Sitting of 9 May 1856

MINUTES.
NEW MEMBER SWORN.—For Cheltenham, Francis William Fitzhardinge Berkeley, esq.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1° Registration of Leases (Scotland).
2° Industrial and Provident Societies; Pawn, brokers.
3° Married Women's Reversionary Interest; National Gallery.

THE COAST GUARD—QUESTION.
MR. STIRLINGasked the Secretary to the Treasury if the withdrawal of the coast guard for employment in the navy in 1854 and 1855 had been followed by any appreciable increase of smuggling and loss of revenue; and if he could state, in approximate terms, the difference of expense between the coast guard and the temporary substitute which replaced it?
MR. WILSONsaid, it was well known that a number of coast guards had been withdrawn from the service in the year 1854, and that their places had been supplied by other officers. There was no reason to believe that any increase of smuggling had taken place in consequence of that change; and as a proof of that, he might state that the duty on tobacco, which was the article that gave rise to most smuggling, had increased from £4,750,000 in the year 1853 to £4,871,000 in the year 1854. The expenditure for the coast-guard service had diminished since the change by a sum of £21,000 a year.

CANDIDATES FOR COMMISSIONS IN THE ARMY—QUESTION.
MR. J. A. SMITHasked the Under Secretary for War whether all candidates for commissions in the army were required by the authorities of the Horse Guards to

259
produce certificates of confirmation as a condition of their admission into the military service?
MR. FREDERICK PEELsaid, that members of the Church of England, in undergoing their preliminary examination, previously to obtaining commissions, were required to produce certificates of confirmation. But no such request was made of persons who were not members of the Established Church; and in the case of those members the only object of the demand was to obtain a guarantee for their character by showing that they had been brought up in the religion which they professed.

THE PARKS ON SUNDAYS—QUESTION.
MR. T. CHAMBERSasked the First Commissioner of Works if he had taken the opinion of the law officers of the Crown, as to whether the sale of refreshments on Sunday in the booths about to be erected in the public parks would expose the vendors to the penalties imposed by the Act 29 Car. II. c. 7? He would remind the right hon. Baronet the First Commissioner of Works that the sale of refreshments on the Sunday was forbidden, not only by the Act of Charles II., but also by the Act of the 3 Geo. IV. c. 106, s. 16.
SIR BENJAMIN HALLsaid, he had to state, in reply to the question of the hon. and learned Gentleman, that he had not thought it necessary to take the opinion of the law officers of the Crown in that case, and for this simple reason, that the present practice in Kensington Gardens and Victoria Park was merely an extension of the practice which had before prevailed in those places, and more particularly in Victoria Park. But if the hon. and learned Gentleman should be of opinion that that was a case which came under the provisions of the statute of Charles II., he must be well aware, from his legal knowledge, that any person could proceed against parties infringing it. The Act was a very stringent one, and if it were strictly enforced, every confectioner's shop should be closed on the Sunday, every railway company should shut up its refreshment rooms and every steam-boat should cease running on the same day.

RAGGED SCHOOLS IN DUBLIN—QUESTION.
MR. DE VEREsaid, that a document had that day reached him, purporting to be an advertisement connected with certain
260
ragged schools in Dublin, in which it was put forward that one of the objects of the supporters of those schools was to carry out a system of proselytising among the Roman Catholic children in that city. The name of his Excellency the Lord Lieutenant was placed at the head of the document, and it was stated that a bazaar was to be held for the benefit of those schools under his patronage. He (Mr. DeVere) begged leave to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Ireland whether it was true that the Lord Lieutenant, for whose character he entertained the highest respect, had given the sanction of his name and authority to any such proceeding.
MR. HORSMANsaid, it was not true that the Lord Lieutenant had in any way given his sanction to the issuing of any placard containing matter such as that referred to by his hon. Friend, painful and offensive to any portion of Her Majesty's subjects. The principle which the Lord Lieutenant had laid down for his own guidance, and which he impressed upon all persons connected with the Government of Ireland, was, to refrain from associating themselves directly or indirectly with any society whose proceedings were of a religious character, or calculated to give offence to any portion of the population of that country. The facts of the case referred to by his hon. Friend were these:—There were ragged schools in Dublin established by the Roman Catholics, and others established by Protestants. Early in the year—in the month of February, he believed—an application had been made to the Lord Lieutenant by the committee of the Roman Catholic Ragged Schools, stating that they were about to open a bazaar for the benefit of those schools, and requesting him to allow his name to appear as the patron of that bazaar. He replied that they might so use his name, but that he would not himself be present upon the occasion. Within the last fortnight a similar application had been addressed to him, in the same terms, for the same purpose, by the committee of the Protestant Ragged Schools; and to that application he had given a precisely similar answer. Subsequently a placard had appeared, stating that the bazaar was to be held, and announcing in very conspicuous letters that it was to be under the patronage of the Lord Lieutenant; and then followed in smaller type a number of extracts from speeches and reports of Protestant societies

261
on the subject of the advertisement, and containing matter calculated to give pain to Roman Catholics. He (Mr. Horsman) could only state that the association of the Lord Lieutenant's name with the offensive matter in the placard had been made entirely without the knowledge of the Lord Lieutenant, and certainly did not meet with his approval.

CLAIMS ON THE PORTUGUESE GOVERNMENT—QUESTION.
MR. T. CHAMBERSasked the First Lord of the Treasury what communications had passed between the Foreign Office and the Portuguese Government on the subject of the claims of Yuille, Shortridge, and Company, upon that country, for breach of treaty, since a Select Committee of this House reported on those claims; and whether he had any objection to lay the correspondence on the table?
VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, that his noble Friend at the head of the Foreign Office had instructed Her Majesty's Chargé d'Affaires at Lisbon to make demands in conformity with the recommendation of the Committee to which the hon. and learned Member referred, and a note had been in consequence addressed to the Minister for Foreign Affairs at Lisbon in the month of June last. No answer having been returned to that note, another note had been forwarded to the same quarter in the month of January, but he was sorry to say, that hitherto the application had not been attended with the desired result. He could have no objection to produce either the instructions of Lord Clarendon upon the subject, or the notes addressed to the Portuguese Government, if the hon. and learned Gentleman should think proper to move for them.

THE CRIMEAN MEDALS—QUESTION.
MR. OTWAYasked, whether it was intended to grant the Crimean medals to the Sardinian army as well as to the French army?
MR. FREDERICK PEELsaid, that it was the intention to grant the medals, not only to the Sardinian army, but also to the Turkish army, and arrangements had been already made to send the medals out to the troops of those two nations.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTON VISCOUNT PALMERSTON moved that the House at its rising do adjourn to Monday, the 19th instant.

PARDON OF POLITICAL OFFENDERS—QUESTION.
MR. T. DUNCOMBE MR. T. DUNCOMBE rose, in pursuance of notice, to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, in consequence of the numerous memorials presented at different times in favour of a full and free pardon to Messrs. Frost, Williams, Jones, Smith O'Brien, and other political prisoners, whose conduct during exile has been without reproach, it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government, on the celebration of peace, to advise Her Majesty to comply with the prayer of those memorials, and thereby enable those exiles to return to their native land? The hon. Member said he perceived by a notice in a morning paper to-day that the Government had anticipated his notice and his question, and that Her Majesty would graciously extend pardon to all political offenders. He confessed that after the kind and generous manner in which the notice was received by the House a week ago, he expected Her Majesty's Ministers would not hesitate to grant this amnesty. The French Government had offered a similar amnesty to political offenders, and an amnesty was offered by an article of the Treaty of Paris to all persons compromised in the late war, even deserters. Surely, if there were a set of miscreants who deserve no sympathy or pardon, it must be those who abandoned the cause which they were paid to support, and, by treacherously furnishing information to the enemy, imperilled the lives of those companions in arms with whom it should have been their pride to share all the dangers of the campaign. He confessed he thought it impossible any Government could, under these circumstances, resist giving an amnesty to men who had conducted themselves as Frost, Williams, and Jones, and also Smith O'Brien had done. There was a class of political offenders who deserved no consideration—those who had broken their parole and fled to a foreign country; and he understood those persons would not be included in this pardon. But he trusted all other political offenders would be included in the amnesty, and he was quite satisfied Her Majesty's Government could do nothing more acceptable to the industrious classes, both of Ireland and England, and particularly of the large towns, than pardon Frost, Williams, and Jones, and also Smith O'Brien and others convicted with him, because—whether

263
rightly or wrongly he would not discuss—the great mass of the industrious population did believe that these misguided men were suffering from their over zeal in endeavouring to ameliorate the condition and extend the political rights of their fellow-countrymen. It was gratifying to him to know that this amnesty would be granted, because for some years he continually felt it his duty to ask in that House for the amnesty to those very men; it must be a gratification to those Gentlemen, some of whom now belonged to Her Majesty's Government, who voted with him; it must be a gratification to the right hon. Member for Buckinghamshire (Mr. Disraeli), who, to his honour, voted in favour of the pardon of Frost, Williams, and Jones. But there was one distinguished individual to whom, above all others, it must be a still greater gratification, as to him were those men indebted principally for their very existence—he meant Lord Brougham. It would be in the recollection of many Members that two of the Judges who tried Frost, Williams, and Jones were in favour of an acquittal, and were of opinion that the objection of Sir Frederick Pollock was good. An appeal was made, Nine to six of the Judges were agreed that the objection was good; but nine to six came to the conclusion that it was made too late. Notwithstanding the great minority, the Administration of Lord Melbourne determined to execute these men. At the eleventh hour, when the scaffold was waiting for its victims, when the axe was actually in the hands of the executioner, Lord Brougham, by his remonstrances and entreaties, succeeded in obtaining a relaxation of the sentence; and at the eleventh hour the Government ordered a respite. It must be gratifying to Lord Brougham to find, not only that these men survived through his exertions, but that in their exile they had conducted themselves in a manner which entitled them to the Royal clemency. To no act of his life, whether as a vindication of the law, or as an effort of humanity, would that distinguished man look back with more pride and satisfaction than to his vindication of the law and of humanity on this occasion. He rejoiced that this amnesty was to take place upon the anniversary of Her Majesty's birthday. The joy of all classes at pardon being extended to political offenders would not detract from, but rather add to, the brilliancy and lustre of the demonstration
264
which they were told was to be made on that day in celebration of the peace—a peace which, though many differed as to some of the terms, all were agreed in the desire that it should last for many succeeding generations, and tend to promote good feeling and civilisation in every nation throughout the world. It was hardly necessary to put the question of which he had given notice, but he hoped the noble Lord would confirm what they had all read with so much pleasure.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, he must request the indulgence of the House, as it was against rule for him to speak again after moving the adjournment. He had great pleasure in stating to his hon. Friend and to the House, that the announcement which had appeared in the papers this morning was entirely and perfectly true. Her Majesty, following the impulses and dictates of those generous feelings by which She was so eminently distinguished, had determined to take advantage of the return of peace, and of the unexampled loyalty which prevailed from one end of her dominions to the other, to do an act of grace and clemency towards all persons under sentence for political offences, with the exception of those unhappy men who had broken all the ties of honour and fled from their place of banishment. The amnesty would be general, and would include Mr. Smith O'Brien, Mr. Martin, and those others who had been referred to by his hon. Friend.

THE IRISH MILITIA—QUESTION.
MR. H. HERBERT,observing that he had not quite understood the answers which had been given either in that House—or in another place—to the questions which had been put to the Government with reference to the disembodiment of the Irish militia, begged to ask the Under Secretary for War whether the Government contemplated their immediate disembodiment? There was a rumour that these regiments were to be disembodied in the months of June and July. Now, he believed that it was the unanimous opinion of those who were connected with Ireland or knew anything about the country, that the period of the year between the middle of May and the middle of July, was a period in which the greatest possible difficulty would be experienced in the absorption of so much labour as would thus be thrown into the market in that part of the kingdom. The

265
noble Lord at the head of the Government had expressed himself on the previous day in the most flattering manner with respect to the militia, and of course by implication of the Irish militia. He (Mr. Herbert) believed that his observations respecting the want of employment would not apply to the English militia, because he was informed that at that period of the year a considerable amount of labour was required in England. The noble Lord had last night paid a just tribute to the merits of the Irish militia; but he hoped that his noble Friend would excuse him if he reminded him of a very homely, but at the same time a very true proverb, namely, that "fair words butter no parsnips," and even if they could have that effect, he believed that the Irish militia, if hastily disembodied, would experience a very great difficulty, considering the present state of the labour market, in obtaining that useful vegetable. He was informed by a statement which had reached him that day, that the employment of a tenth of the weavers in the north of Ireland had been taken away by the power-looms, as the manufacturers were making arrangements to put up a great many more looms, they not having contemplated so early a termination of the war. He fully subscribed to the doctrine that the militia were embodied for the service of the country in a time of war, and that no Government would be justified in employing them long after the conclusion of peace. He thought, however, that it would be an act of great unfairness to call for the services of a number of men, and to dismiss them at a season when they were unable to return to those employments from which, for the most part, they were taken. Such a proceeding would inflict a great and grievous hardship upon a body of men who, it was admitted upon all hands, had rendered the most essential service to the country. He also wished to call the attention of the Government to the case of the subaltern officers in the Irish militia regiments, who were circumstanced very differently from their brother officers in this country. The Irish militia had only been embodied eighteen months, and consequently the officers' pay was not sufficient to cover the money actually out of pocket for their outfit and expenses, as would be seen on referring to the actual figures. They had lost those other employments which they had before they joined the regiments, and unless some consideration was shown them they would be actually out of pocket by
266
their loyalty. As a mere question of policy he thought this worthy of consideration, and that the House ought not to let a matter of a few months' additional pay, now that the war had been brought so rapidly to a successful termination, to stand in the way of doing an act of justice to those officers. The class to which he alluded particularly was that of subalterns, surgeons, and paymasters. If the Government failed to do them justice or were guilty of a mean stinginess on this occasion, they might perhaps look in vain for them when their services were again required.
COLONEL DUNNEsaid, that before the hon. Gentleman answered the hon. Member's question, there were one or two points to which he wished to draw his attention. He would, however, first suggest that if the commanding officers of regiments were instructed to allow the men to retire as employment offered, it would have the effect of gradually diminishing the force without causing serious inconvenience. Of course, now that the war had been concluded, it was impossible to keep up the militia; but he thought the case of the officers a peculiarly hard one. Formerly, the House would recollect, every officer of the militia was obliged to possess a qualification, which qualification was removed at the commencement of the war, and the consequence was that a large number of officers whose circumstances were not so good, and whose pay was of consequence to them, were induced to give their services. They had no resources but what they had derived from their employment, and they naturally enough asked, now that they were to be disembodied, that they should not be out of pocket. The pay of a militia ensign was, he believed, about £95 a year; his outfit cost him £70, and he was obliged to live in mess the same way as the officers in the line. He thought that this class of officers deserved the consideration of the Government. The remuneration ought not to be extravagant, but, at all events, some should be given to them. In his view it was of the highest importance to keep the militia staff in an efficient state, otherwise they might just as well save the £23,000 or £24,000 a year that it cost the country. The whole question of militia ought now to be taken into consideration, and proper means adopted for securing that efficiency. With regard to the honorary colonels of militia, if these officers were abolished in the disembodying

267
of the militia, he did not see how the business would go on at all. Then, with regard to the stores—the counties ought not to be put to the expense of finding room for the stores, and he hoped the Government would find room in some of the barracks for them. The question of the clothing of the men was also one deserving of attention. It was no disgrace to them to say that at the time they entered the service they had very little to call their own; and, although after one year's service the clothing was given up to them, he thought it would hardly be fit for much. He thought that the Government were bound to allow the men some kind of clothing before they quitted the service, and he submitted this with the other points to which he had called the attention of the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for War.
COLONEL GILPINsaid, that he was very much surprised that the paymasters were left out of the list of officers to whom it was proposed to give some additional pay. They had performed the most important services, and were taken from their professional duties for that purpose. They ought, therefore, to be placed in the same position as the others. The speech of the noble Lord last night, and its reception by the House, was a proof that something ought to be done for the militia; and he was, therefore, justified in asking what compensation, if any, would be given, on disembodiment, to the staff officers, subalterns, non-commissioned officers, and privates of militia?
MR. FREDERICK PEELsaid, that, in answer to the question put by his hon. Friend behind him (Mr. H. Herbert), he could only state what he said the other evening—namely, that the militia of Scotland and England would be dealt with in the same manner as the Irish militia. He was not before aware of the distinction between the two countries at the present moment with respect to employment, and, therefore, what had been said on that subject was not without weight. No one could be more anxious than the Members of the Government that the militia should return to their employments at a time when a fair chance of work was afforded to them. Of course all that he could engage to do was to take care that the subject should have the best attention of his noble Friend at the head of the War Department. It would he satisfactory to hon. Gentlemen to know that it was intended to place the paymasters
268
in the same category as the other officers referred to. The continuance of half-pay generally had reference to the time during which the militia were embodied. In this case they had only been embodied eighteen months, and it was intended to continue the half-pay for three months. The suggestions thrown out by his hon. and gallant Friend opposite (Colonel Dunne) should have the best attention of the Government.

THE ASSISTANT JUDGE OF THE MID DLESEX SESSIONS—QUESTION.
LORD HOTHAMwished to ask whether, on the appointment of Mr. Pashley to the office of Assistant Judge of the Middlesex Sessions, any condition was made as to the continuance of his private practice at the bar? He put the question because, in a public journal of large circulation in the metropolis, a letter appeared, the writer of which had enclosed his name to the editor, and which stated that, on the day before, the court over which Mr. Pashley presided adjourned for half an hour, in order to enable the learned Judge to go to Westminster Hall to transact private business of his own, and that on the following day, May 2, the counsel, jurors, parties, and witnesses were kept waiting from ten o'clock till half-past ten while the learned Judge was similarly occupied in Westminster Hall. No statement in answer to that letter had yet appeared. He would not contend that in the absence of any contradiction it was just to assume that the report was correct; but, as the subject was one of interest to all classes of Her Majesty's subjects, he thought the absence of any contradiction justified the course he had pursued. If the representations of this letter were not true, then it was due to the learned Judge that he should be relieved from the odium of this irregularity. If, on the other hand, they were correct, he would only express his own hope, and he believed also that of every Member of the House, that the right hon. Baronet would take steps to prevent the recurrence of a proceeding which was irreconcilable and inconsistent with the proper administration of justice.
SIR GEORGE GREY: In answer to the question put by my noble Friend, I have to answer that I made no stipulation with Mr. Pashley in appointing him to the office of Assistant Judge of the Middlesex Sessions that he should discontinue his private practice, and for this reason—that

269
he was appointed under an Act of Parliament which imposed no such restriction upon him. The Recorder of London, the Recorder of Bristol, with every other Recorder, and the Common Serjeant of London, have judicial business to perform quite as important as the Assistant Judge of the Middlesex Sussions, and they are not prevented from taking private practice. With reference to the allegations which are said to have appeared in the papers with regard to Mr. Pashley, I never heard of them until now. But I am informed by my learned Friend the Attorney General that Mr. Pashley has seen them, and has authorised my learned Friend to state that they are quite incorrect, and that the business of his court has not been impeded by his attention to his private practice. I quite admit that if any gentleman chooses to accept a judicial office he is bound to give his first attention to the duties of that office, and that he would be very culpable if he allowed his private practice and interests to stand in the way of the proper discharge of the duties of his office.

THE STATE OF GREECE.
MR. JAMES MACGREGOR, in rising to submit some observations to the House relative to the state of Greece, said, he wished to remind the House that on the 3rd April, the noble Lord (Visct. Palmerston) in answer to a question put to him, said, that such was the administrative talent of the Government of Greece that in no part of the kingdom were life and property safe except in the three miles of road between Athens and the Piræus. The accuracy of that statement had been assented to by the whole population of Greece, but their pride had been somewhat hurt that the road in question was stated to be only three miles in length when it was as much as five; and therefore there were five miles of direct communication in Greece where life and property were safe by day and by night. There had not been any assurance on the part of the protecting Powers that measures would be taken for acting upon the Government of Greece, and much despondency had therefore been felt by Her Majesty's subjects in that country that nothing had been done. The present condition of Greece had been brought before the recent Conferences in Paris, for he found in the protocol of the 22nd of April the following important reference to it:—
"Count Walewski says that it is desirable that
270
the Plenipotentiaries, before they separate, should interchange their ideas on different subjects which require to be settled, and which it might be advantageous to take up, in order to prevent fresh complications. Although specially assembled for settling the Eastern question, the Congress, according to the first Plenipotentiary of France, might reproach itself for not having taken advantage of the circumstance which brings together the representatives of the principal Powers of Europe, to clear up certain questions, to lay down certain principles, to express intentions—in fine, to make certain declarations, always and solely with the view of ensuring the future tranquillity of the world, by dispelling the clouds which are still seen looming on the political horizon before they become menacing.
"It cannot be denied, he says, that Greece is in an abnormal state. The anarchy to which that country was a prey has compelled France and England to send troops to the Piræus at a time when their armies, nevertheless, did not want occupation. The Congress knows in what state Greece was; neither is it ignorant that that in which it now is, is far from being satisfactory. Would it not, therefore, be advantageous that the Powers represented in the Congress should manifest the wish to see the three protecting Courts take into serious consideration the deplorable situation of the kingdom which they have created, and devise means to make provision for it?
"Count Walewski does not doubt that the Earl of Clarendon will join with him in declaring that the two Governments await with impatience the time when they shall be at liberty to terminate an occupation to which nevertheless they are unable without the most serious inconvenience to put an end, so long as real modifications shall not be introduced into the state of things in Greece."
It should be remembered that the protecting Powers had created the kingdom of Greece. In 1845, Lord Aberdeen stated that the position of Greece was, that the kingdom had been created by the three protecting Powers, who were bound to protect her independence; and, moreover, a loan of money had been secured, the interest of which was guaranteed by them. The result of this, however, had been, that the Consolidated Fund of this country had been burdened to the extent of £376,000 already on that account, and was charged to the extent of £47,000 per annum. This would be less unsatisfactory if the money thus retained by Greece was devoted to proper purposes. But what was the state of the country and the conduct of the monarch? Why, his civil list absorbed one-twelfth of the entire revenue, and the country was without local improvements, everything being in the hands of the Court, and all parties who were interested in the country naturally looked to the protecting Powers to bring about some alteration of this state of things. The last speech made by the late Sir Robert

271
Peel enunciated the principle, repeated the other night by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wilts, of non-interference in the affairs of friendly countries. But could Greece be looked upon as a friendly Power when she had been base enough at a moment of exigency to raise troops to annoy and invade the territory of our Ally the Porte? But the occupation by the allied forces of the Piræus marked the present as a period when this country should interfere. The country was one scene of brigandage and outrage. In one month not less than eighteen persons had been executed in Athens alone for murder; and thirty-five persons were known to have been murdered or tortured by the brigands. Under these circumstances, surely the subjects of this country resident or interested in Greece were entitled to expect from the Government, not only a declaration of its policy and of its sympathy with the inhabitants of that country, but some intention to interfere in order to bring about a better state of things, and relieve the wretched inhabitants from their present unhappy position. The occupation of the Piræus by the Allies had failed to produce any effect in quelling the disturbances which existed, because the Government of Greece had given no assistance to those who were endeavouring to effect that result. The question was whether we, who have joined in setting a Sovereign upon the throne of Greece, not the fittest for the post, were not now called upon to interfere in a state of misgovernment under which our own subjects resident in that country suffered severely, and our commerce had fallen off one-fourth. As a matter of form, and to enable the noble Lord at the head of the Government to answer him, he would move the adjournment.
Viscount PALMERSTON,however, did not rise to reply.
MR. SPEAKERsaid, the adjournment could not be moved.
MR. M'MAHON MR. M'MAHON rose, and said, he wished to know from the noble Lord whether the recent amnesty would extend to those gentlemen who had fled to America without trial, and to the poor men who had been transported to Bermuda for an attack on the police-barrack at Portland?
MR. GLADSTONEcould not help calling the attention of the House to the situation in which they were likely to be placed by what might be called a licentious use of the privileges of Members.
272
Between a question whether a certain judge of a court of justice had kept a jury waiting while attending to his private practice, and a question with respect to the persons to whom the amnesty was to extend, an hon. Gentleman had introduced one of the most grave and difficult questions of European policy which could be brought under the consideration of the House. He proposed that the three protecting Powers should interfere for the purpose of solving the great problem connected with the state of Greece, and took the opportunity of the Motion for adjournment to make that proposition. It was far too grave a question to be introduced in such a manner. The hon. Gentleman read a passage from a protocol from which, he said, it would seem that the Conference had met for the government of the world; but if the hon. Gentleman was making a legitimate use of the Motion for adjournment, might it not be remarked that the Motion for adjournment was made to give him an opportunity to discuss the government of the world? The kingdom of Greece was limited in extent, but the questions connected with it were of the utmost importance, and it was not creditable to the dignity of the House that such questions should be discussed in this haphazard manner. Weighty words might be dropped, and conclusions of portentous magnitude pointed out, in mere inadvertence. The noble Lord did not, indeed, appear inclined to reply; and he hoped his noble Friend would refuse to do so. He took a great interest in the affairs of Greece, and he demurred to the accuracy of the picture drawn by the hon. Gentleman; but he certainly would not follow his example by entering into any detailed statement.
MR. SPOONERsaid, the right hon. Gentleman had been very hard upon his hon. Friend, who had taken a very usual course; to which, however the right hon. Gentleman in this instance might object, he had no reason to single out his hon. Friend's question as an exception to it. His hon. Friend had stated the information he had received, and he (Mr. Spooner) knew that the information which his hon. Friend received was accurate. His hon. Friend had truly stated that great sympathy had been excited by what appeared to be the state of Greece, and that many persons in that country felt deeply what had fallen from the noble Lord with reference to what had passed at the Conferences. His hon.

273
Friend had been naturally anxious to know whether the noble Lord had directed his attention to the condition, not only of the people of Greece, but of our own subjects there, with a view to their protection and security; and wanted to know whether they were to remain without protection in their present state. His hon. Friend had a right to make such inquiries, considering that we paid £47,000 a year for the interest on the Greek loan. The noble Lord ought to be prepared to give some assurance that something would be done to remedy such a state of things.
Viscount PALMERSTONmade no reply.

PENSION TO THE MARQUESS OF DALHOUSIE.
SIR ERSKINE PERRY SIR ERSKINE PERRY rose, and said, that after the rebukes of the right hon. Member for the University of Oxford, he would not have introduced the subject to which he was about to call attention at the present moment, but that he should have no other opportunity, and after next week it would be too late. The House were aware that the East India Company by their charter were empowered to grant pensions to their servants; but that this House had from time to time interfered to regulate the disposal of their revenues. Mr. Pitt's Bill prevented them from granting pensions exceeding £200 a year without the sanction of the Board of Control, and a subsequent measure prevented them from granting any annuities exceeding £600. He now asked the right hon. Gentleman what was the clause in the existing Act which enabled the East India Company to grant an annuity of £5,000 a year to any person not in their service. By the Act of 1833 the whole of the revenues of India were vested in the Company for the service of the Crown; and under it they might, with the sanction of the Board of Control, grant pensions to those who were in the service of the Company; but he contended that there was no Act which enabled them to grant pensions to other persons. He was aware the question was sub judice, and had not yet been sanctioned by the Government, but he wished to know if they intended to do so, and by what authority? He understood from the discussion which had arisen in another place that the statute which was relied upon as conferring the power was the 33 Geo. III. That Act, however, related to the East India Company in its trading capacity, and was wholly inoperative at this time, because at the present
274
day the East India Company had no funds whatever, the whole of its territorial possessions and revenue being vested in the Crown. The manner in which these funds were to be dealt with was provided by the 3 & 4 Will. IV., and it was there provided that pensions could only be granted under certain circumstances. He admitted that in 1846 the Court of Directors had voted a grant of £5,000 a year to Lord Hardinge; but that grant was submitted to the House, and was made the foundation of a special Act of Parliament, the 9 & 10 Vict. Moreover, Lord Hardinge's case was no precedent for the present proposition, Lord Hardinge being at the time that that annuity was voted him a servant of the East India Company, and the East India Company had the power, with the consent of the President of the Board of Control, to grant it. He hoped he had said enough to show the House there were some doubts existing as to the legality of granting the pension; and he hoped, moreover, that, even if the power actually existed, the House would consider the constitutional propriety of the matter before sanctioning it. The present salary of a Governor General of India was 240,000 rupees, or about £26,000 sterling, per annum; if that was not sufficient let it be increased, and not keep it at that amount, to make the smallness of the salary a pretext for granting pensions to future Governors General; because the effect of so doing would be to fill the Cabinet with pensioned men, which would have the effect of weakening the decisions they might give on all great questions, particularly connected with India, that might come before tbem for their consideration. He trusted that in this case the Government would pursue the constitutional method, and would bring in a Bill on the subject of the proposed annuity. He asked the President of the Board of Control, whether his attention had been called to the legality of the power claimed by the East India Company to confer annuities out of the revenues of India on persons not in the service of the East India Company, and whether, under the present constitution of the Home Government of India, such annuities, in the opinion of the President, ought to be granted without the sanction of Parliament?
MR. VERNON SMITHsaid, the hon. and learned Gentleman had claimed exemption to the general rule of introducing a desultory discussion on the Motion for

275
adjournment, on the ground that something was about to happen in the ensuing week which would render his mentioning it at a future period of no benefit. He was sorry to cut away the ground from under his hon. and learned Friend's feet, but such was not the case. The East India Directors had, as was known to the hon. and learned Gentleman and many others, passed a resolution with reference to their granting a pension of £5,000 a year to Lord Dalhousie; but by the law, and also by the by-law of the Company, they were obliged to submit the resolution to two Courts of Proprietors for approval. One court would be held on Wednesday next, and the second on the following Wednesday, which would be after the reassembling of Parliament. After that the Directors would have to submit the resolution to the President of the Board of Control and the Government for approval; and after that the grant must be submitted within a month to the sanction of Parliament. He (Mr. Vernon Smith) considered the hon. and learned Gentleman had submitted a case to him for his opinion that ought to have been submitted to the legal officers of the Crown. It was one he declined then giving any opinion on, but he assured the House that if there were any doubts with regard to the power of the East India Board of Directors to grant this pension, he should take the opinion of the law officers of the Crown before consenting to it. The question now stood in the position which he had stated, and not having heard the grounds upon which the East India Directors proposed to grant this pension to Lord Dalhousie, he declined pledging the Government one way or the other. He thought, however, there was nothing extraordinary in the East India Directors being desirous of marking their approval of the satisfactory manner in which the noble Lord had discharged the duties of his high office. The noble Lord's administration in India had received the unanimous approval of the Board of Directors, and, in consequence, he had been prevailed on by them to protract his stay beyond the usual period, in spite of severe domestic calamities and much personal suffering. It was, therefore, nothing extraordinary that the Court of Directors should wish to visit with special reward the great services of that eminent man, whom Her Majesty had already advanced to additional honours in the peerage. The hon. and learned Gentleman had stated that he doubted the power of the East India Directors to grant
276
this pension; but he did not appear to have stated whether the power of granting it was taken away from the Board of Directors in 1853, or had never existed. Having had his attention called to the question, he (Mr. V. Smith) had gone over the various Acts of Parliament with reference to it, and there appeared to him to be nothing in the Act of 1853 which destroyed the previous powers of the Board of Directors to grant pensions. The 55 Geo. III. c. 64, in his opinion gave them the power to do it, with the consent of the President of the Board of Control. It was under that Act of Parliament that pensions were granted to the Marquess Wellesley and to Lord Hardinge. He could only repeat, that if there was the slightest doubt that the Board of Directors had not the power to grant this pension, he should consult the law officers of the Crown on it before he consented to the grant or submitted it to Parliament.

THE BANK CHARTER ACT.
MR. MALINSsaid, that the House would probably remember that on the 28th of February last, a discussion took place relative to the Bank Charter Act, and a Committee was then appointed to inquire into its operation. On that occasion the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer admitted the importance of the subject, but thought it an inopportune period at which to, move for the appointment of a Committee, on account of the continuance of the war; and added, that if the Motion had been made at a later period of the Session, he would not have opposed it on the part of the Government. He (Mr. Malins) again called the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to the subject, because the evils which were then alluded to had not diminished, but were in full operation at the present time. On that occasion the right hon. Baronet stated that the bullion in the Bank of England was £10,575,000; but since then it had dropped to little more than £9,500,000. The right hon. Gentleman thought there was no danger in the bullion in the Bank at that time being so low, because the reserve, or unemployed notes, amounted to £5,500,000; but since then they had dropped to £3,500,000. Recollecting that the country was exposed to great peril in 1847, when the balance had sunk so low as £8,000,000, he wished to know what the Government proposed to do on its getting down again so low as that, and whether they intended to allow this

277
great commercial country to be again exposed to similar perils without attempting any remedy. He, then, would put the following question to the right hon. Gentleman:—Whether, seeing that the bullion in the Bank of England continues to diminish, it is the intention of the Government to allow the present Session of Parliament to expire without taking any measure to relax the strictness of the provisions of the Act of 1844, which regulates the issue of bank-notes?
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he must answer the question with regard to the present state of things by a reference to the amount of bullion in the Bank on the week ending the 5th of January last, when it was £10,537,000; on the 26th of April it was £9,723,000, and on the 3rd of May £9,807,000, showing a deficit since the first week of the year of £730,000. That was the whole of the diminution of the amount of bullion in the Bank of England, compared with the first week of the year. It was to be observed that the drain of bullion on the Bank of England had been caused, to a certain extent, by the Turkish loan, the residue of which, now in the Bank of England, was £650,000. That drain would now cease, and the supplies required for the Commissariat chest, now the war was at an end, would be much less than it had been lately; so that, under these circumstances, it was more than likely that the amount of bullion in the Bank of England would increase rather than continue to diminish. The Government had no intention at present to propose any measure for altering the Bank Charter Act of 1844.

THE MURDER OF MISS HINDS—PETI TION OF THOMAS DUNNE.
MR. KENNEDY MR. KENNEDY rose to call the attention of the House to certain circumstances connected with the trial and conviction of Thomas Dunne, under sentence of execution for the 16th instant, for inciting James Murphy and Patrick Bannon to murder Miss Charlotte Hinds, and to the refusal of the Attorney General for Ireland to grant his fiat for a writ of error. The adjournment of the House for the holidays imposed upon him the necessity of bringing this case forward on the present occasion. He had had difficulties to contend with, and which had been greatly increased by certain proceedings which had taken place in the other House of
278
Parliament on this subject. He thought the best course he could take to make the House acquainted with the facts would be to read the affidavit made by the attorney for the prisoner. He stated that Thomas Dunne was indicted for inciting James Murphy and Patrick Bannon to murder Miss Charlotte Hinds. The prisoner was put to his challenges, and, having challenged twenty peremptorily, the jury was ultimately completed. One of the jury complained of being ill, and he withdrew, and another juryman, named William Nixon, was added to the panel. The attorney for the prisoner stated that, although, it was known that Nixon had expressed opinions hostile to the prisoner, yet, as the prisoner had already exhausted his twenty challenges, he was compelled to submit to Nixon being sworn on the jury. What was contended on behalf of the prisoner was this—that a jury having been sworn to try the prisoner, and one of the jurymen having been taken ill and retired, the jury itself was altogether discharged; and that, therefore, when the Attorney General called Nixon to take the place of the juryman who had so retired, he in effect called a new jury, which gave to the prisoner the same right of peremptory challenge as he had when the first jury was called. That was the main ground on which the objection of the prisoner rested. It was contended that the Attorney General ought to have afforded the prisoner the right of challenge de novo. The affidavit of the prisoner's attorney showed that this was not a mere empty objection, for the prisoner would certainly have challenged one man who was on the jury. Well, the trial having taken place, and a conviction having been obtained, the prisoner applied to the Attorney General for Ireland for his fiat for a writ of error, but which that right hon. and learned Gentleman refused to grant. There could be no doubt that in this instance the right hon. and learned Gentleman had committed an error in judgment, which the ablest were occasionally liable to do. There were authorities to show that the prisoner was entitled on this occasion to a writ of error. At the assizes at Tralee, in 1830, a case occurred in which a juryman was discharged, and, on another juryman being called, it was decided by Baron Pennefather that the prisoner had a right of challenge just as if no jury had been sworn. He had endeavoured to discharge his duty by bringing

279
the facts before the House, and the responsibility of acting would now rest with every Member equally with himself.
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (MR. J. D. FITZGERALD)said, that although no good could spring from a discussion not terminating in any Motion, the hon. and learned Gentleman was entitled to every consideration, for the question was one of life or death. If the House should overrule the decision at which he (Mr. J. D. FitzGerald) had arrived, no one would rejoice more than he, because it would relieve him from a weight of very painful responsibility. He trusted that he understood the duties he had to perform, not only as regarded the unhappy convict, but as regarded the public, whom, in these matters, the Attorney General in some degree represented; and, if he had not the moral courage to perform those duties to the best of his skill and judgment with fearlessness and firmness, he should be unfit to fill the office which the Queen had been pleased to confer upon him. He did not complain of the course which had been pursued by the hon. and learned Gentleman, but there was clearly great misapprehension upon the subject. There appeared to be an impression that the prisoner had been unfairly treated, by not being afforded the opportunity of challenging peremptorily the jury. Whether there was or was not any technical irregularity, he (Mr. FitzGerald) would assert most confidently that the trial of the prisoner was most impartial, and he was at a loss to discover a single point upon which it could be alleged that an injustice had been done to the prisoner. He was not aware whether the proceedings in criminal trials in this country were in every respect similar to those in Ireland, but there they were of a most solemn and impressive nature, and had been observed most carefully upon the occasion of the late trial. The complaint was, that the prisoner had not been allowed his peremptory challenge. The course of criminal trials was this—when a jury panel had been drawn, it was the duty of the Clerk of the Crown solemnly to apprise the prisoner that he had a right peremptorily to challenge twenty jurors; that was to say, to object to any twenty of them without assigning any reason for so doing, by merely saying the word "challenge"—and also that he had an unlimited right of challenge "for cause." That warning was given to the prisoner. It was also the duty of the
280
Clerk of the Crown, at the commencement of the trial, to apprise the prisoner that then was the time to challenge—that warning also was given to the prisoner. There was a further protection offered him. As a prisoner, from his humble circumstances, was often unable to have the assistance and advice of counsel, the following precaution was provided for him by the Crown—and this was done in the present case—when a juror was sworn he was required to hold the Testament in his hand, the Clerk of the Crown saying these words—"Juror, look upon the prisoner; prisoner, look upon the juror," the object being to give the prisoner the opportunity of challenging. In this particular case every one of these formalities was gone through, and a jury of twelve was sworn, the prisoner having exercised his right to challenge peremptorily, and six persons having been set aside upon the ground of their coming from the neighbourhood of the place where the crime was committed. In addition to this, he (Mr. FitzGerald) took care himself to lay down certain rules for the guidance of the Crown solicitor, inasmuch as the nature of the trial was peculiar, and he was desirous that nothing irregular should be done. It was the right of the Crown to "set aside" jurors; and though that right had been sometimes abused by the Crown for the purpose of "packing" a jury, he hoped that it could never be said of him that he used the power for any such unworthy purpose. He now held in his hand a copy of the instructions which he had given to the Crown solicitor:—1st. Remove all publicans and persons in the spirit trade. 2nd. All whom you have good reason to believe to be members of the Riband Society or other illegal societies. 3rd. All persons from the immediate vicinity of the scene of the offence. 4th. No juror to be set aside by reason of his religion. In addition to this, if the prisoner's counsel objected to a juror, the Crown did not put him to his challenge, but exercised its right in the prisoner's favour, and set him aside. There was another provision made for the prisoner; inasmuch as it was a Special Commission, and the prisoner was poor, he had the whole Bar to select his counsel from, and the Crown undertook to pay the expense. The prisoner named to represent him a gentleman of undoubted skill, of high character, and great experience, and with such assistance for the prisoner, the trial proceeded. After the jury had been sworn

281
and the counsel for the Crown opened the case, but before any witnesses had been examined, or other steps taken, it was announced in court that one of the jurors was so ill that attendance upon what threatened to be a protracted trial might endanger his life. Accordingly, the Chief Justice of the Common Pleas asked him (Mr. FitzGerald) what course ought to be adopted. The ordinary course was to swear a medical man to examine the juror, and if it were found that he was too ill to proceed, then to discharge him. That course was adopted, and upon the certificate of the medical man the juror was discharged. Under those circumstances, although the trial had not commenced, although no witnesses had been examined, the jury was formally discharged, and another jury was sworn. The new jury was sworn, consisting of a new juror and the original eleven, every one of whom was re-sworn, with the same forms and solemnities as had been originally observed, except that the formal warning was not given to the prisoner by the Clerk of the Crown, that he was at liberty peremptorily to challenge the jury; but the counsel and attorney of the prisoner were by, and they might have challenged. When the jury was called over, and the Clerk of the Crown came to the new juryman, he asked the prisoner if he had any objection to this new man; and, no objection being made, he was sworn. The trial proceeded, no objection was taken—no suggestion was made, and he (Mr. J. D. FitzGerald) observed that in the statement which had been drawn up there was no allegation that the prisoner's counsel was not aware that he had the right to challenge. The trial occupied two days, and after a very long speech from the prisoner's counsel, and much evidence on his behalf, the jury brought in a verdict of guilty. Hon. Gentlemen were aware that, after the jury had returned their verdict, the prisoner had another opportunity of urging any reason why the judgment of the Court should not follow. The Clerk of the Crown went through the solemn form of calling the prisoner forward, of informing him that he had been found guilty, and asking him if he had anything to urge why the sentence of the law should not be pronounced. Nothing was said—no suggestion of irregularity or unfairness was made either by the prisoner or his counsel, and the sentence of the law was pronounced. It was not until some weeks after that anything
282
further was heard upon the subject, when an application was made to the learned Judges who tried the case to grant their certificate, for the purpose of taking the case before the Court of Criminal Appeal. The learned Judges refused their certificate. Application was then made to him (Mr. J. D. FitzGerald) to grant his fiat for a writ of error. It was undoubted law that a writ of error could not issue in Crown cases without the fiat of the Attorney General, but it was not a thing to be granted or refused at the mere pleasure or caprice of the Attorney General; and in withholding it in this case he had acted on his deliberate judgment. He was in London when he received the papers; but, entertaining a strong opinion on the case, he proceeded to Dublin for the purpose of hearing the counsel of the prisoner—and, on Monday last, every ground was urged upon him in support of the prisoner's case. In the course of the discussion, he put this question to the prisoner's counsel, "Did you at the trial observe what you now alleged to be a defect, or was it something which afterwards occurred to you?" Counsel answered— "I did observe it at the trial; got two persons to take a note of what occurred; and I did not take the objection at the trial, because I intended to take it afterwards." That was to say, he took his chance of a verdict, and when he found it was adverse to him, he endeavoured to take advantage of a technical objection. Having heard all counsel had to urge on the prisoner's behalf, he (Mr. J. D. FitzGerald) entertained not the slightest shadow of a doubt that there was no question to be raised or discussed on a writ of error, and he therefore felt it to be his duty to refuse his fiat. The objection, if there was any ground for it, ought to have been taken at the trial, and he felt it would have been an improper exercise of the discretion vested in him if he had allowed his fiat to have gone forth. The only effect of it would have been to have prolonged the unhappy position of the convict, without giving him the slightest ray of hope; but if there had been the smallest ground for acceding to the application, he would have been glad to have done so. The application to him even rested on error in the record; but on looking to the record, a copy of which he had now before him, the allegation of fact was entirely negatived, and a writ of error would have been a most idle and mischievous proceeding. He had acted to the best of his judgment, and

283
with the mental intrepidity which became him; but if the appeal to the House of the hon. and learned Gentleman should have the effect of reversing the decision at which he (Mr. J. D. FitzGerald) had arrived, no Member would more rejoice than himself.
THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, he should not do justice to his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General for Ireland if he did not say that he had not the slightest shade of doubt that his hon. and learned Friend had exercised a sound discretion in this matter. It was certain that a writ of error could not issue without the fiat of the Attorney General. This he stated not simply on his own judgment or opinion, but on the decision of the Court of Queen's Bench. In a case which had recently come before the Court of Queen's Bench in this country, where the Attorney General had refused his fiat, application was made to the Court to issue its mandamus to compel the Attorney General to give his fiat. Having satisfied himself that this was not an objection arising on the record, he had looked to see whether, in his opinion, justice had been substantially done. If justice had not been done he would have granted his fiat, that the error might be rectified, but he was satisfied that substantial justice had been done to the prisoner, and refused his fiat. The Court held that the matter was entirely within the discretion of the Attorney General, and they could not control it; but they added that they entirely concurred in thinking that the Attorney General was right in refusing his fiat where he was satisfied that justice had been done, and when the error was a technical one, of which advantage might have been but had not been taken at the trial. It was not the fact that the right of challenging the eleven jurymen before the twelfth was sworn had been withheld from the prisoner; he did not claim, and did not exercise it. Even if the officer of the Court had a right to challenge he did not think that would be a ground upon which error could be assigned. It was part of the law, which every one was presumed to know. But in this case the prisoner and his counsel were informed as to their right; instead of exercising it they took their chance of a verdict; and after the prisoner had been convicted they applied to his hon. and learned Friend for his fiat upon this purely technical point. His hon. and
284
learned Friend, however, acted upon the sound principles laid down by the Court of Queen's Bench in the Queen v. Newton, and thinking that substantial justice had been done, he had the moral courage to take on himself the responsibility of refusing his fiat. This question had been brought forward in another place, and all the luminaries of the law—.Lord Lyndhurst, Lord Campbell, Lord St. Leonards, Lord Brougham, and the Lord Chancellor—expressed the opinion that his hon. and learned Friend had acted legally and constitutionally. After the statement that had been made that evening, he was sure that no one would believe that perfect justice had not been done to the prisoner.
MR. WHITESIDE,on the whole, thought it would have been better if the Crown had informed the prisoner that he had a right to challenge the eleven men again before the twelfth was sworn. He was by no means sure that it was the duty of the counsel for the prisoner to point out any error in the proceedings instead of taking advantage of it. When he defended Smith O'Brien he took the objection—he could now confess that it was a bad one—that the prisoner had not been furnished with a list of the witnesses for the prosecution. It was a question whether it would not be better to allow a doubtful point to be argued before the Court of Criminal Appeal upon a certificate of counsel, instead of leaving it, as at present, to the option of the Judges. He doubted, too, whether it was in accordance with our beautiful system of law that the prosecutor should have power to refuse his fiat for a writ of error. He did not think, however, that the hon. and learned Gentleman had improperly exercised his discretion in this instance.
MR. NAPIERagreed with the hon. and learned Gentleman who spoke last as to the advisability of having given the prisoner an intimation that he had a right of challenge, but he considered that the Attorney General for Ireland was justified in withholding the fiat in this instance.
MR. M'MAHONread a passage from one of the affidavits to show that the prisoner would have struck off one of the eleven jurymen if he had the opportunity. Ours was a law of usages and customs, and if the right of challenge were a component part of it, and not simply an idle and unmeaning form the prayer of the petitioner ought to be granted. There was no precedent to justify such a

285
departure from the ordinary practice as had been permitted in the present case. There was the high authority of Chief Justice Holt for the doctrine that the writ of error was a matter of right, not grace, and that it did not depend on the discretion of the Attorney General. The sooner the House arrived at a clear understanding on the subject and decided that when there had been erroneous judgment the case should be reviewed by a competent authority, the better would it be for the administration of justice. The people would have greater confidence in the tribunals of the country, and the Judges would be more careful in dealing with the lives and liberties of their fellow-subjects. As the present was a new case, the safest course would be to give it a liberal construction, and there was an additional inducement to do so in the reflection that, whatever injury might follow from rejecting the petition, none could possibly result from granting it.
MR. I. BUTTgave his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. J. D. FitzGerald) every credit for having acted with boldness and manfully doing his duty on the present occasion. At the same time he was bound to express a hope that the refusal to allow the writ of error would not be drawn into a precedent; the issuing the writ did not imply a reversal of the original sentence; it simply afforded the opportunity of examining whether the proceedings in the Court below had been strictly regular. The real question to be considered was, had the prisoner the right. No matter how technical the objection, no matter what the impression as to his guilt—had they a right to take away his life, except according to law? Now, in the present case, the prisoner alleged that he had not been tried according to law; while a gentleman whom he (Mr. Butt) might say ranked amongst the highest of the common law Bar in Ireland—he meant Mr. Fitzgibbon—deliberately set his hand to the statement that in the present proceedings there was "error"—and that that error was sufficient to vitiate the proceedings. There was no instance on record of an Attorney General refusing his fiat after such a declaration, had been made by so eminent a counsel. And there was the less reason why the fiat should have been withheld in the present case, inasmuch as the error complained of was that of the Attorney General himself, who was bound to give the prisoner every right
286
the law permitted. The Attorney General had, with the best intentions, asserted a prerogative that was objectionable in principle, and had already proved mischievous in practice; for it was no light matter that the extreme sentence should be carried into effect on any man in regard to whom there was a reasonable cause to doubt whether he had had such a trial as the laws of his country prescribed.
MR. BAINESconsidered that no injustice had been done by the refusal of his hon. Friend the Attorney General for Ireland to give way on a mere technical point. There might have been considerable excitement in Ireland on the subject, but it must have arisen from an entire misapprehension of the facts. The hon. and learned Members for Enniskillen and Dublin had been quite convinced by the explanation of the Attorney General, and it must be satisfactory to his hon. and learned Friend to know that those who were best qualified to judge had pronounced their entire approbation of his conduct. In addition, the highest judicial authorities in another place had given their opinion that the Attorney General for Ireland had acted with the strictest propriety. He (Mr. Baines) hoped his hon. and learned Friend's conduct would serve as an example to future Attorneys General, when called on to perform a painful and delicate, but indispensable duty.
MR. J. G. PHILLIMOREthought that this was a most anomalous power to lodge in the hands of the Attorney General, and that it was most desirable it should be removed from him. He was, however, satisfied that the hon. and learned Gentleman had exercised it in the present case with great propriety and with that moral courage which society had a right to expect from a man occupying his position.
MR. WATSONsaid, that he could not conceive that, with a due regard to the duties of his office, the hon. and learned Gentleman could have followed any other course than that which he had pursued. If a writ of error were to be granted upon such frivolous grounds as those put forward in this case, writs of error would be sued out upon every conviction that took place. He would defy any lawyer to get up and state to the House and the country, that in this case there was error upon the record. Had there been a challenge, and that challenge refused, and a statement of that refusal indorsed on the record, it would have been different. But if there

287
had been any failure of justice, which he did not believe, it would be owing to the fault of the prisoner's own counsel in not taking the trouble to whisper across the table to the Attorney General that he wanted to challenge one of the jurors. He deprecated very strongly hon. Members standing up in that House and making statements which went to insinuate that a man had been improperly convicted.
MR. SERJEANT SHEEsaid, it was true that, strictly speaking, this was not a matter of error on the record, and so far the Attorney General was quite right in saying that he would not grant his fiat for a writ of error when there was no error on the record. But that was not the substantial question before them. It was rather a matter for the discretion of the Crown, advised by the Attorney General, than a matter for the discretion of the hon. and learned Gentleman whether or not he would grant a new trial. The prisoner had challenged twenty men peremptorily; but as, from the illness of a juryman, the other eleven had to be re-sworn, with the new juryman, this was in reality a new jury, and the prisoner had the right of peremptorily challenging twenty more. He could not help thinking, under all the circumstances, that the Attorney General would have taken a better course if he had distinctly informed the prisoner of his right to challenge, and if he had called the attention of his counsel to the power which they could exercise. Not having done that, he was of opinion that the Attorney General would have done well to advise the Crown to permit the opinion of the learned Judges to be taken upon the question.

THE QUEEN'S MESSAGE—MAJOR-GENERAL SIR W. F. WILLIAMS, K.C.B.
The QUEEN'S Message considered in Committee.
The Chairman having read the Queen's Message as follows:—
"VICTORIA R.
"HER Majesty being desirous of conferring a signal mark of Her favour and approbation on Major General Sir William Fenwick Williams, K.C.B., for the eminent and distinguished services rendered by him as Her Majesty's Commissioner at the Head Quarters of the Turkish Army in Asia, and particularly in the gallant
288
defence of Kars, recommends it to the House of Commons to enable Her Majesty to make provision for securing to Sir William Fenwick Williams a Pension of One Thousand Pounds per annum for the term of his natural life."
VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: Sir, the distinguished and brilliant services of General Williams are so fresh in the recollection of everybody I am now addressing, that I feel that I should really almost be doing injustice to that gallant individual by entering into any detail of the grounds on which I propose to move an Address to Her Majesty in answer to Her gracious Message. It has seldom fallen to the lot of any man to be able, in his own person, to perform services more brilliant, displaying more the energy of a commanding character, or more calculated to produce important results, as far as those results depended on the exertions, talents, and efforts of the gallant officer himself, than have been performed by General Williams. I will only make one remark, and that is, that General Williams is, I believe, a native of Nova Scotia; and it therefore must be a matter of satisfaction to the House to feel that our fellow-countrymen in North America have partaken, through the person of General Williams, in the distinguished services which marked the war in the East. I have only to add that Her Majesty has been pleased to confer upon General Williams the dignity of a Baronet, and, in order to mark more distinctly the services for which that honour is conferred on him, Her Majesty has been pleased to grant that the dignity be held with the style and title of Sir William Fenwick Williams, of Kars. I beg to move to resolve—
"That the annual sum of One Thousand Pounds be granted to Her Majesty, out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, to be settled upon Major General Sir William Fenwick Williams, K.C.B., for the term of his natural life, to commence from the 8th day of May, 1856."
SIR. JOHN PAKINGTON: Sir, I believe that in point of strict form, it is not necessary that a Resolution moved when the House is in Committee should be seconded. Nevertheless, I hope I may be allowed the great gratification of stating in a few brief sentences how cordially I concur in the proposal now submitted to the Committee by the noble Lord. Sir, I feel convinced that not only will the Motion

289
of the noble Lord be carried with acclamation by all within these walls, but I hope and believe that out of doors the proposal will receive the sanction and support with no less unanimity of every subject of Her Majesty. Sir, no Member in this House concurred more heartily than I did in the tribute of gratitude paid to the gallantry of the army and navy yesterday, so eloquently proposed and so unanimously adopted by the House. I feel very strongly that next after those signal mercies for which during the late war this nation has reason to be grateful to Divine Providence, the early and successful termination of the war must be attributed to the wonderful gallantry of the British army and the noble spirit of the British people. Never were those high qualities more conspicuous than they have been during the late war; and I am glad to take this opportunity of stating that I entirely agree with the observation which fell the other evening from the noble Lord the Member for London, when he said that the events of the late war have offered an additional and a triumphant proof of the vigour and power of free institutions. But the position and services of General Sir William Williams of Kars have been altogether peculiar, and quite distinct from those services recognised in the unanimous vote of yesterday. In the case of General Williams, neither the high spirit of the British people nor the gallantry of the British army could exercise any successful influence on the defence or fall of Kars. Had it been otherwise, perhaps, there is nothing presumptuous in believing that the fate of that fortress might have been very different from what it was. I think, Sir, I should only give expression to what every man must feel, when I express the opinion that the conduct of General Williams, in the defence of Kars, displayed a combination of all the highest qualities of the British character—that it was marked, by all the valour, all the sagacity, and all the skill which make an eminent commander. Amongst other reasons for our rejoicing at the termination of the war is the consciousness that the restoration of the blessings of peace terminates the captivity of General Williams; and I cannot allude to his captivity without uttering some words of recognition of the generous treatment he has received from General Mouravieff. That generous treatment has been recognised by General Williams himself, in the most grateful language; and we find interesting records of the same behaviour in
290
the pages of Dr. Sandwith. General Williams, I hope, Sir, will in a few days return to this country. I trust that upon his return, with restored health and covered with honour, he will be received with that enthusiasm which his eminent services so fully deserve. I am convinced that upon his return to his native land General Williams will be deeply gratified—as I, in common with my countrymen, feel grateful to Her Majesty, and, I must say, to Her Majesty's Government—for the prompt, generous, and appropriate recognition of his services, which, though not crowned with success, will stand out in history as amongst the most conspicuous and distinguished of those glorious deeds of which there have been so many instances in the late brief but sanguinary war.
MR. SEYMOUR FITZGERALDsaid, he could assure the House that he had no desire to interpose by any observations of his to prevent them from proceeding with the business that was immediately to follow this Resolution; nor was he presumptuous enough to suppose that anything which he could say could add value to the statements of the noble Lord or the sentiments expressed by the right hon. Gentleman. But while they remembered with admiration and gratitude the distinguished and eminent services of General Williams, he hoped he might be pardoned if he expressed a hope that they would not forget the very valuable services of the small but gallant band who had stood by General Williams's side through the many eventful months of that memorable siege, and who had contributed almost as much as their distinguished chief to make the character of British officers admired and respected throughout the world. He must take the liberty of saying that he thought the country had neither been generous nor prompt enough in its recognition of the claims of the companions of General Williams at Kars. For instance, let them take the case of Colonel Lake. That gallant colonel was a distinguished officer in the East India Company's service when he was engaged by Her Majesty's Government to go to Kars; and though he was at the time on leave of absence in this country, he gave up a valuable and important post in the East Indies to comply with the wishes of the Government. He was employed at Kars on a very reduced salary. Every one knew that he there rendered most important services. He had in a short time succeeded in making

291
what had been the trifling fortress of Ears an almost impregnable fortress; of which fact they had the testimony of the Russians themselves, who had styled him the English Todleben. He thought we might take a lesson from the manner in which the Russian Government had recognisd the services of General Todleben, who, from being a subaltern in the Artillery, had been raised to the rank of general, and had received every honour which his Sovereign could confer upon him. Then there was the case of Lieutenant Teesdale. No one who had read the report of that able officer could have failed to be struck by the intelligence and prudence of all his arrangements. His skill and intelligence could only be equalled by his gallantry and humanity. Dr. Sandwith mentioned one cirumstance connected with Lieutenant Teesdale which was not forgotten by the enemy when he was at length taken prisoner. It was, that in the midst of a storm of grape and musketry he leaped over a battery to save the life of a Russian officer who was being ill-treated by some fanatic Turks. From all that they knew of General Williams, he (Mr. S. Fitzgerald) was sure that though he would gratefully appreciate the value of the present recognition of his services by the British Parliament, he would still feel that something was wanted to make his triumph complete if honours extended to him were not shared in by those who, by their counsel and personal valour, had contributed to his success. He (Mr. S. Fitzgerald) did not know that Government might not have some honour in store for those officers: at all events, he hoped that no mere routine—nothing of that which was called red-tapeism—would prevent unprecedented services from being marked by unprecedented rewards.
COLONEL NORTHsaid that, of course, he could not know how the Government proposed to carry out the wishes of Her Majesty; but he was sure that it would afford increased pleasure to the country if it were known that the baronetcy which was to be conferred upon General Williams was bestowed free of all the ordinary fees upon such occasions. In the case of Sir J. Burgoyne the fees had been paid by the Government.
SIR GEORGE GREY: They are always paid by the Government when the baronetcy is conferred for services in the field.
COLONEL NORTHexpressed his satisfaction
292
that such was the case. He regretted to hear that, under the present statutes of the Order of the Bath, the distinctions of that Order could not be conferred on those young men, the distinguished companions of General Williams. He, however, hoped that there would be a considerable increase made, on the occasion of the Queen's birthday, in the number of those who obtained the Bath distinctions—that those young officers would then be remembered, and that the distinguished veterans of the Peninsular war would not be forgotten either. One case would illustrate the hardship of the present statutes of the Order. A young soldier, Lieutenant Colonel Packe, took the command of the 7th Fusiliers, after Colonel Yea was killed, and was shot down in the attack on the Redan, near the abbatis. He was unable, owing to the severity of his wound, to sign when the list of the killed and wounded was being taken, and was omitted from Lord Raglan's despatch. So that the circumstances of his having been badly wounded, which should have entitled him to additional honour, actually shut him out from a participation in the honours of the Order of the Bath. He (Colonel North) had seen letters from Generals Codrington and Simpson, and the officer who commanded the brigade on the occasion, all concurring in their statement of the services of Lieutenant Colonel Packe. He (Colonel North) thought that this case illustrated the necessity of a change in the statutes of the Bath.
MR. STAFFORDsaid that, as the hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. S. Fitzgerald) had paid so graceful a tribute to some of the comrades of General Williams at Kars, he must be excused if he ventured to mention the name of Dr. Sandwith, who had been liberated by General Mouravieff on account of the humanity and skill with which he had treated not only Turkish but Russian soldiers. This circumstance reflected great credit upon Dr. Sandwith. It was not for him (Mr. Stafford) to suggest to the Government, how they should treat the brave comrades of General Williams, because he saw that there was every disposition on the part of the Government to reward those men who had shed such lustre on the British name; and he would only add that, since his return to England, Dr. Sandwith had, by his modesty and ability, conciliated the esteem and regard of all who had the happiness of knowing him.
MR. WATSONsaid, he thought it a great hardship that there should be thirty-five officers between Lieutenant Teesdale and promotion. His conduct in the defence of the batteries, and the bringing up of the troops, had very much contributed to the glory achieved by the general defence of Kars. Mr. Teesdale's duties were not those of a lieutenant, but those of a consummate general. Such abilities were very rare in our army, and Lieutenant Teesdale should get promotion for the duties he had performed. They had found an officer of ability and education, and they ought to promote him.
Resolved, Nemine Contradicente—
"That the annual sum of One Thousand Pounds be granted to Her Majesty, out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, to be settled upon Major General Sir William Fenwick Williams, K.C.B., for the term of his natural life, to commence from the 8th day of May, 1856."
Resolution to be reported on Monday, 19th May.
The House resumed.

POLICE (COUNTIES AND BOROUGHS) BILL.
Order for Committee read.
House in Committee.
Clause 6 (On establishment of an efficient Police, one-fourth of the charge for pay and clothing to be paid by the Treasury.)
SIR WILLIAM JOLLIFFE SIR WILLIAM JOLLIFFE moved to leave out so much of Clause 6 as made the payment by the Treasury of a portion of the charge for the police, in counties and boroughs, dependent upon the certificate of the Secretary of State. He did not think it necessary that the Secretary of State should step in to say that the rate had not been properly applied, and that proper persons had not been appointed, and that, therefore, the ratepayers should be deprived of one-fourth of the expenses, which one-fourth was, under ordinary circumstances, to be paid out of the Consolidated Fund. He believed that his Amendment would not make the Bill less efficient, while it would deprive the Secretary of State of such arbitrary power.
SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, he should be extremely glad if the power given to the Secretary of State could be dispensed with; but the object of the Bill in proposing to grant money for the police was to carry out the efficiency of the police; but the effect of the Amendment would be
294
to make it necessary for the Government to issue orders for grants of public money, whether the police were efficient or not. He could not take upon himself any such duty. He was ready, if any additional check could be imposed, to provide it as to the power of the inspectors. There had been a suggestion of the right hon. Member for Portsmouth (Sir F. Baring), that the Report should be transmitted from the inspectors to the Government, and by the Government to the proper authorities; but such suggestions could not be inserted in an Act of Parliament; it would be difficult to find words for them. He was, however, prepared to insert a clause to the effect, that when a certificate for expenses was refused a statement of the ground of such refusal should be laid before Parliament. This he thought would meet the difficulty.
SIR JOHN PAKINGTONcould not support the Amendment of his hon. Friend the Member for Petersfield (Sir W. Jolliffe), because he thought that, in cases where a grant was made from the public funds, some security should be provided that that grant was properly applied; and he was also of opinion that the proviso suggested by the right hon. Baronet (Sir G. Grey) would go a long way towards meeting the objections made to the clause. However, he (Sir J. Pakington) thought that the clause was still open to objection; for, though the inspectors would no doubt be very respectable persons, they might make reports that might be very much objected to by the parties locally interested. The proviso of the right hon. Gentleman did not meet that. Justice required that, before the grant was withheld, those parties who should suffer by the withholding of it should be heard—that the Secretary of State should communicate the report of the inspectors to the local authorities in boroughs and counties, and call on them for an explanation. In case that explanation were not satisfactory there could be an intimation that if the police force were not placed in a more satisfactory state the grant would be withdrawn.
SIR GEORGE GREYthought that the course suggested by the right hon. Baronet opposite (Sir J. Pakington) was the very one which a Secretary of State would take; but there was a difficulty in defining by a clause the particular modus operandi.
SIR FRANCIS BARINGconsidered that, in cases where the report of the

295
inspectors was unfavourable, it would only be fair that the parties concerned should have the opportunity, not only by the equity of the Secretary of State, but by the law of the land, of making an answer to it.
SIR JOHN TROLLOPEsaid, that although he had in the Committee on this Bill differed from the majority, yet, as the House had affirmed the principle of the Bill, he thought it his duty to make the measure as good as it was possible to make it. If the principle of a compulsory contribution to the police was to be established, it was necessary that there should be an inspectorship; and, if so, there must be reports from the inspectors in order to show that the whole police system was working upon a uniform principle throughout the country.
MR. HENLEYwas of opinion, that if the House could now go into the consideration of the hon. Member for Norfolk's (Mr. Bentinek's) Amendment, much time would be saved. He thought there should be a minimum as to the number of police fixed by the Act. If this were not done, and the clause now before the House stood as it was, the inspector sent to a particular county or borough, might be of opinion that the number of police was not sufficient; and thus the inhabitants, after having gone on for a year, might find themselves deprived of the contribution of one-fourth, which was to be paid out of the Consolidated Fund. Again, this grant might be withheld on the report of the inspectors that the police force was not in an efficient state of discipline, though the magistrates had no control over the chief constable, and that officer could not be appointed without the sanction of the Secretary of State, who thereby became responsible for his appointment. [Sir G. GREY: The magistrates may dismiss him.] That was true; but they would have no control over him in matters of discipline, and, therefore, he thought that the present arrangement was not a satisfactory one. At all events the number of police ought to be fixed, and not left to the capricious judgment of local parties and inspectors, who might arrive, respectively, at such opposite conclusions. He thought also, that the report of the inspector should be sent in the first instance to the authorities of the police, so that they might have an opportunity of being heard before the Secretary of State gave his final judgment upon the matter.
LORD LOVAINEsaid, that if the report of the inspector was dealt with as had just been proposed, it would be placing the entire power in the hands of the magistrates. He did not concur with those who imagined that the Secretary of State was likely to interfere every time that a case was brought before him by the report of the inspector. He was not at all likely to incur the trouble and animosity consequent upon such interference, in which he would be sure to be accused of unfairness and partiality. The danger was in the contrary direction—that owing to all those difficulties, the Secretary of State would interfere too little. He should be glad to see a measure established, at least in regard to numbers. He should vote for the clause as it stood.
MR. KNIGHTsaid, that without a minimum he could not imagine anything more dangerous than the power given to the Secretary of State. It was placing in his hands an army of policemen to any amount. The power of fining given by the Bill without trial seemed to be intolerable, for the way in which the rates were to be levied, in the case of a police reported insufficient, amounted to a fine.
MR. BENTINCKthought that the Government would be neglecting their duty, if they did not insist upon the right of inspection. He admitted that some difficulty would arise upon the question of numbers; but that was a reason why the Amendment of which he had given notice should be adopted.
SIR WILLIAM HEATHCOTEthought that if the suggestions of the right hon. Member for Portsmouth (Sir F. Baring), were acted upon, the other suggestions that had been made would fall into the background. Where a police force had been recently established, and Government had approved of a certain number in proportion to the population, it would be perfectly unreasonable that they should listen to the representations of an inspector that the number there was insufficient. He granted, however, that if the county, district, or borough, went on a long time resisting what was a case of emergency for increasing the number, then the case would have arisen in which the Government ought to refuse their aid. So also with respect to the question of discipline the same rule should apply. He attached great importance to the reports of the inspectors being well checked, and he hoped the Secretary of State would endeavour to

297
give rather more effect to the suggestion of Sir F. Baring than was given by the Bill in its present shape.
MR. BECKETT DENISONsaid, it appeared to him that the only penalty for not adopting the Bill would be, that the county or borough omitting or refusing so to do, would not get the money; but in some instances this would be a positive advantage and saving of expense to the locality. He confessed, however, that the Bill completely puzzled him. Take the West Hiding of Yorkshire for instance. There they had no rural police. Pass the Bill, and send it down to them. How were they to be compelled to adopt it? Why, they were not bound to appoint any number of constables unless they liked, which meant that they would not get any money unless they complied with the recommendations of the inspectors. The fact was, he believed, that the same anomalous state of things would exist after the passing of the Bill as they found to prevail now.
MR. RICEsaid, that all counties that had adopted a police had found it an efficient one, and he felt confident that if the Bill passed in its present shape, an efficient police would be appointed in those which had not yet adopted one.
MR. MILESwas decidedly of opinion that the inspectors' report should be furnished to the justices or other parties who were accused. He did not think that the certificate should be required for the first year after the passing of the Bill; for in all probability, when they came to bring the new force into action, it would be without discipline or efficiency, and possibly be insufficient in number; but surely it would be very hard at the expiration of only a year for the Secretary of State to refuse his certificate to the Treasury merely upon the report of the inspector, but if any deficiency was reported afterwards, he saw no reason why the reports of the inspectors to that effect should not be acted upon by the Government.
MR. W. WILLIAMSobjected to the clause, that a large amount of the public taxes—from £200,000 to £300,000—was given when nobody asked for it, and when there was an efficient police in all boroughs and in most counties.
SIR JOSHUA WALMSLEYthought that discipline might very easily be dealt with, but the difficulty would be with regard to numbers. This made it important to fix a minimum of numbers.
SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, it was difficult to fix a general minimum, because the population varied so much in counties; but, since it seemed to be the general feeling of the Committee that an arbitrary power should not be vested in the Secretary of State, without giving the parties affected by the Report an opportunity of answering the grounds upon which it was made, he had proposed a proviso, which he proposed should be annexed to the clause in these words—
"That, before any such certificate shall be finally withheld with respect to the police in any county or borough, the Report of the Inspector relating thereto shall be sent to the Justices of the county or to the watch committee of the borough, and they may address any statement to the Secretary of State in every case where the certificate is withheld, and the grounds upon which the Secretary of State refuses such certificate, together with any such statement, shall be laid before Parliament."
A statement from the Justices or watch committee might remove objections; but if the Secretary of State persisted in withholding the certificate, the statement and the grounds upon which the Secretary acted would be laid before Parliament.
SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, the proviso of the right hon. Gentleman came so near to the suggestion he had made, that he was quite satisfied with it.
SIR WILLIAM JOLLIFFEalso observed, that the objections which he entertained to the clause were very much removed by the proviso. At the same time, he thought the clause was one which there would be extreme difficulty in carrying out. He would not, however, put the Committee to the trouble of dividing.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYproposed, in that section of the clause which provides that the Commissioners of the Treasury shall pay such sum towards the expenses of the police "as shall not exceed one-fourth of the charge for their pay and clothing," to substitute the words, "one-half" for "one-fourth." In his view, the object of this Bill was to establish a compulsory system of police in England and Wales, and he thought the proposed contribution from the Treasury of one-fourth of the cost of such force was not sufficient. He might remind the Committee, that a very large sum of money was now paid by the State for police purposes. A great portion of the Irish police, a certain portion of the metropolitan police, and the stipend Magistrates of

299
London and Dublin were maintained by a charge upon the Consolidated Fund, amounting to nearly £800,000 annually. It must be remembered that the ratepayers of England and Wales contributed their proportion to the taxation from which that charge was defrayed; and he maintained that, if a police force was established compulsorily, it was not consistent with principles of equity and justice to throw three-fourths of the cost of such police upon the ratepayers. The ratepayers of England and Wales constituted a very small proportion—not more than one-sixteenth—of the whole population, and the property upon which they were rated did not comprise more than one-fifth of the property existing in those districts of the kingdom. Was it right, then, to charge three-fourths of the expense of maintaining the new police force upon one-sixteenth of the population and upon one-fifth of the property of the kingdom? The rateable property of England and Wales was estimated at £63,000,000 or £64,000,000, upon which, in the shape of poor rate, county rates, and other similar taxation, a property tax of 10 or 12 per cent was levied. Indeed, the local taxation amounted to a charge of 16 or 18 per cent upon rateable property, and from such charge the whole personal property of the country, which was precisely that description of property requiring the protection of police, was entirely exempted. It was a difficult matter to ascertain accurately the amount of personal property in England and Wales, but it was estimated by Mr. Porter and other eminent statisticians at £2,500,000,000. It was indisputable that there was an enormous mass of property which did not contribute a single shilling to any one of the local rates; and, he asked, what right they had to impose the new burden proposed by this Bill upon the ratepayers who were owners of a particular description of property? He would ask the Committee to consider who were the ratepayers of this country. If they took £100 of rate, it would be found that four-tenths of it were levied upon men occupying houses and buildings, comprising many just above positive want, but who were struggling for a livelihood; five-tenths were levied upon persons engaged in agricultural pursuits, who were rated according to the amount of their produce; and the remaining one-tenth was imposed upon mines and other descriptions of property. How, then, could the right hon.
300
Home Secretary justify his proposition that the owners of a particular class of property should be called upon to provide for the protection of life and property, which was an obligation resting upon the nation? He hoped those principles of justice which uniformly influenced the House in dealing with questions of taxation would induce the Committee to adopt his Amendment.
Amendment proposed in page 6, line 3, to leave out, "one-fourth," and insert "one-half."
SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, the hon. Baronet seemed to suppose that the object of this clause was to impose a direct burden upon all the rateable property of the country, whereas its object was to exempt rateable property from charges to which it was now legally liable, and to defray those charges partially from the Consolidated Fund. The hon. Baronet raised the whole question of local taxation, and asked the Committee to agree to his Amendment, on the ground that a great portion of the property of the country was altogether exempted from such taxation. That question had been frequently discussed in the House; and he (Sir G. Grey) believed they had, by general consent, arrived at the conclusion that it was impossible to subject personal property to the taxation which was applied to real property, and that although personal property was exempt from rating, it was almost always enjoyed in connection with houses or land; and, therefore, those who paid in respect of their houses or land, did, in fact, enjoy the protection of the police for their personal property. The hon. Gentleman had shown no good reason for substituting one-half for one-fourth, and the Government, after consideration, were of opinion that the proposition they recommended was fair and liberal. The hon. Gentleman's argument, indeed, would go to throw the whole of the local taxation of the country on the general revenue. The Government thought one-fourth a fair proportion for the relief of local taxation, and they hoped the Committee would sustain them in this proposal. If, however, the Committee should adopt the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman, the Government would have to consider whether they were justified in proceeding with the Bill or not.
MR. KNIGHTthought it obvious that the great proportion of the property stolen was personal property.
MR. BENTINCKsaid, he could not think that the right hon. Gentleman had met the argument of his hon. Friend (Sir H.Willoughby). The right hon. Gentleman had told the Committee that if they adopted the Amendment, the Government would be obliged to withdraw the Bill. [Sir G. GREY: No, I did not say that]. The right hon. Baronet said that the hon. Gentleman had failed to adduce any argument in favour of his Motion, but neither had the right hon. Gentleman given a specific reason for adopting the proposition he had recommended. Indeed, taking the figures of his hon. Friend, it seemed doubtful whether the proportion borne by the Consolidated Fund should not he four-fifths or fifteen-sixteenths of the whole.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that although the hon. Gentleman's Amendment only went to substitute one-half for one-fourth, his principle, if carried out, would abolish the entire system of local taxation. ["No!"] If the hon. Gentleman's argument were good for anything, it was good for imposing the whole charge on the general revenue. The hon. Gentleman not only said that the police rate ought not to be an exclusive charge upon real property, but that the poor rate, the county rate, and the borough rate ought also not to be exclusively borne by real property. He could only say that, if that principle were adopted, the House would find itself under the necessity of adding £15,000,000 to the annual Ways and Means to be voted by the House. He did not know the hon. Gentleman's authority for the statement, that the ratepayers were only one-sixteenth of the population, and that they held only one-fifth part of the property of the country. But it was clear that the ratepayers were by far a more numerous class than any class that was liable to direct taxation. They were not so numerous, of course, as those who paid indirect taxation, because the indirect taxes were paid by the whole population. But every occupier of land or houses, however small, was by law rateable, and he could only escape the rate by being struck off by the magistrate on the ground of poverty. The question, then, was whether they would transfer these £14,000,000 or £15,000,000 from the ratepayers to the Queen's taxes. What would the House think if it were proposed to add £10,000,000 to the income tax? The income tax was now at the rate of £6 13 s. 4d. per cent, and to raise it
302
£10,000,000, the House must increase it by l0 d. in the pound, each penny in the pound raising it about £1,000,000. Would any hon. Gentleman contend that if the income tax were raised to this amount, it would be a less grievous burden than the local rates which were distributed over so large a portion of the population? Let any Chancellor of the Exchequer try to double or treble the assessed taxes, the house tax, the taxes on tea, coffee, and sugar. Let him try to impose a tax on salt, or taxes from any other source, and he would find that the commutation of taxation recommended by the hon. Gentleman was anything but a relief. [Sir H. WILLOUGHBY: I recommended no such thing]. But if the principle laid down by the hon. Gentleman were carried into effect it would be anything but an advantage to the country. The Government had been asked why they had taken one-fourth rather than one-half? The Government had taken the example of the Metropolitan Police Act, where the rate was fixed at a maximum of 8d. in the pound, of which 6d. was paid by the parishes and 2d. by the Government. That arrangement had been acquiesced in by the parishes since 1829. If one-fourth were a fair proportion to be borne by the parishes in the case of the metropolis, where the police were employed in attending upon the Houses of Parliament, great ceremonials, and similar, public purposes, it could not be said to be an unreasonable proportion to be paid by the county rate. He trusted that the Committee would not agree to vote a larger sum than £200,000 out of the Consolidated Fund for this purpose. His right hon. Friend the Home Secretary had stated that if the Motion of the hon. Baronet were adopted, it would become a serious question with the Government whether they ought to proceed any further with this Bill; but he had not said that they had come to any positive determination on the subject. What his right hon. Friend had declared was, that the Government regarded this as an important part of their measure, which had been proposed after mature deliberation, and that if this Amendment were carried it would be a matter of grave doubt with them whether they ought to persevere any longer with the Bill.
MR. BECKETT DENISONsaid, the real question before the Committee was, whether it was reasonable to add £200,000 a year to the sum which the Chancellor of

303
the Exchequer was ready to award to the counties. A larger amount than that would be saved to the Government by the suspension of transportation—the risk consequent upon which measure would he thrown upon the public; and therefore it would be only fair that an allowance of 50 instead of 25 per cent should be made to the counties. The Government would be gainers, in a pecuniary sense, by such an arrangement. Chancellors of the Exchequer were naturally very jealous guardians of the Consolidated Fund; but it was unjust to press so severely as was done upon the real property of the country, which financiers seemed to view as an excellent milch cow, to be drawn upon to whatever extent their convenience or their fancy might dictate. Land was now burdened with £14,000,000 of local taxation, in addition to which its owners had to contribute in common with all other classes to the imposts on articles of consumption; and beyond all question it was worse used than any other kind of property in the kingdom. All he asked for real estate was justice, not encouragement; and the same principle which warranted the concession of 25 per cent was equally good for conceding 50. The rural police of Lancashire cost £40,000 a year, and yet it was not better looked after than Yorkshire, which possessed no such force. If Parliament, however, insisted on the general adoption of a rural police, the proportion of the expense borne by the Consolidated Fund could not in equity be less than 50 per cent.
VISCOUNT EBRINGTONthanked the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the triumphant case he had made out for granting to the metropolitan parishes more than the 25 per cent. He denied that the object was to keep down the grants to counties, but contended that if £200,000 were granted to the ratepayers of counties, the same relief ought to be given to the ratepayers of the metropolis. Of course there were always a great number of persons and a great deal of property protected which no rate could touch, and it was exactly that class of property and persons which involved the necessity of establishing an efficient police. For the worst description of house property seldom paid anything to the rates, and the tenants were but too often composed of those who added to the crime of the country. All classes were benefited by the establishment of the police, the taxes of the country
304
were very fairly demanded for their establishment, and certainly he had heard no reason for supposing that the one-fourth was the right proportion to be given by Government.
SIR FRANCIS BARINGsaid, he did not think it necessary to go into the whole question of local taxation, however important; but it was desirable to consider whether this Bill laid a heavy burden on the ratepayers. He dared say that hon. Gentlemen opposite would be very much shocked, but really he did not think that the county rates ought to be relieved by sixpence. The second Report of the Committee on this subject showed that the establishment of a rural police was of the greatest advantage to the country. Surely, then, it was a peculiarly modest request to make on their part that the country should pay half the expense of its establishment, when the evidence before the Committee went to prove that the establishment of rural police had not cost the counties a farthing; and the Report itself stated that its adoption had been attended with advantages both of a moral and an economical character. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley) had himself stated that he would give much more for landed property in a county which had a police force than in one which had it not. If this was true, he could not understand why hon. Gentlemen should ask for 50 per cent out of the public revenue as compensation for the introduction of a system which was not only economical in itself, but actually improved the value of their property.
MR. KENDALL,having had much practical experience in the transaction of county business, could state that he had frequently been oblighed to fight against the suggestions of inspectors, who had little or no practical knowledge of their business, but merely wished to exercise their authority. He objected to giving them power to enforce their suggestions by enabling them to exercise a control over the payment of these charges.
MR. ROEBUCKwas opposed to the payment of one-fourth of the expenses by the Treasury, as it was founded on a bad principle. The hon. Baronet's proposal was merely a concealed system of communism; he wished, in effect, to place a large sum in the middle of the table, and let everybody grasp at it. The promised contribution from the Consolidated Fund was a "sop" to propitiate the county

305
Members, who otherwise would have offered such resistance to the measure as would have insured its rejection. As it was, they had seen the opposition gradually melt away, and though furious at first, they next became mild, and ended by giving their support to the Bill. Nevertheless it might be well questioned whether it had rendered the Bill more worthy the acceptance of the House. The proposal to send down to the counties and boroughs a Government inspector, on whose fiat the grant should depend, was highly objectionable. The inspector would be to all intents and purposes the commander of the police, and his interference would be most detrimental as depriving the resident gentry of the inducement they at present possessed to look after the public interest of their respective localities. It was a fatal argument against the Bill that it would militate against that principle of self-government to which the English race in all parts of the world were so devotedly attached, and which had been of such inestimable value to them in forming their national character and fitting them for the enjoyment of the rights and liberties they so dearly prized. All encroachments on that principle were to be viewed with grave alarm.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERobserved, that the hon. Member for the West Riding (Mr. E. B. Denison), was mistaken in supposing that the contribution from the Consolidated Fund was to be justified on the ground of a saving occasioned to the Government by the abolition of transportation. True, there had been, consequent on that measure, a saving of colonial expenditure, but the advantage thus acquired was counterbalanced by the increased outlay for prisons and convict establishments at home.
SIR WILLIAM HEATHCOTEsaid, the objection taken by the hon. and learned Member (Mr. Roebuck) raised a question of great political importance; but the House had decided in favour of the principle of the Bill. The present question was far more narrow. It was merely a question of amount or degree, the principle of an allowance out of the Consolidated Fund being admitted. Attempts at rating stock-in-trade had been discontinued, not because it was unjust, but because it was impracticable. To compensate for that it was just to make allowance out of the Consolidated Fund in aid of county rates;
306
and the only question was as to the proportion to be adopted. No answer had been offered to the argument that personal property was most protected by a police.
MR. MUNTZsupported the Amendment of the hon. Baronet the Member for Evesham (Sir H. Willoughby) observing that, if any portion of the police expenditure were to be defrayed from the national Exchequer, he deemed it the simpler and more equitable arrangement that the Government grant should cover one-half of the whole disbursement.
MR. HENLEYsaid, that the Government being pledged to the principle of a contribution from the Treasury, the only question to be decided was that of amount. Precedent justified a grant equivalent to one half of the whole expenditure. The case of the Irish police was strictly in point. On the institution of that force the Government contributed in the proportion of one-half of the expense incurred. In gaols, although not nominally, yet really, the Government paid one-half of the cost of that class of prisoners for whom they paid at all. The only reason which had been assigned for fixing the proportion by this Bill at one-fourth was, that that was the proportion of the cost of the metropolitan police which was paid by the Government.
MR. BARROWdenied that he was one of those who had accepted the proposition of the Government as a sop. He should vote for the Amendment of the hon. Member for Evesham, and if that were rejected he should then go with the hon. Member for Sheffield, that no allowance should be made from the Consolidated Fund. The police ought to be a local force, carried out under local superintendence and by local taxation.
CAPTAIN SCOBELLsaid, he agreed in deprecating the abolition of local self-control; but as the Bill was forced down their throats against their wills he should vote for the Amendment. It was not one-fourth of the whole charge which the Government offered, but only of a portion, and it would not amount to more than one-sixth of the whole charge. He thought one-half was the proper proportion.
Question put "That one-fourth stand part of the Clause.
The Committee divided:—Ayes 160; Noes 106: Majority 54.
SIR JOSHUA WALMSLEYthen moved the addition of the following proviso:—

307
"Provided always, that the police force for any county or borough shall be deemed efficient in point of numbers in all cases where there shall be one police-constable for such county or borough to every 1,500 of the population, according to the last census then made."
MR. STEELobjected to the proviso. There were many counties in which such an arrangement would cause considerable additional expense. The matter had better be left to the Justices of the Peace, who were the most competent judges of what police were required.
SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, it was quite impossible to fix any minimum, and, even if it were, one in 1,500 of the population would be quite inadequate in very many boroughs, to say nothing of counties.
Proviso negatived.
Clause 11.
MR. ROEBUCK MR. ROEBUCK moved that the clause be omitted altogether. His object would be to place the whole police force of the country in the hands of the Administration for the time being. He objected to the clause, as he believed its tendency would be to make the Secretary of State for the Home Department a second Fouché, with spies all over the kingdom. The Queen's taxes were paid, for the most part, by the hard-working population of the towns, and he strongly objected to those taxes being used for the purpose of relieving the burdens of the counties. He appealed to the House whether they would support self-government, which had hitherto prevailed in this country, or whether they would throw themselves, body and soul, into the hands of the Government.
MR. BECKETT DENISONthought there was enough spirit and right feeling in the various counties throughout England to enable them to manage their own police, and that the Government were paying the magistracy a very bad compliment by endeavouring to cram this Bill down their throats.
Question put, "That Clause 11, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
The Committee divided:—Ayes 186; Noes 75: Majority 111.
Clause amended, agreed to.
MR. ROEBUCKthen moved that the Chairman report progress, and ask leave to sit again.
SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, considering the length of time they had spent to-night
308
in a miscellaneous discussion, he hoped they would be allowed to go on with the Bill.
Motion negatived.
Clause 12.
LORD EDWARD HOWARD LORD EDWARD HOWARD moved to leave out Clause 12. The clause provided that no borough under 5,000 inhabitants should receive any portion of the police expenditure from the Consolidated Fund, unless the police of those towns was incorporated with the county constabulary. There were 196 towns in England and Wales under the Municipal Corporation Act, and of these there were no fewer than sixty-four that had fewer than 5,000 inhabitants. He did not urge that these towns should receive Government assistance unless they had an efficient police; but he believed that in most of these boroughs there was already an efficient police—certainly there was in the borough that he represented.
SIR G. GREYsaid, the real question was, whether in these small boroughs, some of which had a population of not more than 2,000, there could be an efficient police unless the police of those boroughs was incorporated with that of the county. He thought it was obvious they could not. If they chose to maintain their own police, they could do so without any great expense.
Clause agreed to; Clauses 13 to 15 agreed to; Clause 16 struck out; Clause 17 agreed to.
The Committee then proceeded to the consideration of the new clauses, of which notice had been given.
MR. RICE, after Clause 2, proposed to insert a clause:—
"That the Justices of the Peace of every county in England and Wales may, at the next or any subsequent general or quarter sessions after the passing of this Act, and so from time to time thereafter as they shall deem expedient, appoint, for such time as they shall think proper, a sufficient number of Justices, who shall be the police committee or committees for such county, and may, till the next general or quarter sessions, delegate to such committee or committees all or any of the powers as to the police force within such county, which, by the two first recited Acts, or by this Act, are given to the Justices in general or quarter sessions, except as to the increase or diminution of the number of constables, and the appointment or dismissal of any chief constable or his deputy, and may from time to time re-appoint, amend, or discontinue the appointment of such committee or committees, and all the powers given to such committee or committees may be executed by the majority of those who shall be present at the

309
meeting of such committee or committees, the whole number present being not less than three."
SIR GEORGE GREYobjected to the clause.
Clause negatived.
MR. MASSEYproposed to insert a clause enabling the County Justices, in quarter sessions, to grant a retiring gratuity to any constable who should be certified by the chief constable to be incapable, from some infirmity of mind or body, of discharging his duties, although such constable should not have served so long as fifteen years.
Clause agreed to.
MR. MASSEYthen proposed a clause providing that, in any case where the superannuation fund, mentioned in the Act of the 3 & 4 Vict, was insufficient to pay the superannuation and retiring allowances and the gratuities authorised by this Bill, the deficiency should be defrayed by the police-rate of the district. The clause was only introduced out of abundant caution, and if the superannuation fund should continue solvent, this clause would be inoperative.
MR. BARROWthought the inadequacy of the superannuation fund ought not to be made up at the expense of the ratepayers.
Clauses agreed to.
MR. R. PALMER MR. R. PALMER moved the insertion of a clause making it lawful for the magistrates to grant retiring pensions to such officers as might be removed from their appointments in consequence of their duties being transferred by this Bill to persons belonging to the police establishment; he particularly instanced the inspectors of weights and measures.
Clause agreed to, and added to the Bill.
SIR PHILIP EGERTON SIR PHILIP EGERTON moved a clause to continue the powers of the Cheshire Constabulary Act, 1852, in force in that county until police should be established under this Act, and to enact various necessary provisions in respect thereto.
Clause agreed to, and added to the Bill.
LORD HOTHAM LORD HOTHAM moved a clause giving power to add strong rooms in connexion with station-houses already erected.
Clause agreed to, and added to the Bill.
House resumed.
Bill reported as amended.
The House adjourned at Two o'clock, till Monday, the 19th May.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1a Judicial Statistics.
2a Bankruptcy(Scotland).
3a Joint Stock Companies Winding-up Acts Amendment.

HER MAJESTY'S MESSAGE—MAJOR GE NERAL SIR W. F. WILLIAMS, K.C.B.
Order of the Day for the consideration of THE QUEEN'S Message of Yesterday read.
Message read.
EARL GRANVILLE: My Lords, pursuance of the notice which I gave yesterday, I rise to perform a very agreeable duty—to submit to your Lordships a proposition which will, I believe, meet with your entire and unanimous concurrence—namely, that we should thank Her Majesty for the gracious Message which has just been read, and that we should assure Her Majesty of our readiness to concur in enabling Her Majesty to make provision for securing to Sir William Fenwick Williams a pension of £1,000 per annum for the term of his natural life. I stated yesterday, after giving notice of this Motion, that Her Majesty had also been graciously pleased to announce Her intention of conferring upon General Williams a Baronetcy under the style and title of Sir William Fenwick Williams of Kars. I believe your Lordships are aware that General Williams is an artillery officer in Her Majesty's service. I understand that he was placed in the Royal Artillery Academy at Woolwich by the late Duke of Kent, and, without being able to specify exact dates, I may state that he was sent out in early life on special service to Ceylon, where for about nine years he discharged the duties of an engineer. In 1843 General Williams was appointed by the noble Earl on the benches below me (the Earl of Aberdeen) a Commissioner for examining into the boundary between the Turkish and Persian territories, a work of very great hardship and difficulty, in which he was occupied about nine years, four of which were actually passed under canvass. During that time the life of General Williams was

239
frequently in great danger, and he was also exposed to the deadly diseases which are incident to the localities which were the scene of his labours. A noble friend of mine, who is not now in the House, told me the other day with some pride—pride which I could easily understand—that previous to the appointment I have just mentioned, his gallant father, Lord Vivian, was the person who selected Captain Williams, as he then was, to be sent out to instruct the Turks in artillery practice,—an arm in which they have shown, during the late war, that they have not neglected the lessons of their European instructors. General Williams, from the peculiar experience he had gained in these services, was selected by the noble Earl near me, (the Earl of Aberdeen), and by the Secretary of State for Foreign affairs, to go out as Her Majesty's Commissioner to the Turkish army in Asia, and I think the event has proved that a more fit appointment has scarcely ever been made. General Williams appears to have arrived at Erzeroum in September, 1854, and a few days afterwards he reached Kars. The events of the memorable defence of Kars are well known to your Lordships, and although the military operations at Kars and at Silistria cannnot fail to give us the highest satisfaction on account of the valuable services which were rendered at both places by English officers, yet painful occurrences took place during the fourteen months of General Williams's command at Kars which I shall not recall to your Lordships' recollection. Such a retrospect would, I think, be most inappropriate on the present occasion, and I am the better enabled to avoid that retrospect because the whole question relating to those occurrences, and the parties to whom blame attached, has been incidentally discussed in this House, and has been debated in the other House on a specific motion upon which a Vote was taken. I am, therefore, relieved from the necessity of entering into questions relating to the British Government or to the British Ambassador; and still more should I think it unbecoming to point out any deficiencies which may have been thought to exist on the part of our Allies, the Turks. With regard to the merits of General Williams himself, I have felt very strongly the danger of exaggerating those merits. Even during the last two years, when exaggerated blame has been attached to persons both living and
240
dead, we have seen reaction in proportion to the previous exaggeration; and there is the same danger that in the case of a person who should be selected for the popular idol for the moment, any exaggeration of praise may be followed by a corresponding and still more painful reaction. Having consulted all the evidence to which it was in my power to refer, referring to this subject—the official letters of General Williams, the book of Dr. Sandwith, one of his associates, and the popular accounts of the siege contained in the press—I am bound to say that I have failed to discover any ground for that sort of discriminating criticism which might give additional weight to the praise I wish to bestow. At the commencement of General Williams's correspondence there appears to be a tone which, if we had not known that it was so completely justified by subsequent events, might have appeared a little querulous. Those events put any such criticism completely out of the question. There is only one point with respect to which I conceive that General Williams has not exhibited the greatest qualities of a commander, and that is entirely owing to his not having had the opportunity of showing what are his powers of manœuvring a large army in the field. But in respect to the other qualifications of a distinguished military leader, I must say that to his possession of them the amplest testimony has been borne. In considering the career of General Williams I could not help thinking of a celebrated passage which occurs in the work of a great French historian of the last war, and which has before this been quoted in reference to one of the greatest military leaders whom this country has produced. Entering into a consideration of the various and complex qualities which are necessary to form a great commander, the passage to which I allude points out the necessity that such a man should not be alone a general, an engineer, and a geographer, but that he should be well versed in human nature, adroit in the management of men, possessed of qualities which would enable him to act as a Minister of State, and endowed with the versatility which would place it within his power to descend from the performance of those high functions to the discharge of the duties of a commissary's clerk. Now, taking these conditions for the formation of a great commander, as set forth in the passage to which I have alluded, I think I may say that General

241
Williams will be found to have complied with them in a, remarkable degree. I have referred to his services at Ceylon at a time when he was acting as an engineer in a tropical climate; I have stated that when laying down the boundary between the Turkish and Persian territories he found an opportunity of displaying his eminent powers as a geographer;—it is impossible to read his despatches, written under great difficulties—it is impossible to observe the manner in which he dealt with persons placed in high authority—it is impossible to note the vigour of the measures which he took in organising the defence of Kars, and in provisioning that fortress, objects which he accomplished in an incredibly short time—without feeling that he was gifted with some, at all events, of the most important qualities which tend to form a great Minister of State. And when your Lordships bear in mind that he had only the assistance of Mr. Churchill in discharging the business of the commissariat, I am sure you will not be disposed to deny him the capability of descending to the performance of the duties of a commissary's clerk. Regarding him as a man conversant with human nature, I do not think it is possible to find an instance in the late campaign in which—the difference of class and religion which prevailed among those with whom he had to deal being taken into consideration—any man has proved himself superior in that respect to General Williams. The principle upon which he acted seemed to be this; when he discovered a really efficient man, and one whom he could trust, to place in that man the most implicit confidence. To those whom he found to be incapable, he was as hard as iron. In the case of those masses whose necessities he was bound to consider, he showed the greatest amount of philanthropic interest which it was possible to exhibit. And I must say that one of the most remarkable instances of the influence which by the force of his character he was able to exert over all who happened to come in contact with him, is the co-operation between the Christians and the Mussulmans which by the intellectual energy which he exhibited he had the good fortune to effect. I am happy to have it in my power to cite this instance, because I look upon it as an auspicious omen of the good which is likely to result of that hatti-sheriff which the Sultan has now so liberally granted in the case of his Christian subjects. If anything
242
were wanting to complete our sense of the reputation which General Williams has acquired for himself, it would be found in the respect and courtesy with which he is treated by a generous foe. My noble Friend at the head of the Foreign Department took occasion, a few evenings ago, at a banquet in the City of London, to read a letter from General Williams, in which that gallant officer warmly describes the kindness which he has received at the hands of General Mouravieff, and the exceeding humanity which was displayed by the Russian commander, not alone to the English, but also to the Turkish soldiers, whom the fate of war had made his prisoners at Kars. For my own part, I must say that I hardly know of any circumstance more calculated to create a kindly feeling between two great nations which have just ceased to wage war one against the other, than the fact that one of the British officers whose actions have won for him the highest distinction in the military history of the last two years, has been treated with kindness and respect by that general who, during the same period, was the most fortunate of the commanders in the service of the Russian Emperor. My Lords, having said thus much of General Williams, I may observe that I do not think I should be pursuing a course which would be acceptable to that gallant officer if I were to pass over without comment those who were associated with him in the glorious struggle in which he was engaged. One of those was Colonel Lake, who, in the part which he played in that struggle, exhibited not only great energy, but the most admirable skill. It is scarcely within my province to offer an opinion upon such subjects, yet I may say that I have been informed by those well qualified to speak upon such a point, that Colonel Lake's system of fortifications was of the most admirable and effective description; that they were such as to render Fort Lake itself absolutely impregnable; while the other forts were so constructed, that they could not by any possibility be attacked without exposing the assailants to the most destructive fire. It was but the other day that I saw a statement to the effect, that General Williams had designated the gallant officer of whom I have just spoken as the Todleben of Kars—a complement the highest and the most graceful which, in my opinion, could be paid him. Another officer who is deserving of the greatest commendation is Captain Thompson, who

243
was seriously wounded in the early part of the struggle, who, in consequence, returned to this country in ill health, but who only remained ten days—scarcely time to embrace his mother—when he started in a crippled state for Kars. I am told that Captain Thompson held the eastern portion of the fortifications of Kars in a manner beyond all praise, and that he contributed greatly to the success of the engagement by opportunely bringing up some heavy guns, and by a flank movement of some riflemen which he ordered to be executed in anticipation of instructions subsequently issued by the general in command. There is also another gentleman, whose name will not soon fade away from the annals of English military history—I allude to Major Teesdale. I have been informed that that gallant officer, only twenty-three years old, and of so boyish an appearance as to make his appointment to a position of great responsibility seem almost ridiculous—has had the highest testimony borne to his merit, while acting in the absence of General Williams, as commissioner at Kars. He was in that capacity consulted upon matters of the greatest importance and the minutest detail by grey-headed generals of the Turkish army. My Lords, I scarcely know of anything more characteristic of that courage, that humanity, and that modesty by which English officers are so much distinguished, than the fact that is recorded by Dr. Sandwith in his interesting book, that he, as well as the other companions of Major Teesdale, learned for the first time, from the lips of Russian officers, the circumstance that they had seen that young and heroic soldier jump over the walls of the fortifications amid a shower of bullets, to rescue a Russian officer from death. I am glad to be able to mention, in connection with the names to which I have already called your Lordships' attention, that of a civilian as one of the heroes connected with the defence of Kars. The individual to whom I refer is Dr. Sandwith, who found himself placed in a position of great difficulty at the head of an hospital —filled, as has been said, with attar of roses—but which could furnish nothing that would be of any real service to an army in the field. He, however, in spite of enormous difficulties, put that hospital in a state of order which might afford a model for similar establishments nearer home, while, with a talent which appears to have belonged to him in common with
244
all his English companions, he acquired an influence over his Turkish assistants which stood him in good stead. I am not, of course, surprised to learn that he readily exposed himself to danger in the field in the discharge of his duties, because that has been done in almost every instance by those gentlemen connected with his profession who were attached to the army in the Crimea. We ought, however, I think, to extend to him the tribute of our admiration for the zeal which prompted him during more than one dreary month of the siege of Kars—notwithstanding the ample excuse afforded him by his multifarious civil occupations for declining to undertake any further duty—not to shrink from that distressing night work to which the necessity of having European eyes upon every exposed point in the fortifications rendered it necessary that he should subject himself, and not to shrink from it too at a time when the severity of the cold was such, that even the running streams passing through the town were frozen into solid ice. I have now mentioned to your Lordships some incidents which go to prove that, while men may make themselves glorious with the sword, it yet requires a pen in other hands to make them famous. These brave gentlemen will, no doubt, reap the reward of their gallant conduct while continuing to pursue the path of honour and utility in their several callings; yet I feel convinced that they will regard the compliment now paid to General Williams as reflecting some of its lustre on themselves. Before 1 sit down I cannot forbear from saying a word—although it forms no part of my present task—in recognition of the aid rendered to our countrymen by the foreigners with whom they were associated. Great praise is due to General Kmety, whom, as he is not likely to be recompensed by his own country, I should be the more loth to omit to name on this occasion. I have already observed that there are reasons why I should refrain from adverting to the conduct of the Turkish Government; but no such considerations of delicacy need prevent me from expressing what I believe to be the unanimous opinion of your Lordships in regard to the behaviour of the Turkish soldiers, than whom no troops have evinced in a higher degree the military virtues of courage, patience, sobriety, and frugality. A striking evidence of this was seen in the fact that, in the midst of famine these brave men guarded the provisions of the

245
army under the enemy's fire, and rather than touch the food intrusted to their charge preferred to die of hunger at their posts. My Lords, having briefly stated the reasons why I trust you will unanimously concur in this Motion, I have now only to move that—
"An humble Address be presented to Her Majesty to return Her Majesty the thanks of this House for Her Majesty's most gracious Message, informing this House, "That Her Majesty is desirous of conferring a signal Mark of Her Favour and Approbation on Major-General Sir William Fenwick Williams, K.C.B., for the eminent and distinguished Services rendered by him as Her Majesty's Commissioner At the Head Quarters of the Turkish Army in Asia, and particularly in the gallant Defence of Kars;" and to assure Her Majesty that this House will cheerfully concur in enabling Her Majesty to make a Provision for securing to Sir William Fenwick Williams a Pension of £1,000 per annum for the Term of his natural life."
Agreed to, Nemine Dissentiente; and the said Address ordered to be presented to Her Majesty by the Lords with White Staves.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
LORD REDESDALE LORD REDESDALE moved the following Resolution:—
"That this House will not read any Bill a Second Time after Tuesday, the 22nd Day of July, except Bills of Aid or Supply, or any Bill in relation to which the House shall have resolved, before the Second Reading is moved, that the Circumstances which render Legislation on the Subject of the same expedient are either of such recent Occurrence or real urgency as to render the immediate Consideration of the same necessary."
The noble Lord said he felt assured that if their Lordships were to adopt his Resolution, they would find it tend considerably to the efficient transaction of the public business; but, if adopted, it ought to be strictly adhered to except in cases of real urgency.
THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDEwhile admitting that it was desirable to avoid as much as possible all hasty and ill-considered legislation, expressed a hope that the Resolution would be interpreted in a liberal spirit, and that it would not be permitted to impede the progress of really important measures which required to be passed without delay.
THE EARL OF DERBYsaid, that a distinction ought to be drawn between Bills of importance and Bills of urgency, for Bills might be urgent which were not important, and important though not urgent. The more important they were the more time was required to consider them; and,
246
on the other hand, a measure might be urgent in point of time and yet not permanently important. He hoped the effect of the Resolution would be to prevent important measures being sent up at so late a period of the Session that they could not be fully considered. The object of the Resolution was to prevent important measures being brought up to that House at a period of the Session when many of the Peers had left town, so that they could not receive the consideration that was proper to them.
EARL GREYentirely concurred in what the noble Earl had said, and in the distinction which he had taken between "important" and "urgent." That distinction was not attended to last year, and the consequence was their Lordships passed a measure in so imperfect a state that the first thing done by the Government this year was to bring in a Bill utterly subversive of the Bill which had been passed. He trusted there would be a determination on both sides of the House to adhere to the Resolution, though he was afraid it would rest with the independent Members to enforce it. By enforcing it the other House would take care to send up important measures at an early period.
EARL GRANVILLE,admitting that the Resolution was justifiable in principle and well calculated to have a salutary effect in both Houses of Parliament, yet hoped that there would be no very stringent application of it; for they could not blind themselves to the fact that arguments might be urged against it, and that an unpleasant feeling might arise in the other House if their Lordships should declare that, come what might, they would "strike work" on a certain day, and refuse to entertain measures the immediate enactment of which might be imperatively demanded by the public interests. Such a course would be unprecedented, and scarcely constitutional. At the same time he fully acknowledged the value of the distinction between "importance" and "urgency," and only protested against too strict and unbending an adherence to the letter of the Resolution. Its spirit he would religiously respect, though reserving to the Government the right of exercising a discretion as to the particular measures that should be regarded as "urgent."
THE EARL OF MALMESBURYobserved that, after what had fallen from the noble Earl there seemed but too much reason to apprehend that the Government

247
meant to act this Session in the same manner as last, and to introduce important measures at a very late period. If so, the independent Members would have to take the matter into their own hands.
EARL GRANVILLEobjected to any such interpretation of his words. He had protested against too stringent an application of the rule, but had accompanied his protest with a declaration of his intention to act in the spirit of the Resolution.
LORD REDESDALEsaid, that the other House felt as much as their Lordships did the necessity of having important measures considered at an early period, inasmuch as that it almost invariably happened that, notwithstanding that they sent down Bills to the House of Commons at a much earlier period than the House of Commons sent up corresponding Bills to them, the House of Commons did not pass them, in consequence of the late period of the Session. He did not think there was the slightest cause for the apprehension of any unpleasant feeling between the House of Commons and that House by adopting the Resolution.
Resolution agreed to.

CAPITAL PUNISHMENT.
THE BISHOP OF OXFORD THE BISHOP OF OXFORD rose to move for a Select Committee on the present mode of carrying into effect capital punishments. He said he did not ask their Lordships to express any opinion whether or not we should maintain the present system of carrying into execution capital punishment, but only so far to agree that it was a matter on which there might be two good opinions as to refer the consideration of the question to a Select Committee. He thought it would take very little argument to show that there was so fair a presumption that a considerable alteration might with advantage be made in the mode in which these punishments were carried out, that it was not unreasonable to ask their Lordships to inquire into the matter. The great question for consideration was not whether executions should be public or private—for private executions, in the proper sense of that word, would be altogether intolerable in this country—but what should be the measure and the nature of the publicity attending them. Upon inquiry he thought it would appear that the present system provided publicity in the sense that it made these executions a public spectacle. That was an evil; and if it were possible to devise a plan by
248
which the present deterring influence which attended an execution should be preserved, while the demoralising influences which must necessarily accompany the making of the violent death of a fellow-creature a public spectacle should be avoided, he thought their Lordships would be of opinion that such a change would be a wholesome and desirable one. He need not argue that great evils arose from the present system. Whether it was attended by a corresponding good was another question. The great moralist Fielding, whose opinion was founded upon his experience as a police magistrate, had declared that he had come to the conclusion that one of the main causes of the increase of crime in the metropolis, especially of robberies, was the moral effect of the spectacle of a public execution, and the way in which among the world a man was, if he died what they called "game," elevated to the rank of a hero. Dramatists, when they wished to produce a moral effect by the death of one of their characters, did not exhibit that death upon the stage, but relied rather upon a narration of the circumstance attending it than upon the actual exhibition of the termination of life. Nor did he believe that any of their Lordships would send their son to a public execution with the view of deterring him from the commission of crime. In America, where the English system at first prevailed, there had been substituted for it a mode of carrying executions into effect before prescribed witnesses, with a sufficient showing of the man who was to suffer, and sufficient provision for their knowing that he actually suffered death; and he (the Bishop of Oxford) had been informed by an eminent citizen of the United States that, although there was at first much prejudice against this system, he did not believe that there was at present in America a single person who would wish to return to that which it had superseded. A similar system had for many years been pursued in Prussia, and there was at present before the Lower Chamber of the kingdom of Bavaria a measure proposed by the Ministers for the introduction of such a system into that country. If public executions were a means of deterring from crime, their horrors ought to be exhibited to the fullest extent; but so far was this from being the case, that the whole course of recent legislation had been to diminish the horror of attending them. These facts showed that there was a probable reason

249
for believing that a change might be made which would secure all the benefits of a public execution, without the evils of the present system. These evils were not confined to so hardening men that they came to regard the death of a fellow-creature as the occasion on which he should exhibit a miserable spirit of obduracy and hardness. There was a wholly different class of evils attending the present system, and arising from the fact that it every year became more difficult to carry into effect the last sentence of the law in cases in which it ought to be carried out. This was a most important consideration. There could be no greater evil in criminal legislation than to have severe penalties fitfully carried into effect. The more you reduced punishment to a certainty the greater would be its deterring influence. As a matter of fact, there had of late years been very few executions of women, even for the very highest offences. It was not for either House of Parliament to examine in detail the cases in which the Royal prerogative of mercy had been extended to criminals. It was of great moment that that prerogative should be reserved truly and really as an attribute of the Crown, to be exercised, of course, upon the advice of the responsible Minister; but he must notice that where in a string of cases of murder, accompanied with every aggravation, mercy was, for no reason which met the public eye, extended to the offender, there must necessarily be held out to the classes disposed to offend in the greatest degree the expectation of escaping the last sentence of the law. Their Lordships would know that it was not without reason that he noticed this. He would not in the least question the exercise of the Royal prerogative, but he must say that he was wholly unable to see why in some cases mercy had been extended to the offender. When a woman appointed a child of five years old to meet her at a certain place, and there dyed her own hand in its blood, with the deliberate malicious intention of thereby inflicting a wound upon the mind of its father, he could hardly conceive a stronger case for the forfeiture of life, if life were in any case to be forfeited to the law. The object of punishment was to deter from crime, but this could not be done unless we declared that by the ordinance of God civil society was to punish the criminal in His behalf. The very foundations of civil society rested upon the declaration that it was God's institution, and our right to
250
punish was based on the same foundation. The civil magistrate bore the sword on God's behalf. If the necessity of making the last penalty of the law a mere spectacle created great difficulty in carrying the sentence into effect in cases where it ought plainly to be carried out, their Lordships would make themselves responsible for that accidental removal and accessory to the fitful execution of the law, unless they inquired into the nature and extent of that necessity. Another question might arise—whether the present mode of execution was the best; but that would be merely incidental. The right rev. Prelate concluded by moving "That a Select Committee be appointed to take into Consideration the present mode of carrying into effect Capital Punishments."
LORD CAMPBELLconcurred entirely in the sentiments of the right rev. Prelate. He had long felt the great evil of public executions. They had been described by Fielding and another novelist not inferior to him, Mr. Charles Dickens, and he hoped the efforts of the right rev. Prelate to mitigate those evils would be crowned with success. Still very great evils might arise from private executions. There was a strong feeling against them in the public mind. He remembered, when in the House of Commons, that a proposal to substitute private for public executions was brought forward by Mr. Rich, who thereby incurred great obloquy. It was said that he wished to smother the criminal or to poison him—in fact, that he would open new scenes of horror which would excite the universal indignation of the country. The proposal met with no sort of support. No doubt there had since been a great alteration in public feeling. Private executions had been introduced into America with good effect. He was not prepared at present to give any distinct opinion of his own upon the subject, but he thought there ought to be an inquiry, and it might, perhaps, turn out that means could be devised to obviate the great objections which were at present made to private executions. It was said that the public would never be convinced, if executions were private, that sentences had been carried into effect. In the case of Governor Wall, the governor of Goree, who was convicted—improperly convicted, in his opinion—of the murder of a soldier, the public feeling was ferociously strong against him; and, as the Government were reluctant to carry the sentence into effect, it was said that if executions had been

251
private, some device would have been resorted to, and that he never would have been executed. If the Committee had been moved for with the intention of substituting some other instrument of punishment—the guillotine for instance—he should not have supported it.
LORD REDESDALEsaid, that, though fully aware of the great evils of public executions, he was not so completely convinced by the right rev. Prelate's argument as to admit the necessity of a change. It would be extremely difficult, for instance, to substitute private for public executions in political offences. Much, however, might be done to lessen that feeling of morbid excitement which the spectacle seemed to excite in certain low minds. Means might be taken to conceal the struggles of the criminal from the view of the spectators, and to shorten those struggles when they were likely to be long. The effect of the non-execution of women for the murder of their children, and the consequent encouragement in the minds of a certain class of women, that this was an offence which would not be punished by the last sentence of the law, could not have escaped the attention of any one who was in the habit of reading the daily papers. Scarcely a day passed but there was an account of some woman having murdered her offspring in one part of the country or the other. He believed this arose in a great degree from the desire evinced by judges, juries, and all concerned in the trial to get these women off upon some subterfuge, and from the fact that there had not been a single instance, he believed, for the last few years of the execution of a woman for this offence, even when of the most aggravated description.
THE MAEQUESS OF LANSDOWNEsaid, he should not have consented to the appointment of this Committee if he had thought it was the intention of the right rev. Prelate to substitute private for public executions. He believed it might be very possible, by a different mode of executing the sentence of the law, to produce a greater impression of certainty about it than at present existed in the public mind; for the tumult, the confusion, and the disgraceful circumstances which attended a public execution, and which the right rev. Prelate had described, did sometimes cause a great doubt to exist amongst the lower orders, whether the proper person had really been put to death. He remembered that at a time when he was a
252
schoolboy it was very commonly rumoured that a celebrated criminal, Dr. Dodd, who certainly was put to death, had never been executed at all, but that some appearance of an execution only had taken place; and he quite remembered having heard it said, again and again, that Dr. Dodd had been seen walking the streets of London ten or twenty years after the time when he was supposed to have been executed. In this manner it had happened that the improper publicity of the spectacle had rather served to counteract the proper effect of a public execution, the real publication of the proceeding. He thought the House and the public were very much indebted to the right rev. Prelate for bringing forward this subject, for he had never heard any one express a doubt of the mischievous effects of the existing practice; and he was sure that a more proper and impressive mode of carrying public executions into effect might well be devised. As for the particular mode of putting the criminal to death, that was another question, which he would not then discuss.
VISCOUST DUNGANNONthought every right-minded and reflecting man would be disposed to thank the right rev. Prelate for calling attention to this matter. Recent events had proved beyond doubt, that instead of affording an awful warning, these exhibitions only rendered the vulgar mind more callous and more hardened. It was necessary for the public to know that the sentence had been executed; but there was a middle course between an absolutely public execution and an execution conducted altogether in private and in a secret manner, which would be repugnant to the feelings of Englishmen. The right rev. Prelate had touched with great propriety on the circumstances connected with some sentences for murder lately passed and not carried into effect. Those cases had occasioned great astonishment, no doubt; and there was another case, within his own knowledge, of a most coldblooded and deliberate murder committed by two women upon another female; one of them was convicted on the evidence of her accomplice, and the Judge who tried the case at Downpatrick said it was a very aggravated case; but he had since been given to understand that she had been reprieved by the Lord-Lieutenant. Again, there was that fearful case which had been alluded to, of a mother who deliberately inveigled her own child into a cellar, and destroyed her by cutting her throat there,

253
but whose sentence had been commuted. He agreed with the noble Lord that many of the child murders we heard of were to be attributed to the fact that few convictions for such an offence were followed by executions. Where a crime had been committed which rendered the person amenable to the punishment of death—and especially in cases of murder—the instances ought to be few, rare, and exceptional in which it was not carried into effect; but at present it was the contrary.
THE BISHOP OF OXFORDexplained that he had not intended to express any opinion in favour of any particular mode of putting a criminal to death: indeed, he thought there might be other modes of execution more humane than that which was in use; but he should object exceedingly to any one which involved the shedding of blood. The noble Marquess had mentioned the case of Dr. Dodd as one which left a great feeling of uncertainty among the people as to the fact of his execution; but another remarkable instance of the same kind was the well-known case of the Duke of Monmouth.
On Question, agreed to. Committee named.

BANKRUPTCY (SCOTLAND) BILL.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR,in moving the second reading of the Bill, said that it had been introduced by the Lord Advocate in the other House. Its purpose was to consolidate the existing statutes, and to effect certain amendments in the law. One of its objects was that in Scotland the distinction between bankruptcy and insolvency should be done away with, so far as to apply the law of compulsory distribution of the property to any one becoming insolvent, whether he were a trader or not. Another object was to provide what should constitute an act of bankruptcy, and that when a person became bankrupt in England he should thereby also be deemed bankrupt in Scotland. It was at present necessary in Scotland, in order to obtain an adjudication of bankruptcy, to apply to the Court of Session; but a co-ordinate jurisdiction would by this Bill be given to the sheriffs, answering to the District Courts of Bankruptcy in England. The Bill proposed fourthly, that whereas the administration of insolvent estates was now vested in trustees, and liable to some abuses, there should be an officer, called the Accountant in Bankruptcy, like the Official Assignee of the
254
English system, whose business it should be to control and look into the accounts of all insolvents and bankrupts.
Bill read 2a (according to Order).

TICKET-OF-LEAVE SYSTEM.
VISCOUNT DUNGANNONsaid, that he had placed a notice on the paper having reference to the evils of the ticket-of-leave system; he, however, now appeared before their Lordships under some difficulty. Some time ago he had asked Her Majesty's Government whether, after all the revelations that had taken place, they intended to alter the system? And he was told in reply, that the system could not be altered without an Act of Parliament, and that therefore it must be proceeded in. Since that time the ground had been completely cut from under the supporters of the existing system; for a noble Earl (Earl Stanhope) had undertaken to move that the whole subject should be referred to a Select Committee, which seemed to be promised by the Government; no time, however, had been fixed for naming it. He believed that the system of granting tickets of leave was a serious and growing evil. Its bad effects had been experienced in all parts of the country, and the complaints against it were almost universal. Some supposed that giving a man a ticket of leave was conferring a boon upon him; but the very reverse was the fact. He was regarded as a man at liberty upon sufferance merely, liable at any time to undergo the remainder of his sentence; he was taunted by his fellows, and could get no employment; while it was notorious that men who had been sentenced to long periods of transportation had returned to this country under the ticket-of-leave system after two or three years' penal servitude. If criminals were to be released after a short period of imprisonment it would be much better to send them forth as free men altogether, without any ticket of leave; let them consider themselves absolved from the rest of their sentence, and, although they might remain to and under the vigilance of the police, the community would imagine that they had received a full pardon for their good conduct. Such a person might still be subjected to the consequences of being again convicted by being sent out of the country if he was found not to have deserved the lenity extended to him. Unless some decided steps were speedily adopted, the Session would pass away without anything being done; but he

255
should not press his Resolution if he were assured that a Select Committee would soon be appointed to whom the question could be referred. It was absolutely essential for the public good that some change should be made. He had received a return from the head constable of Liverpool, which showed that during the last sixteen months, out of sixty-eight persons who had obtained tickets of leave, and who were known to the police of that town, no fewer than sixty-six had again been committed for trial. Such was one instance out of many of the evil consequences of the present system. He hoped, therefore, that some member of the Government would give him an assurance that no delay would take place in the appointment of a Committee of Inquiry; if not, he should consider it his duty to press the Resolution of which he had given notice.
Moved, to resolve—
"That Experience has proved the present System of granting Tickets of Leave to Convicts to be injurious to the interests of Society, dangerous to the Security of Property, and tending to the increase rather than the Diminution of Crime; it is therefore most important and desirable that Her Majesty's Government should take the Matter into their serious Consideration, and devise some Means, either by Providing Employment for Convicts so released at home or in the Colonies, or otherwise, of relieving the Public and the Country from a most fearful and growing Evil."
LORD BERNERSwas sorry to hear that his noble Friend did not intend to press his Motion. From his own experience, and from all he had learned, he felt satisfied that the ticket-of-leave system had totally failed. He believed that the system had been the parent of a great number of additional offences. At Leicester he was informed that a larger number of ticket-of-leave convicts had been again convicted, of crime than appeared to be known to Her Majesty's Government.
The DUKE OF ARGYLLassured the noble Viscount that there was no disposition on the part of the Government to throw any obstacles in the way of an inquiry into the operation of the ticket-of-leave system. The question was now in the hands of Earl Stanhope, who had postponed for a certain time the nomination of his Committee, the appointment of which was not only not opposed, but even urged upon him by members of the Government as well as by other noble Lords, because a precisely similar inquiry was now in progress before a Select Committee of the other House.
256
But the noble Earl intended to proceed with his Committee, and certainly the Government would offer no opposition to him. The noble Marquess opposite (the Marquess of Salisbury) had complained the other day that he (the Duke of Argyll) had quoted a Report which was not in the hands of the other Members of the House; but the maps and tabular statements were fast approaching completion, and the Report would speedily be placed in their Lordships' hands. He must, however, remind the noble Marquess that Reports which showed the working of the ticket-of-leave system from its introduction in 1853 to the end of 1854 were before the House, and they proved that, in the four or five prisons to which they related, the proportion of recommittals to that of convicts released on tickets of leave was very small. In many cases satisfactory information had been received that ticket-of-leave men were obtaining honest and industrious livelihoods, and there was evidence to show that in some instances they had relapsed into crime, in consequence of the difficulty they experienced in obtaining employment. It appeared from a return which had been laid upon the table of the House of Commons, and which would be embodied in Colonel Jebb's Report, that the total number of convicts liberated on tickets of leave since the commencement of the system was upwards of 5,000, while the number of recommitments had only been 420. He did not mean to say that it was not desirable, so far as the people of this country were concerned, that convicts should be sent to distant colonies; but at present such an arrangement was impracticable, and they must therefore do their best with convicts at home.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYwas understood to say, that the results of Colonel Jebb's Reports, which had been published in the newspapers, scarcely bore out the statement of the noble Duke, and that he thought it was rather unfair that the noble Duke should take credit for the success of a system upon the authority of documents which were not upon their Lordships' table. He believed that the evils of the system would be considerably lessened if notice was given to the police when ticket-of-leave men were sent back to the country. It was said that such a system would prevent these men from obtaining employment; but he complained that no attempt had been made on the part of the Government

257
to provide persons in such a situation with work if they were unable to obtain it in any other way. The consequence was, that it was impossible to take up a newspaper without finding accounts of ticket-of-leave men being charged with crimes; and the effect of the ticket-of-leave system was to create an impression throughout the country that sentences passed by the Judges would not be carried out, and that crime might be committed without danger of punishment. He feared that if his noble Friend (Viscount Dungannon) forbore to press his Motion, nothing would be done with reference to this subject during the present Session.
THE DUKE OF ARGYLLsaid, that the Blue-books already upon the table showed the working of the ticket-of-leave system for upwards of a year. It appeared that at Portland Prison 331 prisoners had been discharged with licences to the end of 1854, of whom only four were returned to the prison with their licences revoked. At Dartmoor Prison, up to the same period, 467 prisoners were liberated on tickets of leave, and only three of these convicts were sent back to the prison in consequence of their licences having been revoked. The chaplain stated that he had heard of five more who had become inmates of prisons, but that he was daily receiving letters stating that men who had been discharged on tickets of leave were doing well, and were obtaining an honest livelihood. From Portsmouth Prison 358 convicts had been discharged on tickets of leave, only one of whom had been returned to the prison with his licence revoked, and satisfactory accounts had been received, directly or indirectly, of the conduct of many of the released prisoners. He (the Duke of Argyll) had never asserted that the ticket-of-leave system had been entirely successful, for a sufficient time had not elapsed since its introduction to justify any conclusion as to its efficiency, but, so far as the experiment had been tried, there was every reason to hope that it would ultimately succeed.
VISCOUNT DUNGANNONsaid, that, if the noble Duke would cause inquiries to be made of magistrates in agricultural districts and in populous manufacturing towns, he would find that the results of the ticket-of-leave system were of the most fearful and mischievous character. He hoped that an inquiry would be instituted on the subject without any unnecessary delay, and that a Committee would
258
be named soon after the Whitsuntide recess. If such a course was not taken, he should deem it his duty to agitate the question until it received the consideration to which he thought it was entitled, and which the public security demanded. For the present, however, he was content to withdraw the Motion of which he had given notice.
Motion, by leave of the House, withdrawn.
House adjourned to Monday the 19th instant.