the clause is now made nonsense, he advised the House to reject the whole clause, and not be alarmed by the threat of the Bishop of Oxford, as the Bill will pass with out the clause, and in spite of the right rev. Prelate. He ventured to correct Lord Derby as to the history of the clause in the House of Commons. It was inserted at a late stage of the Bill, and was quite unknown to almost all the House, and was, in fact, a surprise. The Select Committee of their Lordships had differed on the clause.
Their Lordships then divided on the Question, "That the clause stand part of the Bill."—Content 20; Not Content 22: Majority 2.
The clause was consequently struck out.
Other Amendments made: Moved, That the Report of the Amendments be now received; objected to; and after short Debate, agreed to. Amendments reported accordingly; and Bill to be read 3a Tomorrow

BISHOPS OF LONDON AND DURHAM RETIREMENT BILL.
Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3°.
LORD REDESDALE LORD REDESDALE moved, that the Bill be read a third time that day three months. No Amendment had been introduced to remove the objections which he entertained to the measure; the correspondence which had been presented was of a most meagre character, and afforded but little information as to the negotiation which had taken place; and, believing still that too much of condition was attached to the retirement of the two right rev. Prelates, that the Bill was therefore of a simoniacal character, and that both politically and as regarded the Church, the worst consequences might be apprehended from it, he hoped their Lordships would not allow it to pass a third reading.
Amendment moved, to leave out "now," and insert "this Day Three Months."
THE LORD CHANCELLORprotested that there had been no negotiation whatever. When his right rev. Friend (the Bishop of Oxford) moved for the production of this correspondence, he said that he believed there were only two letters on the subject from the Bishop of London, and but one from the Bishop of Durham, and that he did not know even whether there was any answer by letter on the part of the Treasury. Of negotiation there had been none. It was perfectly true that, at a late period last year, the most rev. Prelate the Archbishop of Canterbury did, either verbally or by letter, inform his noble Friend at the head of the Government that it was the wish of the Bishop of Durham to resign; but nothing approaching to negotiation, and not one word of intercourse ever took place on the subject, as he believed, until the letter of the Bishop of Durham which appeared in the correspondence.
THE EARL OF DERBYsaid, he must take leave to remind the noble and learned Lord that on a former occasion he had himself stated that there had been no negotiation; but the correspondence now produced showed that negotiation there had been. As to the correspondence, perhaps their Lordships might be in possession of the whole of that which had taken place with regard to the see of London, but it was not possible that all had been published relative to the Bishop of Durham. Why, there was not even the simple

1095
acknowledgment on the part of the Prime Minister of the proposition made to him, of his assent to it, or of the course which the Government intended to pursue. There was only a letter from the right rev. Prelate, in which he stated that he was ready to resign upon the assurance from the Government that there would be guaranteed to him an allowance of £4,500 a year. Now, he (the Earl of Derby) presumed that that assurance had been given to the right rev. Prelate. Unless, therefore, this was a note got up for the purpose of being laid before Parliament, there must, he apprehended, be some further correspondence. The noble and learned Lord now declared that there had been no negotiation, but what did this letter say?
THE LORD CHANCELLORdenied having said that there had been no negotiation. What he meant to convey was, that there had been none except what appeared from the correspondence.
THE EARL OF DERBY: Their Lordships had been told the other day that there was no negotiation whatever, that the resignation was a spontaneous act on the one part and was so accepted on the other. Now, the Bishop of Durham himself stated that he could have wished to name a later date for his resignation, but that the noble Earl (the Earl of Chichester) informed him that this might be inconvenient to the Government, and he therefore acquiesced. The Bishop of Durham, for the sake of the convenience of the Government, having thus consented to give up his see on the 1st of August, although it would be inconvenient to him to leave the palace by that day, the noble Earl having informed him that a later day than the first of August would be inconvenient to the Government—[The Earl of CHICHESTER: I did not tell him that or anything of the kind.] Well, the Bishop of Durham said so, at any rate. Here were the papers put in injustification of the course taken by the Government; and this correspondence, he maintained, showed a distinct negotiation in order to consult the convenience of the Government, and then it suited those who entered into the negotiation to say that this was not a correct representation of what took place.
THE EARL OF CHICHESTERexplained that the right rev. Prelate was under some misapprehension;—he had had no authority from the Government to negotiate with the Bishop of Durham; he had merely visited him as a friend to whom he had
1096
mentioned his wish to retire. By "inconvenient" he did not allude at all to the convenience of the Government; but he had used the word in the sense only of its not being creditable to his own character to delay his resignation beyond the day which was fixed for the resignation of the Bishop of London.
THE EARL OF DERBYsaid, it did not appear from this correspondence that any day whatever had been fixed for the resignation of the Bishop of London.
THE EARL OF WICKLOWsaid, he had voted for the second reading of the Bill, not because he thought it was a good measure, but upon the faith of the noble and learned Lord's statement that the greatest possible inconvenience would arise to the public if it did not pass. He was led to believe that the two dioceses were suffering from the illness of their Bishops; but, on the declaration of the noble Duke opposite, that he had the authority of the Bishop of Durham for stating that his diocese had not suffered in the least from his absence, he could not believe that, so far as that diocese was concerned, there was any great urgency in the case. It would have been very much better to proceed by a general measure, and he was afraid that the passing of this Bill would retard the introduction of such a general measure. They might have followed the example of the Roman Catholic Church in this particular by appointing coadjutors or suffragan Bishops, whose incomes might have been provided out of the revenues of the respective dioceses. His original objections to the Bill were very much increased by a perusal of the correspondence. The transaction might not amount legally to simony; but, looking to the meaning of the word, for a Bishop to offer to place his see in the hands of the Minister on condition of being secured a certain income by law was as much simony as anything possibly could be. The present was a very good time for considering the expediency of dividing the diocese of London. There were two cathedrals, two deans, two episcopal residences, and, above all, an ample revenue. Having voted in favour of the Bill, he should not now oppose it, but should refrain altogether from voting.
THE EARL OF HARROWBYdefended the measure, with respect to which no more negotiation had taken place than had occurred if any other course had been taken. If a general measure had been brought forward the same process—simoniacal

1097
though it might be—must have been followed. Communications must have been entered into with the Bishops to ascertain what provision they would require, and the Legislature would have been called on to enact it in the same manner.
THE DUKE OF SOMERSETsaid, he did not know whether this Bill involved an act of simony or not; but this he did know—that when the Bill got down to the other House, it would be designated by a much stronger name than "simony." It would be looked on there as a bargain between the Prime Minister and the Bishops, by which they, for a consideration, placed their sees in his hands—and for such transactions they had a strong name there, which they would not hesitate to apply. The allowances stipulated for were £6,000 a year in the one case, and £4,500 in the other. Suppose the House of Commons should decline to ratify this bargain, and should reduce the allowances to £3,000 a year in both cases, what a position the Government would be placed in. Their Lordships had become a party to the contract and must reject the compromise of the Commons. Of what avail, then, were all the protestations they had heard as to the necessity of this measure to avoid a scandal in the Church? This was one of the worst measures which had ever been laid before Parliament, because it singled out two individuals—who had always been looked upon with great jealousy in certain quarters on account of their large income, and he was astonished that the Government could send such a scheme down to the other House to encounter the rude treatment of Radicals and Church reformers. It should have been a general measure intended to meet all cases.
THE EARL OF POWISthought the Bishops had had but scant justice done them in this debate. If they had expressed their willingness to appoint suffragan Bishops, and to pay them the income which was to be paid to their successors, every one would have said that they had done well; but what they had done was even more disinterested. The noble Duke had stated that when the Bill went down to the other House it would be said there that the Minister had been bargaining for two bishoprics, and he thought that the proposition of a general measure would have been more advisable. Now, if that course had been followed the Minister would have been accused of taking advantage of the particular circumstances of two
1098
bishoprics to introduce a measure giving him the reversionary appointment of a large number of Bishops. He conceived that much of the feeling which had been excited in respect to the Bill was to be attributed to the attempt of the noble and learned Lord on the woolsack to press it to a second reading at a time when the printed copies of the measure had not been distributed, and when their Lordships had not had an opportunity of knowing it was to come on.
VISCOUNT DUNGANNONlooked on the Bill as establishing a most inconvenient and dangerous precedent. The measure was derogatory to the Church, and the correspondence laid on the table proved that there had been a bargain.
THE BISHOP OF OXFORDsaid, that the discussion on the Bill had not removed his objections to it. The whole course of this debate showed how unwise it was to make this a matter of individual legislation, for owing to these two particular Sees being dealt with in this way, every person who spoke on the subject, however careful he might be, ran the risk of having his statements turned into personal imputations. The Government were said to be actuated by a desire to obtain patronage, and the Bishops by a craving for money allowances; and by this means the discussion partook of a character which a general measure would have avoided. Simony, if their Lordships looked into the law respecting it, would be found to have two aspects. The expression of an intention to engage in a corrupt bargain was an evil of the deepest dye. Now, he at once and altogether acquitted the right rev. Prelates in question and those who brought in the present Bill, of the slightest tendency to an intention to commit that moral evil, and he acquitted the Government of any wrong intention to grasp at patronage—on the contrary, he was convinced that they were all actuated by a sincere conviction that the Bill was necessary for the good of the State and the interest of the Church. But there was not only the moral aspect of simony; there was, over and above, the legal aspect. Now, the present Bill did, in the most direct way, pass a peculiar privilegium or indemnity for the commission of the legal offence of simony. The legal offence was stated by 31 Eliz. c. 6, to consist in "corruptly taking for or in respect of resigning or exchanging the same directly or indirectly any pension or reward whatever." [A NOBLE LORD:

1099
Yes—corruptly taking.] Yes, the word "corruptly" was certainly used, but it was the bargain and not the incentive to it that was declared to be corrupt—the thing done and not the motive that actuated; and thus this Bill was a violation of the letter as well as of the spirit of the law. A noble and learned Lord had pointed out to him that the preamble of the Bill recited falsely the correspondence on which it professed to be founded, and observed that these words, "Whereas the said Bishops on relinquishing the income to which they are entitled in respect of their Sees are willing to receive the annual sums hereinafter provided for them during their lives," &c., had no counterpart in the correspondence, there being no expression of a willingness, after resignation, to accept those sums. The noble and learned Lord had, therefore, drawn up certain words to be inserted instead of the words now in the preamble, and they were to the following effect:—
"Whereas the said Bishop of London, on being secured during his life the clear annuity of £6,000, and the Bishop of Durham, on the assurance that an allowance of £4,520 would be granted to him, &c., were willing to resign."
The noble and learned Lord observed, that the words now in the Bill showed a shrinking from putting into plain English the direct bargain which the words implied, and being obliged to leave the House, he asked whether he (the Bishop of Oxford) would move his Amendment. He objected, then, to this Bill, for the reasons he had just stated; and, secondly, because he objected to the passing of the Bill for two of his own order, making a penal law not applicable to their future acts, and because it placed the Bishops on a different footing from the rest of the Ministry—from rectors, vicars, and other spiritual persons of the Church, He felt this to be an insuperable objection. In what an invidious position would the Bishops be placed if they were called upon to enforce the law against the clergy, they being at the same time a privileged class, exempt from the penalties of that law. As one of the class proposed to be so privileged he rejected their offer. Let the law of simony be dealt with as a whole; let this privilege, if it must be created, extend to those of the clergy who led lives of hardship and want, and who required it far more than the Bishops; but, for the sake of every class in the Church, let them not pass for the highest rank in the clergy a relaxation
1100
from which the lower ranks were to derive no benefit. There was another point to which he wished to call their Lordships' attention. By the 9 Geo. IV., c. 94, rectors and vicars were allowed to resign in favour of certain near relations of the patron, without incurring the penalties of simony; but a special provision was inserted, preventing that privilege from being exercised when the living was in the hands of the Crown. What, then, became of the argument, that they might deal with this case safely because the Crown was the patron? The Bill went right against the stream of precedent. It had been argued that, as it was manifest that there was no corruption in this case, as a necessary consequence there could be no simony. But by the law of simony, although both clerk and patron were ignorant of the transaction, and no corruption could therefore be attributed to them, yet if any other party were cognisant of an arrangement whereby money was to pass in consequence of the resignation of the benefice, the clerk would lose the benefice and never again be capable of presentation to it; and the patron would lose his patronage for that turn which would vest in the Crown. Although, therefore, there was in this case the most perfect purity—an almost heroic purity upon everything relating to money, on the part of his right rev. Friend—although it was perfectly impossible that his right rev. Friend could have dirtied his hands by any arrangement advantageous to himself, but detrimental to the interests of the Church, still, according to law, there remained a stain of simony upon the whole transaction which they were endeavouring by this Act to remove. He was anxious that their Lordships should understand the full force of the words in his right rev. Friend's letter—" if allowed by law." He had reason for saying that the meaning of those words was:— "If the general law you are about to introduce allows you, then deal with my case." He did not impute, and he never had imputed, to the Government, any attempt to deceive his right rev. Friend; but he did believe, upon his conscience, that they were holding his right rev. Friend to a bargain which he had made under a view of the case different from that which they had taken. He believed that his right rev. Friend had learnt from him as soon as from any one the nature of the Bill. His right rev. Friend had asked him what was being done with the general measure; he replied, that it

1101
had been sent back to the Government, and there was reason to expect the Government would introduce it; and his right rev. Friend also received information upon Churchill what he thought sufficient authority, although certainly not from a Member of the Government, that a general measure was within twenty-four hours to be laid before Parliament. In consequence of that expectation, he used the words "if allowed by law" in his letter, expressing his willingness to do this act, if he could do it under the general measure. Before proceeding with the Bill, they ought therefore to ascertain whether his right rev. Friend desired that it should pass, now the general measure had been dropped. He was sure that his right rev. Friend had not been informed that the general measure had not been introduced, and that this Bill was a privilegium to exempt him from penalties which would still attach to others in his position before his consent to the Bill had been obtained. He said, that the Government had not dealt fairly with one who had dealt generously and nobly with the public through a long public life. On all these grounds he must give his solemn non-content to the third reading of the Bill.
LORD DENMANintended to vote against the Bill, and regretted that the Government had not fully investigated the law respecting coadjutor Bishops before introducing it. He thought they might have proposed a general measure which would have been beneficial to the whole community.
THE LORD CHANCELLORwished it to be understood, as the question might be raised in another place, that he did not admit that the Acts to which this Bill referred would constitute simony at all, even without any Act of Parliament on the subject. As at present advised, he did not believe that the Statute of Elizabeth applied to Bishops.
On Question that "now" stand part of the Motion, their Lordships divided:— Content 26; Not-Content 15:—Majority 11.

List of the CONTENT.

Lord Chancellor.

Chichester

DUKES.

Fortescue

Argyll

Harrowby

Cleveland

Kingston

Stradbroke

MARQUESS.

VISCOUNT.

Lansdowne

Middleton

EARLS.

BISHOP.

Besborough

Carlisle

1102

BARONS.

Kinnaird

Byron

Monteagle

Calthorpe

Panmure

Camoys

Portman

Churchill

Saye and Sele

De Mauley

Stuart de Decies

De Tabley

Stanley of Alderley

Foley

List of the NOT CONTENT.

DUKE.

VISCOUNT.

Somerset

Dungannon

MARQUESSES.

BISHOP

Oxford

Bath

BARONS.

Salisbury

Colchester

EARLS.

Colville

Aberdeen

Denman

Derby

Dynevor

Desart

Redesdale

Elgin

Wynford.

Resolved in the Affirmative.
Bill read 3a accordingly.
THE BISHOP OF OXFORDproposed a clause to the effect, that any surplus revenue from the two bishoprics should be paid to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, and kept distinct until Parliament should determine whether and in what way Bishops should be allowed to resign their bishoprics from age and incapacity.
THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, he could not agree to the proposal.
Clause negatived.
Amendments made: Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

PROTESTS.
Die Lunœ, 21° Julii, 1856.
Against Third Reading of The Bishops of London and Durham Retirement Bill.
DISSENTIENT—"1. Because, by the Act of 26 Hen. VIII., c. 14, ss. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7, Her Majesty may, by her Royal letters patent, at the instance of any Bishop, out of two spiritual persons being learned and of good conversation, appoint a Titular Bishop for each diocese, in aid of the several Bishops, for a time to be limited by them, and such Suffragan Bishops may lawfully be paid by them out of their several revenues.
"2. Because any Act of Parliament on the subject of Resignations and Pensions of Bishops should be first considered (as it is in the nature of a Money Bill) in the Honourable the House of Commons, and should provide for the case of all living and future Archbishops and Bishops and Incumbents, and might therein incorporate an Act similar to 52 Geo. III., c. 62 (which applies solely to Ireland), for England and Wales.
"DENMAN."
DISSENTIENT— "1. Because the Bill is one of an abstract and personal character, framed to meet the case of two individual Bishops, and not one of a general and comprehensive nature.
"2. Because the Bill was introduced at so late a period of the Session as to render any discussion as regards either its principle, or the

1103
consequences it might involve by establishing an inconvenient and mischievous precedent, impossible.
"3. Because no serious evils to either diocese or to the Church in general could reasonably be apprehended from allowing matters to continue in their present condition a few months longer, when ample time would be afforded for the proper framing and full consideration of a general measure of relief calculated to prove essentially beneficial to the interests of the Church and the extension of sound religion.
"4. Because the sees of London and Durham are not at the present moment the only instance in which dioceses are deprived of the benefit of the active services of their Bishops, through age or infirmity; that such dioceses have an equal claim for consideration with those of London and Durham. Therefore, a Bill introduced to meet the case of two individual Bishops is unjust in principle, dangerous in practice, mischievous in example, and calculated to impede, rather than accelerate the progress of any future useful and comprehensive measure.
"DUNGANNON.
"For first and fourth Reasons,
"DENMAN."
House adjourned till To—morrow.