Sitting of 13 April 1858

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1° Juries (Ireland); Hainault Forest (Allotment of Commons),
3° Customs Duties.

MILITARY SURGEONS—QUESTION.
MR. BRADYsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary for War if a Memorial was received by him from the Militia Surgeons of the embodied regiments, asking to be placed on a permanent footing; and, if so, what are the intentions of the Government on the subject?
GENERAL PEELsaid, he had received the Memorial alluded to by the hon. Gentleman, and had returned answer that he could not, under present circumstances, increase the expense of the permanent Staff of the Militia, which at present amounted to £159,000.

CHELSEA BRIDGE—QUESTION.
MR. BRADYsaid, he would now beg to ask the Chief Commissioner of Works if he is aware that Foot Passengers entering on the New Chelsea Bridge are compelled to pass over whether they desired it or not, and then to pay a second toll to be allowed to return; and, if so, whether he purposes taking any steps to remedy this inconvenience?
LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, he was aware that such was the case, and the arrangement had been entered into with the view of consulting the public convenience. When he mentioned that not less than 30,000 persons went over the bridge on Sunday last, it must be obvious that if, when they went part of the way over the bridge, they were then to turn round and walk back again on the comparatively narrow footpaths, much inconvenience would result. Of course, if public inconvenience resulted, some other arrangement would be made.

KENSINGTON GARDENS—QUESTION.
MR. W. EWARTsaid, he wished to inquire of the First Commissioner of Public Works whether there will be any objection to give the Public the benefit of an increased number of Scats round the larger trees in Kensington Gardens and Hyde Park?
LORD JOHN MANNERSreplied, that before the hon. Gentleman placed his Notice on the Paper, arrangements had been made for providing additional seats.

MEDITERRANEAN TELEGRAPHS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. CRAWFORDsaid, he would beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether any arrangements have been concluded, or are now under the considera-
  984
  tion of Her Majesty's Government, for extending the Mediterranean System of Telegraphs to Alexandria, and for bringing India into Telegraphic Communication with this Country by the way of the Red Sea, or by any other route; and whether, in the event of such arrangements having been resolved upon, Her Majesty's Government will lay upon the Table of the House the correspondence in reference thereto. He might, perhaps, be permitted to state, in explanation of the question, that a similar question was addressed to the noble Lord lately at the head of the Government, at the commencement of the Session, to which he replied that Government had been in communication with parties in reference to the extension of the telegraphic communication between Corfu and Alexandria, but that no arrangements had been entered into on the subject, and that no proposals had been made to the Government with regard to the extension of the telegraphic communication with India.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: No arrangements, Sir, have yet been made to effect the objects to which the hon. Gentleman refers, but I have hopes that in a very short time arrangements embracing all those objects will be concluded.
  MR. WILSONsaid, that he had a notice on the paper for certain Returns relating to this subject, but, as the negotiations were 3till pending, he was ready to postpone his Motion, if such was the wish of the right hon. Gentleman.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: It will be more convenient if no papers are moved for until all the arrangements are completed.
  MR. CRAWFORDsaid, he would beg to inquire whether the right hon. Gentleman would lay upon the table the correspondence on this subject, and also an estimate of the expense of establishing the proposed communication?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Until the arrangements are completed I cannot pledge myself to produce the papers, but in all probability there will be no objection to lay them on the table. As, however, I cannot foresee what communications may take place, I cannot at present give any pledge that they will be laid before Parliament, neither can I submit to the House any estimate of the expenditure until the nature of the engagements into which it may be necessary for the Government to enter, is fully known.
  MR. WYLDsaid, he wished to know whether any arrangements were pending with the Austrian Government on this subject?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Although, Sir, I think it advisable that the rule of the House which requires that hon. Members should give notice of their questions, should be adhered to, I feel no difficulty in answering the inquiry of the hon. Gentleman. Arrangements on this subject are at present in progress between the Austrian Government and that of Her Majesty, but I may be permitted to say that a portion of those arrangements as originally planned, which would have given a monopoly to the Austrian Government, does not form part of the negotiation now pending.
  MR. CRAWFORDsaid, he would give notice that on that day fortnight he should call attention to the subject of telegraphic communication with India, and would submit a Motion to the House.

NATIONAL COLLECTION OF PICTURES.

  QUESTION.
  LORD ELCHOsaid, he wished to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Government intend to take any steps during the present Session with a view to providing increased accommodation for the National Collection of Pictures?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I should be sorry to say that Her Majesty's Government do not intend to take any stops on this subject during the present Session; but it is not in my power to state specifically what measures they may propose. The matter is one which for many reasons cannot be long neglected; but I cannot at present submit any specific proposition to the House.

THE BRITISH ENVOY AT TURIN.

  QUESTION.
  MR. WISE: I wish to ask the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs whether Sir James Hudson is to remain at Turin as Her Majesty's Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary; and whether it is intended to recall the Secretary of Legation, Mr. Erskine, from the same Mission?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: In reply to that question, I have to inform the hon. Gentleman that there is no intention of recalling Sir James Hudson from Turin. Great services are not can-
  986
  celled by an act of carelessness, however it may be regretted for the moment. With respect to Mr. Erskine, he has been recalled to this country in order to explain his conduct, and he has been suspended.

STRAITS OF MALACCA.

  CORRESPONDENCE MOVED FOR.
  VISCOUNT BURYsaid, he rose, pursuant to notice, to call the attention of the House to the condition of the settlements in the Straits of Malacca,—namely, Penang, Singapore, and Malacca — commonly called the Straits Settlements; and to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether there would be any objection on the part of Her Majesty's Government to except the Straits Settlements from the action of the Bill for placing the territories of the East India Company under the control of the Crown, and to place them under the immediate control of the Secretary of State for the Colonies. He had put his notice on the paper in the form in which it stood, because as Her Majesty's Government had given an intimation that they were willing to submit a series of Resolutions on the subject of the Government of India in Committee of the House, perhaps they would allow this matter also to form one of the points so to be considered by the House. If hon. Gentlemen referred for a moment to the geographical position of the Straits Settlements, they would perceive that they were so situated at the base of the great Malayan peninsula as to be in the highway, as it wore, of the commerce between the east and the west, and that they also formed the most natural depots for the trade of the south and the east. This being the case, it was evident that the subject to which he now invited attention—the condition of the colonies of Singapore, Malacca, and Pulo Penang — was one of great national importance. In the earliest times, before Europeans traded in those seas, the Arabs and Hindoos, who then held the trade and commerce of India, had stations at those places, and every succeeding Government which had held the command of those settlements had invariably established trading points on the coast there, and regarded them as of great commercial importance. When the Dutch held the settlement of Malacca, when the British power was growing up in India, and when British traders began to establish commercial intercourse with China, it was found necessary to impose some check upon the aggressive and regressive policy of the

  987
  Dutch, the object of which was to prevent the native States from trading with British merchants, and at the latter end of the eighteenth century the settlement of Penang was formed. It was not, however, until 1819 that Sir Stamford Raffles, who had been Governor of India, appreciating the enormous commercial importance and valuable resources of Singapore, inaugurated that policy which had the effect of establishing British ascendancy in the Straits of Malacca. After great trouble both with the authorities in India and at home, he obtained leave to establish a settlement at Singapore, and in the course of a year the trade which had heretofore been carried on at Penang was almost entirely transferred to the new settlement. From that time to the present the trade of the Straits Settlement had enormously increased, and according to the last return for 1857 it amounted to the value of £15,000,000. After Sir Stamford Raffles had made the settlement at Singapore, and whilst it was progressing in this rapid and almost unprecedented manner under the control of the East India Company, whose servant he was, and in whose name he had founded and maintained it, the trade of the East India Company with China ceased to be a monopoly; consequently it ceased to be a matter of great importance to India whether Singapore and the Straits Settlements continued to flourish or not. But in proportion as it ceased to be an object of exclusive importance to India whether the trade flourished or not, in that proportion did ft become a matter of importance to this country. These Straits Settlements were, in the strict sense of the word, "colonies;" for bodies of men were established there under British rule, attracted by the security of British laws, and perhaps the personal influence of British subjects. These were by no means a conquered people, such as were the inhabitants of India, who were ruled and kept under entirely by the strong hand. In very many respects they were placed in a much more advantageous position than the people of India. Their trade, which in 1840 amounted to only £4,000,000, had, as already stated, increased to £15,000,000 in 1857. By a very fortunate accident, at the first establishment of Penang the land tenures were granted in perpetuity. When the Dutch were in possession of the country they granted enormous tracts of land to any one who chose to claim them; but when the settlements were ceded to the
  988
  English there was a difficulty in carrying out the land tenures as they had been ceded by the Dutch, because, though the Dutch settlers were willing enough to give up all the lands which they did not use, yet they reserved to themselves the right that if these territories should afterwards pass out of the hands of the British, then their heirs would be replaced in possession. The Straits Settlements had properly no connection with India. They had ceased to be of any importance to that empire since India had ceased to trade exclusively with China, in fact, they appeared to be only regarded by the Indian Government as useful for a convict station. The whole of the convicts of Bombay, Madras, and Bengal were sent there, and one of the principal complaints made in the Singapore petition, which he had the honour of presenting to this House some few weeks ago, was that they were not only made the receptacle of the scum of the Indian population, but by a system of injustice, which he believed to be almost unprecedented in history, were compelled to pay the whole expense, not only of the convict establishments, but of the military who guarded them. Another instance which showed how little the Government of India knew or cared about the prosperity of Singapore was an interference with their currency. The East India Company wished to establish one uniform currency all over their territories, and introduced the rupee and smaller Indian coinage into the Straits Settlements, which had always hitherto been accustomed to a dollar currency. The small Indian coinage did not fit into the dollar currency, and great confusion and embarrassment to trade had resulted. Another complaint made by the inhabitants of Singapore related to the restrictions which at various times had been sought to be imposed on the freedom of their trade. The great foundation of the prosperity of Singapore was that it had heretofore been a free port, and therefore attracted much of the shipping which passed the Straits on its way to China. The East India Company, however, attempted to impose tonnage dues upon shipping frequenting the port, and were only prevented from inflicting this injustice upon the people of Singapore by the most energetic remonstrances to the home Government. All these circumstances proved, he thought, that the interests of the Straits Settlemenrs were very much more Imperial than Indian, and that those settlements would be much better govern-

  989
  ed if they were brought immediately under the control of the Secretary of State for the Colonies. Another point was that Singapore required protection against the aggressive policy of the Dutch, who prevented the native States from trading with them and diverted their trade into Dutch ports. At present these settlements were under a delegated authority from India, consisting of a governor at Singapore with resident councillors at Penang and Malacca, on whose reports, made secretly, the Indian Government were obliged entirely to depend. The population had no means of forwarding their views to head-quarters, and questions were often decided without any regard to their feelings, and in fact entirely at variance with them. One advantage, indeed, they possessed. Their laws were not administered by the Company's civil servants, but by trained barristers; and they also had the advantage of a grand jury, which might, he hoped, hereafter form the nucleus of a constitutional Government there. These grand juries had repeatedly, when the Judges were on their circuits, pointed out the different requirements of the colonies; but the unvarying answer of the Indian Government had always been that, without entering into the rights of the question, they were not prepared to entertain the subject at all. Since the Singapore petition had been sent home all public works in the Straits Settlements had been stopped; but it was surely very hard that this colony, which had really nothing more to do with India than Nova Scotia or Canada, should be deprived of all useful public works simply because of the events which had happened in India. These were the principal grounds on which they begged that they might be removed from the control of the East India Company, and placed immediately under the authority of the Crown. Looking at the enormous progress which these settlements had made in a few years, the large European community assembled there, and their peculiar advantages and position for trading purposes, he hoped to hear from the Government a satisfactory answer to the question of which he had given notice. In 1809 the island of Singapore was nothing but a resort of Malay fishermen and pirates; now there was a large settlement there under English laws, which, situated as it was, midway between India and Australia, effected a junction between the trade of the North and the trade of the South. In
  990
  addition, he begged to move for copies of any correspondence which had taken place between Her Majesty's Government and the East India Company on the subject of the Straits settlements, in order that the House might have the advantage of listening to any discussion which might arise.
  MR. BAILLIEsaid, he was free to confess, as the noble Lord had anticipated, that the subject which he had brought under the notice of the House had not sufficiently occupied the attention of the Government. The fact was that they did not consider it necessary, at a time when the whole Government of India was about to be discussed in this House, to deal with questions of detail respecting what must at present, at all events, be considered a portion of the Indian empire. Nor was it possible for the Government to have taken this subject into consideration, for in order to do that, it would have been necessary to communicate with the Home Government ', of India and the Governor General, since, j as the noble Lord had stated, this colony was one of the great penal stations for Indian convicts. With regard to the complaints made in the petition, which had been presented by the noble Lord, and reiterated to-night, he (Mr. Baillie) could not altogether admit their justice. It was alleged, first of all, that the Indian Government had made repeated attempts to impose duties on the trade of Singapore, which attempts had only been frustrated by appeals to the home authorities. Now, the petitioners could hardly complain that their interests were unattended to when their grievances had thus been redressed. Again, with regard to the complaints about their currency, it was very natural that the Governor General should desire to establish a uniform currency throughout the whole of the territories subject to his authority. But, after the complaints made at Singapore, this grievance also was redressed, and the currency which had been imposed on the colony was changed back to the dollar currency. He thought that this, therefore, did not give the petitioners a right to complain. The only just ground of complaint which, in his opinion, those colonists could urge was, that Singapore had been made a penal settlement, and that, no doubt, was a complaint which was well entitled to consideration. It should, however, be borne in mind that Singapore had been made a penal settlement before it had risen to its present importance, and that the prosperity which it now enjoyed

  991
  was to no small extent the result of convict labour. The convicts had been employed in dock labour and on public works, and now, as often happened with the colonies, when they rose to wealth and power, they desired to get rid of those very means by the help of which they had risen. But, although he was prepared to admit that the complaint to which he had just adverted was one which was deserving of notice, he could by no means concur in the justice of the statement which had been made by the noble Lord, to the effect that the expenses connected with the maintenance of the military establishment at Singapore were entirely defrayed by the colonists. Such was by no means the case, and he might add that the military defences of the colony involved a question of the utmost importance for the consideration of the Government; because, if Singapore were to become a Crown colony, this country would have to take upon itself the onus of defraying the charge for its military defence—a charge which could not be estimated at a less sum than £300,000 per annum. The House would recollect at the commencement of the Chinese war great excitement prevailed in Singapore, inasmuch as there were 40,000 or 50,000 Chinese at the time in the colony. It had, therefore, been deemed expedient to increase, to a considerable extent, its military defences, and he believed that there were at the present moment no less than three regiments stationed in the settlement. At no period, indeed, could its garrison, in his opinion, be estimated at less than two regiments and a battery of artillery, the maintenance of which would cost this country nearly £300,000 per annum at the very lowest calculation; for that was an amount of expenditure which could not be thrown upon the resources of the colony itself, inasmuch as its revenue was barely sufficient to defray its ordinary civil expenditure and to admit of its furnishing £15,000 a year towards the outlay for military purposes. The subject, therefore, was one which was well worthy of serious consideration; and before Parliament proceeded to take any active steps with respect to it, it would do well, he thought, to bear in mind that the commerce of Singapore had within the last six years increased at least 75 per cent.—a fact which afforded the best evidence of the prosperity of the colony. Under these circumstances, he trusted that the noble Lord would be satisfied with the explanation which he had given in refer-
  992
  ence to a subject which had not as yet been brought under the special consideration of the Government, and which, when the future Government of India was settled, might at any time press itself upon their attention.
  MR. HORSMANsaid, he thought the case of Singapore was one of those instances in which the Legislature showed an ignorance of, and want of sympathy with, the settlements and dependencies of the country by no means creditable to it. The hon. Gentleman who had just sat down treated this question as if it were one of complaint against the East India Company, but he believed, from all the information he had been able to obtain, that the question was rather one of public policy. There was not in history an instance of such remarkable growth as the settlement of Singapore. Forty years ago it was a mere haunt of pirates, but now its trade had risen to the value of £10,000,000 per annum,—a trade which had, as had been stated by the hon. Gentleman who had just spoken, increased 75 per cent. during the last six years. Now, that progress had been made in spite of misgovernment which, if it ever came to be detailed, would surprise the House. Take two of those cases which had been mentioned. Nothing could be more natural, said the hon. Gentleman who had just spoken, than that the Governor General should think that the currency which was suitable for India would also be suitable for Singapore, and so by a single stroke of the pen the prosperity of the whole island was jeopardized. The other case was still more remarkable. Singapore, though a small island, was made the depot for criminal convicts from all parts of India, and the colony was not only made to pay their expenses, but, as if to cap the climax, they had to receive Sepoy regiments to guard them. Now, suppose these Sepoys had sympathised with their brethren in Bengal and mutinied, let the House conceive what would have been the effect in Singapore. The real question for their consideration was, what had Singapore to do with India? They were now legislating on the principle that India should govern India; but why should it govern Singapore? Ceylon was only eighty-five miles from Singapore, but it was a colony independent of India; but Singapore, though it was nearer to China than to India, and though it had more trade with England and with China than with India, was dependent upon India.

  993
  They might as well have made Hong-Kong, or Australia, or the Cape of Good Hope, colonies dependent on India, as Singapore. Singapore, with its thousands of Chinese inhabitants, was well called the Liverpool of the East, and he thought they ought to seize every opportunity of fostering its trade. The hon. Gentleman, however, had stated very fairly that this question had not yet been considered by the Government, and his noble Friend had properly refrained from pressing the Government to come to an early decision on the subject. He thought his noble Friend had acted wisely in doing so. If the Government should—which he did not anticipate—decide against Singapore, it would then be time to appeal to the House, and he had no doubt the House would support him.
  SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONEsaid, as one possessing some knowledge of Singapore, he wished to say a few words upon the occasion. He, certainly, had never until now heard any suggestion that Singapore should be placed under the control of the Colonial Office, and he was not at present prepared to give an opinion upon the point; but, having been at Singapore in 1820, when the settlement was first formed, he would give the House some information respecting it. At that time, it was an island, inhabited only by a few Malay fishermen; but, being singularly well adapted, by its position, to intercept the whole trade of the Eastern Archipelago, Sir Stamford Raffles, one of the ablest men who ever visited the East, recommended its settlement. In consequence of its advantageous position, the progress of the settlement had been extraordinarily rapid, and it was now a vast entrepot for the commerce of that part of the world. In the first instance, it was necessary to send thither convicts, to perform public works, roads, and harbours; and a very small military force was sent, to keep them in order; but, as the settlement increased in importance, the elements of disorder increased likewise, for the population, which resorted to Singapore for the purposes of trade, was drawn from the most lawless and savage of Eastern races, —the Bugis, from Celebes; the Sarawak Dyaks, from Borneo; the Syaks, inhabitants of Sumatra, and other wild races, furnished their quota to the population of Singapore. In addition, however, there was a largo Chinese population, who resorted to the settlement in order to make
  994
  money, with which to return to China. Those men came unaccompanied by women, and they associated with the natvei women of the country, from which connection had sprung a numerous race, called Klings, a most disorderly people. It had, therefore, become necessary to increase the military force, to preserve order among those people, and not on account of the convict population in the settlement, of whom he had never heard any complaints made, but from whom, on the contrary, the residents usually selected their domestic servants. He once knew a lady, the wife of an officer in high position, at Penang, who told him she always selected her servants from that class; and, upon his asking whether she preferred thieves or murderers for service in her nursery, replied that she always chose murderers, their crimes having been generally committed from motives of jealousy, and those motives ceasing, they were very desirable servants. He had never heard that the convicts were at all disagreeable to the residents in the settlement; hut he knew that they were useful in constructing roads, bridges, and other public works, which otherwise would not be performed. He was inclined to agree with the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Board of Control, that it would be a great burden for this country to take upon itself the charge of maintaining peace among that mixed and lawless population. He had no doubt there might be defects in the management of the Strait Settlements, but there could be no doubt but that these settlements were rising in importance. There was, however, an insuperable obstacle to the colonization of the island of Singapore, and that was the immense number of tigers which swam over from the opposite shore, from which Singapore was separated only by a small stream. The opposite coast was an impenetrable jungle, tenanted by vast numbers of tigers, more bold and ferocious than any to be found in other parts of India; and scarcely a month passed without some native being carried off bodily by those animals. That circumstance operated to prevent the cultivation of spice and sugar, for which, otherwise, the country was excellently adapted.
  MR. MANGLESsaid, that he did not wish, on the part of the East India Company, to put forth a decided claim to the control over the Strait Settlements; but he

  995
  wished to correct some statements which were contained in a pamphlet, written by an esteemed friend, Mr. John Crawford, the author of Our Eastern Archipelago. In that pamphlet, it was stated that the revenue of the three Strait Settlements— Malacca, Penang, and Singapore—were burdened with charges which were never imposed upon the local revenues of any colony, and that out of it were defrayed the expenses of the military and naval services, and also for the maintenance of transported felons from Madras, Bombay, and Bengal. The fact, however, was, that the charge for the convicts was borne by the Presidencies whence they were sent, and all the military and naval expenses were also defrayed by India. The gross revenues of the Strait settlements in 1855–6 was £97,904; the expenditure for purely local charges, independent of the cost for military and naval purposes, was £74,753, leaving only a balance of £23,151, to meet those expenses which, it had been said, were defrayed by the inhabitants of those settlements, but which, in fact, were paid for by the poor ryots of India. At this moment, the Indian Government was building gunboats at Bombay, to put down piracy in the Straits, the expense of which must come upon the British Government if the wishes of the noble Lord were agreed to. The right hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Horsman) had stated that the settlement of Singapore was exposed to danger from the convicts; but the last speaker had shown how unfounded was the apprehension. The real danger—and a most serious one it was—arose from the large Chinese population in the Strait Settlements; and he would warn the hon. Gentleman opposite, and the House, that, unless strong measures were taken, such as the Government of India were now considering, with respect to the Chinese population and their secret societies, the safety of the settlements would be more jeopardized by those people than ever it would be by the convicts or the tigers. That being the case, he did not know that the control of those settlements was of great importance to the Indian Government, especially as, having lately taken possession of the Andaman Islands, they no longer needed Singapore as a depôt for their convicts; but he would advise the Government not to deal with this matter without consulting the Governor General.
  996
  If that officer should see no objection to the change, he did not know that the East India Company would be at all unwilling to part with its control over these settlements.
  Motion agreed to.
  Copies ordered,—
  "Of any Correspondence which may have taken place between Her Majesty's Government and the East India Company on the subject of the Settlements in the Straits of Malacca."

  THE STADE DUES—ADDRESS MOVED.
  MR. J. L.RICARDO:* Sir, I rise to move an Address to the Crown with the avowed object of obtaining the abolition of the Stade Dues.
  Every one who has paid attention to the Returns of the Board of Trade must have looked with alarm at the falling off of our exports during the last two or three months. The amount of our exports during the first two months of 1858, as compared with the corresponding months of 1857, is less by £3,800,000, while for the same period the amount of tonnage has diminished 207,000 tons. I am aware that the House and the country have of late been more inclined to look for prosperity to ships bristling with cannon than to fleets laden with merchandise, and to regard our armies in the field as of more importance than the legions labouring in the factory; but trade has created a population which we cannot maintain, but which can maintain itself if we give free scope to its labour and full development to S its industry, and any obstacle or impediment in its way demands the anxious and patient consideration of this House, and the immediate attention and action of the Government of this essentially commercial country. On this ground I ask the indulgence of the House whilst I make a short statement on the subject of the Stade Dues, which I regard as no mean impediment to the progress of our trade.
  Not the least important part of our foreign trade is that which we carry on with the free city of Hamburgh. It involved a money value, during the last year, for exports alone, exceeding £13,000,000 sterling. The approach to Hamburgh, as every one knows, is by the River Elbe, one bank of which is in the territory of the Duchy of Sleswig Holstein, and the other is under the dominion of Hanover, by whom it was somewhat irregularly acquired only in the year 1715. About

  997
  forty miles distant from the mouth of the river, and twenty-three miles from Hamburgh (I speak in round numbers), just at the confluence of the Elbe, and the smaller stream of the Schwinge, is a little town called Stade, and an insignificant fortress, and still more insignificant harbour, designated as the Port and Fort of Brünhausen. At this point every ship of every country, with the exception of those of Hamburgh and of Hanover, is called upon to interrupt her passage, and is compelled to bring-to and show her papers (many of which are specially required for the purpose) to the Hanoverian functionary; and on these being considered satisfactory by that redoubtable individual, she is graciously permitted to proceed on her voyage. On her arrival at Hamburg, a Hanoverian Commissioner stationed there makes his appearance, and proceeds to charge duty on the goods forming her cargo—such duty amounting to from one-fourth to three-eighths per cent. ad valorem, though upon many articles, principally the staple commodities of the country, the charge is considerably higher; and not until all demands are satisfied, and all the arbitrary regulations imposed by the Hanoverian authorities are complied with, is the ship permitted to break bulk, and the cargo allowed to be discharged. It is an axiom in political economy, indeed one of the universally acknowledged rudiments of that science, that the cost of production of an article is not the outlay expended on the manufacture of the merchandise when it leaves the factory door, but the cost which has been incurred in respect to it when it arrives at the market where it meets with the competition of other manufacturers. The only proper way therefore in which we can calculate the incidence of this tax, is to look to the proportion that it bears to the freight, and to ascertain how far the cost of carriage is enhanced by the additional burden of the Stade Dues. Now I have before me a well-authenticated statement with regard to a cargo of goods from Hull to Hamburgh, which shows the relative proportions of the freight paid by the merchant, and the toll levied upon him by Hanover upon the absolute cost of the goods; and it will be found that the cost of the carriage of goods to Hamburgh is increased by the exaction of these dues in a proportion the House probably will hardly credit.
  From the statement to which I refer, it appears that on two cargoes of woollen
  998
  carpets, the freight was 1 5–8 marcs banco, and the toll 11–16, showing 65 per cent. additional expenditure on account of the toll. On five casks of drugs there were paid 18 9–16 marcs banco for freight, and 12½ for toll, being 66 per cent. additional expenditure. On 28 bales of woollen goods (five cases) there were paid 59 7–16 marcs banco for freight, and 57¼ for toll, being 96 per cent. additional expenditure. For one cask silk goods there were paid 13 marcs banco for freight, and 14g for toll, being 108 per cent. additional. For 58 bales of cotton goods there were paid 158 marcs banco for freight, and 202 for toll, making an addition of 128 per cent. For two cases of cotton and silk goods there were paid in freight 2 marcs banco, and for toll 3 3–8, or 168 per cent. additional expenditure. This is startling enough; but in addition to this increased cost there is another and still more serious impediment to the free course and current of all commercial transactions. Under pain of a heavy fine, levied upon the slightest infringment of the regulations, on the sole assumed authority of Hanover, in a port not her own, the British merchant is obliged to carry two sets of papers with his ship, and, beyond the ordinary documents usually required, he has to furnish a description of the origin, nature, and value of his cargo, and to state particulars that he is not called upon to show at any other ports in Europe. I need not say how great is the delay, inconvenience, expense, and annoyance of these arbitrary proceedings, but it is only on a due compliance with her despotic commands that Hanover condescends to allow British ships to enter a port where she has no natural authority whatever, or accords to the Englishman her affable permission to return home to a British harbour. But this not the full extent of the evil. Not very long since Hanover, contrary to the position of things when the treaty of 1844 was signed, had joined that combination against maritime trade, and that antagonistic system to British commercial interests generally, which is known as the Zollverein, and has thereupon proceeded to make a political engine of the Brunhausen Toll, by exempting ships going to Harburgh from the operations of the tax, while those bound to Hamburgh remain subject to the imposition. The object of this, of course, is to divert the trade from the free port of Hamburgh to the inconvenient and shallow harbour of the Zoll-

  999
  verein at Harburgh— to drive our trade from a city and population where we are received with every facility, all free reciprocity, and with a cordial and friendly co-operation which for centuries has endured, and which I trust may continue for centuries yet to come—to a port where we are met by every form of protection and prohibition, and regarded as rivals and antagonists. It may be said now, as indeed it has been said privately to me by those high in office, and for whose judgment I am bound to feel respect, that this is a question not between England and Hanover, but between Hanover and Hamburgh, and that it matters little to England whether their commerce is carried on through one port or the other. But those who advance this position, however sound and undoubted may be their diplomatic experience, can have little practical knowledge of the details, the necessities, and the deep-rooted habits of commercial intercourse. Do they imagine for a moment that it would be an easy matter for British merchants to change the course of that mighty trade which has long been directed through Hamburgh, scattering thence our goods and manufactures to all parts of Germany and the north of Europe? Do they suppose that it is a simple, nay that it is a possible, task to change at once their agents and correspondents, to repose in new men, under new conditions, that confidence and to afford that credit which is at the bottom of all commercial transactions. If the trade of Germany is to be diverted from that great city which has made for itself wealth, population, and importance—without territory, without an army, with no fleet save its merchantmen, but by the mere force of its industry, its energy, its perseverance, and its enterprise—let me warn the House to beware lest it be diverted not only from Hamburgh but from Great Britain—lest it be carried on, not by British ships, but by foreign railways, and lest the restrictions and the protections of the Zollverein come to the aid of the Hanoverian Stade Dues to the exclusion of British merchants and British shipowners—not altogether, perhaps, for British energy is not easily defeated, but in a degree that will be seriously felt by the working classes and the manufacturers of England.
  We complain, then, that we are subject to a toll which enhances the cost of our manufactures, and militates against our competition in the German markets and
  1000
  in those of northern Europe; we complain that we are subjected to a differential duty as between our ships and the ships of Hanover and of Hamburgh; we complain that an attempt is being made, by means of these duties, to divert our trade into a new channel, where we shall meet our rivals under a disadvantage; we complain of expense, delay, annoyance, and injustice, and we call upon the House of Commons and the Government to come to our aid in our emergency.
  And what is it that we receive for all this arbitrary interference with our traffic? What service does the Crown of Hanover perform for which payment is required? None whatever. The whole expense of maintaining the navigation of the Elbe, from its mouth to its last navigable point, is defrayed, not by Hanover, but by this very city of Hamburgh against whom the taxation and the exemption are, with equal oppression and injustice, more especially levelled. Surely there must be some remarkable or extraordinary circumstances which can induce Europe and the United States to submit to this tax upon their commerce for the benefit of a country which is not concerned in it, and which has no means of enforcing its arbitrary demands. If such there be, I have been unable to discover them. We might just as well consider ourselves bound by a law enacted by Edward the Confessor to pay a toll to a private individual for the power of passing through the street as to hold ourselves shackled by an edict of Conrad the Second, passed in the year 1038, to pay for the privilege of passing a particular point on the river Elbe. But such is the position; we are submitting now to an ordinance of eight hundred years ago, when might was right, and each man took who had the power, and each man kept who could — the ordinance of an almost forgotten dynasty ruling over a long since dismembered empire. It is not my purpose to trace the history of the Stade Dues over this eight hundred years, it may suffice to say that this right of mulcting the commerce of the world and levying black mail on ships of free nations trading to a free port has been bought and sold and given as a marriage portion and made the subject of treaties and wars, just as if it had been a territory or a property to be bartered like merchandise. I shall come at once to the year 1715, when Hanover first assumed the right of that imposition; and I call the attention of my hon. Friend

  1001
  the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whom I see industriously taking notes of what I say, to put this down among them. In the year 1715, Denmark, having conquered from Sweden the Duchies of Bremen and Verden, the possession of whose territory involved under the edict of 1.038 the assumed right of levying these dues, sold them to George the First King of England and Elector of Hanover, for a sum of £150,000. £150,000 was paid from the taxation of the people of England for the territory which claimed the power of exacting the Brüuhausen Toll. I know very well that it was pretended, and it was asserted in Parliament, that the King paid this amount, to use his own expression, "out of his own pocket." "Out of his own pocket!" when it is well known that he arrived in this country an impoverished man surrounded with a rapacious following. "Out of his own pocket!" when no less a sum than £700,000 was voted in that very year of 1715 for his civil list and personal expenses. But this £150,000 was hut a small part of the cost to England of the acquisition of these dominions: one of the stipulations made by Denmark and the main part of the consideration demanded and accorded for the cession of the Duchies was, that England was to declare war against Sweden, to raise an army to defend her new possessions, and to send a fleet to the Baltic; and in accordance with this agreement a fleet did actually sail under Sir John Nicol, which is a matter of history. Will any man say, will any interested functionary have the effrontery to assert, that this war expenditure was defrayed from "the King's own pocket"? Will anyone assert that the taxation wrung from the people of England was not used to purchase a power, or a claim to a power, now exercised against us, and that we ourselves have not paid for an imposition levied against us till this day? I am not asserting here anything which is not a matter of historical record. In 1717 the King sent a message to Parliament, asking for an extraordinary supply to fit out a fleet to maintain possession of the Duchies of Bremen and Verden, hut the vote only passed by a majority of four, and that not without opposition. I think that there are few here who will doubt that, notwithstanding the Parliament of that day was an unreformed representation of public opinion—that it was a Parliament composed of men more of less
  1002
  under the influence of the Government and of the Court—nevertheless there was sufficient patriotic feeling even then to make it certain that that majority of four would have been converted into a considerable minority had any one been able to suppose that there was the slightest probability that the Stade Dues would be continued to be levied against us, or that it were possible that it would be necessary in the year 1858 that any Independent Member of Parliament should be standing up in his place to protest, as I am protesting now, against the interference of Hanover with British commerce and British shipping. I will not weary the House (which has been good enough hitherto to accord to me so close an attention) by quoting historical authorities, but I cannot refrain from reading a short extract from Belsham's History of Great Britain, describing the manner in which part of the money for the expenses of the fleet raised for the Baltic was granted by the House of Commons. Belsham says (this was in January, 1817): —
  "A supply of £250,000 was accordingly voted, but by a perilous majority of four voices only, and not without vehement debate and opposition, chiefly in consequence of an alarming division in the administration, and the eventual secession of various of its members distinguished equally by eminence of station and ability—amongst whom Lord Townshend, sometime Secretary of State, and lately appointed Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, and Mr. Walpole, who had succeeded the Earl of Halifax as First Commissioner of the Treasury, appeared most conspicuous.
  "The leaders of the secession, by the faint and languid support which those who took any part in the debate gave to this Motion, and the obstinate silence of the rest, sufficiently showed their disapproval of the conduct of the Court, which, for the sake of an useless acquisition of territory in Germany, scrupled not to involve Great Britain in an expensive, dangerous, and destructive war. And it was now clearly perceived, though unfortunately at a period too late, that the separation of the Kingdom from the Electorate ought to have constituted the basis of the settlement of the Crown upon the House of Hanover. The Message was declared by Mr. Shippen to be unparliamentary and unprecedented; penned, he supposed, by some foreigner totally unacquainted with their accustomed forms of procedure, and their invariable usage of granting money only on estimate and for certain specified services."
  Such was the manner in which this outlay was regarded in 1817; but the cost to this country of the Stade Dues did not end here. Not only did we pay the sums to which I have alluded on being involved in a war with Sweden—the political consequences of which went nigh to change the dynasty of England, and had almost led to an in-

  1003
  vasion of the country—but on the termination of hostilities, which happily occurred on the death of Charles the Twelfth, a further sum of a million of rix dollars was paid by England, not out of "the King's own pocket," but out of the taxation of the people, to retain peaceable possession of the ceded territories, including of course the power of levying the Stade Dues. But, so strongly was it felt, and so universally was it admitted, that England had been sacrificed in these transactions, and that the position that she was to be called upon for heavy contributions to achieve her own disadvantage was utterly and demonstrably indefensible, that in the reign of George the Second the duties were remitted; the Brünhausen Toll was abandoned so far as regarded the ships of Great Britian; and there is a Memorial extant from the merchant adventurers trading to Hamburgh, "thanking his Majesty and accepting only as their undoubted right this act of justice and equity;" even as there is a Memorial or rather a remonstrance in the succeeding reign indignantly complaining of the re-imposition of these dues; for it was not until long after the accession of George the Third to the Throne, and under a Regency of which we have no reason to be proud, that the Stade Duties were re-imposed. Their re-imposition was submitted to only because it took place at a time when it was supposed that the Congress of Vienna, which was about to meet, would settle all matters relative to the navigable rivers of Germany —and so it was. By the Treaty of Vienna it was agreed that the navigation of all German rivers should be free, and that no charge should be levied upon the ships of one country which was not paid by those of another. By the Treaty of Vienna the navigation of the River Elbe became as open and as unimpeded and as free as is the navigation of the River Thames, so far as pen and ink could make it.
  Article 108 of the Convention of the Congress of Vienna, dated 9 June, 1815, sets forth as follows:—
  Les Puissances dont les états sont separés ou traversés par une même rivière navigable s'engagent a régler d'un commun accord tout ce qui a rapport à la navigation de cette riviére.
  Elles nommeront à cet effet des Commissaires qui se réuniront au plus tard six mois après la fin du Congrès et qui prendront pour bases de leurs travaux les principes.
  109. La Navigation dans tout le cours des rivières indiquées dans Particle précédent, du
  1004
  point oú chacune d'elles devient navigable jusqu'à son embouchure, sera entiérement libre, et no pourra, sous le rapport de commerce, être interdite a personne, bien entendu, que l'on se conformera aux réglemens relatifs a la police de cette navigation, lesquels seront conpus d'une maniére uniforme pour tous, et aussi favorable que possible, au commerce de toutes les nations.
  110. Le système qui sera établi tant pour la perception des droits que pour le maintien de la police, autant que faire se pourra, sera le même pour tout le cours de la rivière, et s'étendra aussi, a moins que des circonstances particulières ne s'y opposent, sur ceux de ses embranchemens et confluens qui dans leur cours navigable separent ou traversent differents etats.
  But the Elector of Hanover, represented by the Regent, counting upon the support of a subservient ministry in England, and obtaining that support, I am ashamed to say, even against the best interests of her people, had no idea of abandoning a revenue exclusively enjoyed by himself, and being a part of his own private emolument. Using therefore his power as King of England to serve his purpose as Elector of Hanover, what was the pretext he availed himself of for continuing the Stade Duties, and thus evading the arrangement of Vienna? When the Commission of the Riverian States assembled to adopt the necessary police regulations, it was contended on behalf of Hanover that this was a sea and not a river duty, and under that miserable pretence the impost was retained. Had the interests of England alone been considered in Downing Street, had the Government of that day not aided and abetted in the infliction of a great wrong to the trade and commerce of their country, I do not believe that this argument would have been sustained for twenty-four hours; but every possible influence was brought to bear upon the Commission, every possible delay and impediment was thrown in the way of the settlement of all the complicated questions before them, until this point was attained, until at last the Commissioners, worn out by the pertinacity with which it was advocated, and protesting that they submitted to an assumption which they were powerless to prevent, reluctantly and guardedly allowed the dues to be continued. In the year 1844 the manner in which the dues were levied, which I am bound to say was still more vexatious than the present mode adopted, and their injurious effects on our commerce, led to a compromise being effected, and somewhat precipitately, and, as I think, very unwisely, in that year a treaty was concluded, under which the arrangements I have mentioned still remain in force. That treaty

  1005
  and that alone is the one single acknowledgment of England's submission to be taxed at all. What, therefore, I want the House to do is to present a respectful Address to the Queen, asking Her Majesty to instruct Her Ministers to take advantage of a clause in the Treaty of 1844, which was evidently penned in contemplation of the arrival of a time when the people of England would no longer submit to this imposition, and to give notice that at the expiration of twelve months the treaty would terminate. I am far from advocating such a proceeding as that of attempting to evade a treaty. The Treaty of 1844 undoubtedly exists, and so long as it continues in force every remonstrance addressed to Hanover will be met as it has been met by the simple rejoinder, that she will not argue the question with us; that, right or wrong, whether reasonably or unreasonably, we have entered into a treaty in which we undertake to pay tribute for the privilege of trading with Hamburgh, and she will call upon us to act up to the provisions of that treaty. And consistently with that good faith which is the pride and boast of Britain, we have no alternative but to bow our heads and submit. If, however, notice were once given (and I say it is incumbent upon us that it should be given without delay) of the termination of the treaty as provided for by its 8th Article, we should be free to place Hanover upon her defence, while she herself would be compelled to adopt a very different tone, and to show herself more accommodating and more accessible to our reasonable remonstrance. I have carefully studied this particular point: I have sought for information on the subject both from English and foreign jurists, and I cannot concur with those who, having given, perhaps, less attention to the subject than myself, apprehend that the extinction of the treaty would send us back to the complicated and still more onerous state of things which existed previous to the arrangement of 1844. By the Convention between the Elbe-bordering States, signed at Dresden April 13th, 1844, the tariff now in force has been determined; and the first article of that Convention distinctly lays down that it cannot be altered without the consent, not of the majority, but each particular one of the contracting States. The words are: "That the Regulations which will come into force in October, 1844, cannot be altered without the common consent of the contracting States." It is true that
  1006
  Hanover may withdraw, if she be allowed to levy this duty at all, so much of her concession of 1844 which accepts two-thirds of the toll specified in the tariff of the 15th of April, 1844, on certain articles; but these same reductions have been granted subsequently to the vessels and goods of all other nations, and it is not to be anticipated that she will be enabled to make a general advance, however trifling, in her arbitrary claim upon the commerce of the world. So that if the Treaty of 1844; were abolished to-morrow, it would scarcely be otherwise than that the existing regulations would, so far as Hanover desires, still continue in force, while there will be no official acknowledgment on our part of the power of Hanover to levy these duties at all, and we shall be at liberty to take any course we please with regard to them. Doubtless, by the same rule under which Hanover levies ¼ per cent she may levy 50 per cent; by the same rule and right under which she detains ships four and-twenty hours in the Elbe she may lay an embargo upon them for a fortnight: but surely the forbearance of Europe has a limit, and it is possible that we may pluck up courage enough to defend the interests of England, even though we have no Treaty of 1844. There are those, and they are to be found principally in the ports more immediately and especially injured by this toll, who advocate the redemption of these duties by a money payment, and who look to a simple, easy, comfortable, and speedy severance of the knot by the purchase of the Brunhausen Toll upon the same principle as that upon which the Sound Dues were redeemed; but it is plain, obvious, and undeniable that no analogy exists between the two cases, and, for my part, I have no idea of calling upon my constituents to subscribe a sum of money for the purpose of funding an injustice or of capitalising a wrong. Whether this tribute be paid annually or all at once, it is equally indefensible and equally extortionate. If it can be shown that there exists any international law which justifies the interposition of one country for its own, private benefit between the commerce of others; if it can be explained that there is any, the slightest, service rendered which justifies a demand for a reasonable payment in return; if it can be proved that any strategical position is occupied which comprehends a claim for an acknowledgment in the shape of tribute from the ships of the world: if this levying of black

  1007
  mail can be defended by any fiscal right, or is authorised by any commercial usage, then it will be time enough to consider, not what amount we shall pay for its redemption, but what sum should be deducted as a set-off from our claim upon Hanover for the cost of the Duchies of Bremen and of Verden.
  In submitting my Resolution to the House, I have no wish to embarrass Her Majesty's Government in the matter, and I cannot but think that if they accept it they will thereby strengthen their position, inasmuch as Hanover will perceive that the Parliament of Great Britain will no longer submit to an unfounded and an unjustifiable claim. The Thames, and the Tyne, and the Mersey, and the Clyde, are as free to the ships of Hanover as to those of the United Kingdom. Every British port from Plymouth Sound to the Frith of Forth is open to the merchantmen of the world on the same terms and under the same regulations as to our own. And it is a humiliation and a disgrace to the flag of England that it should be under the command of any country in any particular spot of the world, and that our ships should not enjoy the same immunities and the same facilities as we ourselves accord to those of other nations. I believe that the exaction of this toll is an infringement of international law, a sordid and grasping attempt to interpose between the intercourse of nations, and a disgrace to the usages of the civilised world, and, so long as I have the honour of a seat in this House, I shall not cease my exertions to abrogate what I regard as a most oppressive tax upon the commerce of this country; and so, Sir, I beg to place in your hands a Resolution.
  Mr. BRAMLEY-MOOREseconded the Motion. He most cordially concurred with the hon. Mover in thinking that this obstruction, which it Was now in the power of the Government to put an end to, should no longer be allowed to exist. It was a burden upon the commerce of the country, and an obstacle to its increase. He hoped the Government would avail themselves of the power which the treaty gave them to put an end to it. Last year they had voted £1,125,000 for the redemption of the Sound Dues, but he hoped the Government would never entertain the notion of buying up the Stade Dues, because they had been purchased with English money. Hanover might have had some pretext to levy them if both banks of the Elbe had belonged to hon. It would he derogatory to England
  1008
  to submit longer to pay these dues, because she did not enjoy the same privileges as other nations did in the trade to Hamburgh.
  Motion made and Question proposed,—
  "That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, respectfully representing the injury to British Commerce inflicted by the Tax levied by Hanover on Merchandise and Shipping ascending the River Elbe, under the denomination of the Stade Dues; and praying that Her Majesty will be pleased to give directions to Her Ministers to give notice of the termination of the Treaty between the United Kingdom and Hanover, of the 22nd day of July, 1841, according to the terms of the Eighth Article of that Treaty."
  MR. HENLEYsaid, he should only make a very few observations in answer to the hon. Member. He thought it was nut necessary for him or any one to say that the payment of a turnpike was a great nuisance, and ought, if possible, to be got rid of. That nuisance might also be accompanied by circumstances as disagreeable as the payment of the money itself. He believed in respect to the present case some of those circumstances existed; such, for instance, as the obligation to stop and deliver in papers at the place where the toll was originally paid. It was not necessary for him to say that the toll amounted to a considerable charge on vessels going into the Elbe; but he must say, in passing, that he was extremely glad to find the new-kind of light which had come on the hon. Gentleman who made the Motion, because the House used to be told that all these charges on an article fell on the consumers. However, let that be as it might, he should be very glad to see the toll in question properly got rid of. His observations in answer to the Motion would have been very short, if it had not been for the interesting historical question raised by the hon. Member, and the conclusion he deduced from the facts he narrated. The hon. Member by no means confining himself to the inconvenience of the payment in question and to the actual trouble it occasioned to the persons engaged in shipping, had distinctly and directly raised the question as to the legality of the payment. There was no doubt, however, but that the question was surrounded with considerable difficulties. The length of time during which the tolls had been paid, the quasi recognition the payment had received from treaties, and the declarations made by no less a person than the noble Lord opposite within a recent period, all showed that the case was not so simple as the hon. Member

  1009
  seemed to consider. He thought the course suggested by the hon. Member was, perhaps, not the best calculated to get rid of this matter. The question having been broadly raised as to the legality of the payment of the duties, he thought that before the House asked or compelled the Government to take so decided a step as the giving notice of an intention to put an end to the treaty, it would be more prudent to have the matter investigated, in the same way as in the case of the Sound Dues, by means of a Select Committee. It would put the Government in a position of advantage if anything like the cases put by the hon. Member should be made out by investigation in a Select Committee; but he must say that he had seen no facts that led him to believe that such would be the case. Still as the mover and seconder of the Motion had raised the question of the legality of these dues, he thought the question would be best submitted to a Committee. The investigation would not take up a long time, and would put them in a better position to deal with the question. Some doubts might arise whether, if the tolls were put an end to, the same advantages would be enjoyed by the trade as at present. Quite agreeing, however, that it would be a desirable tiling if these tolls were got rid of, he thought the wiser course for the hon. Member to adopt was, to move for a Committee of inquiry, as in the case of the Sound Dues, rather than call on the Government to take at once so decided a step as putting an end to a treaty. If the hon. Member should adopt that course, he was quite ready on the part of the Government to assent to the appointment of a Committee.
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTONwas not disposed to take the same view of the question as the right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, for it appeared to him that the present was not a parallel case with the Sound Dues, and was one that ought to be referred in the first instance to a Committee of the House. The question with regard to the Sound Dues was this: the Government wished to propose to Parliament to buy up and redeem those dues; and the question referring to a Committee to consider was, whether, balancing on the one hand the charge to the public by that payment, with the relief on the other to our commerce from the cessation of the Sound Dues, it was expedient for Parliament to grant the sum, which, it was agreed, would be received, if Parliament sanctioned the
  1010
  grant for the redemption of those dues. That was therefore a very fit subject for the consideration of a Committee. The Government had first acted on their own responsibility in ascertaining what were the terms on which the Sound Dues could be redeemed, and it was proper for the House of Commons to determine whether they would sanction the payment of that amount. But, as the right hon. Gentleman put the question, the point to be considered relative to the Stade Dues was whether they were legal,—whether, according to international law, to long-standing custom, to the proper interpretation of treaties, to the admissions made by the British Government at different periods, Hanover was entitled to continue to exact these payments. Now, with all submission, it appeared to him that that was not a question to be thrown loose before a Committee of the House of Commons; it was rather a question which the executive Government, in conjuction with their law advisers, ought to investigate. They ought to make up their minds, after proper investigation and legal advice, whether the Hanoverian Government were entitled to require the continuance of the Stade Dues, and they should then state to Parliament the views which they had formed, and propose whatever course they, upon their responsibility, might think it right to pursue—either that the treaty should be put an end to by the notice which his hon. Friend suggested, or that payment should be refused; or, if they were advised to concur in the opinion that the dues could not legally be refused, recommended Parliament to adopt the same course as was pursued in the case of the Sound Dues. He did submit to the right hon. Gentleman, (Mr. Henley) therefore, that the reference of this legal and international question to a Committee of the House of Commons would not be a proper course to pursue. On the other hand, he agreed with the right hon. Gentleman that we were hardly prepared as yet to concur in the Motion of his hon. Friend the Member for Stoke (Mr. Ricardo), and that so decided a measure as giving notice of the cessation of the treaty would be premature, at least before it was known in what condition the country would be loft if that treaty were terminated. It might be that in such a case we should fall back on some anterior state of things out of which we were extricated by the treaty, and that we should be for the moment in a worse position than that which we now occupy. At all events, he hoped the Govern-

  1011
  ment would bestow full consideration upon the question, and, having made up their minds as to the legal obligations of the country, would state to the House the course which, on the whole, appeared to them most desirable for the national interest.
  MR. CLAYsaid, that the comparison drawn by the right hon. Gentleman, between these dues and the toll taken on turnpike roads was not a very apposite one, because it was necessary that roads should be kept in repair; but, in this instance, the persons who received the tax did nothing in return for it. Nor did it meet the case to suggest that the consumer paid these dues, because the vexation and annoyance caused by them were of even more consideration than the mere amount of money levied. He was glad to find that his hon. Friend had brought forward his Motion, because he felt quite sure that an early abolition of the nuisance must he the result of a discussion of the subject in that House. He fully believed that, in consequence of the toll, our trade with Hamburgh was in course of rapid diversion. A gentleman, largely concerned in the Baltic trade, had told him that his vessels to Stettin were going out full of cargoes which formerly went to Hamburgh. It might be said that, so long as we carried these cargoes, it did not much matter to which port they went; but the Hamburgh route was naturally the cheapest and most convenient, and it was hard that the legislation of man should close up the channel which nature provided. He believed the matter to be really urgent, and required to be dealt with at once; but he certainly doubted whether the course suggested by his hon. Friend would provide the most rapid means of getting rid of this nuisance. The Earl of Clarendon had been engaged, for at least a year, in endeavouring to put an end to the tax by negotiation; and the records of the Foreign Office would supply ample evidence of the necessity which existed for getting rid of the dues, and of the means adopted by the late Foreign Secretary with this object. He believed, however, that the Earl of Clarendon made up his mind at last that the impost could not be removed by negotiation. If the treaty were put an end to, it appeared to him (Mr. Clay) that they would return to the state in which they were immediately before it was made, or something worse. Under these circumstances, then, he thought that the best course which could at present be pursued would be, to treat
  1012
  the question as the question of the Sound Dues had been treated, and to purchase out the right claimed by the Government of Hanover. His hon. Friend the Member for Stoke had expressed his disapproval of such a step, and had argued that no advantage would he gained by paying a certain sum in a lump, instead of spreading it in the shape of small contributions over an indefinite period. But his hon. Friend seemed to forget that the great objection to that tax was not so much its amount, as the delay and the vexation to commerce which it occasioned. He (Mr. Clay) believed that a sum of about £200,000 would be sufficient to purchase a cessation of the nuisance; and the cost of the operation might be considerably diminished, if an allowance could be obtained in favour of this country, as a compensation for the payment of £150,000 made out of the English funds in the time of George I. to Hanover, for the purpose of purchasing the right of that country to exact the charge.
  MR. HUTTsaid, he regretted to find, from all he could gather, that the President of the Board of Trade appeared to have no opinion at all on this subject. He often had occasion to admire the acumen and the ability displayed by the right hon. Gentleman; but he confessed, that never during the whole time he had occupied a seat in that House did he remember an instance in which a Minister had come down so little prepared to express an opinion on a subject which had for so long a time occupied public attention. By the course he had recommended, the right hon. Gentleman and his Colleagues might perhaps save themselves from some trouble at present, but the time was not far distant when they would certainly regret it. The Stade Dues had been ceded to the King of Hanover through the mediation of England, and this country had paid a good round sum of money for the precious bargain, by means of which that arrangement had been effected. Sir Robert Walpole, however, had defended that expenditure of money upon the ground that it was extremely desirable that those dues should be placed in the hands of the Hanoverian family. At the time of the Congress of Vienna the question of the collection of the dues had been referred to the consideration of the river-bordering States, with the injunction that they were to observe in their mode of dealing with the subject certain liberal principles. The King of Hanover, however, who had been repre-

  1013
  sented at the Congress of Vienna, had refused to submit to its jurisdiction, and the consequence had been that the tolls continued to be levied in the most arbitrary and illegal manner. Subsequently, the noble Lord the Member for Tiverton had taken the matter into his hands, and had prevailed upon the Government of Hanover to agree to a proposition for referring the Stade Dues to a mixed Committee, in which this country should be represented. A Committee had accordingly assembled in Hanover in 1841, in which Mr. Ward, a gentleman of great intelligence, had represented England, and had laid it down as a principle that the stipulations of the Swedish treaty should be adhered to, and that Hanover should not be permitted to levy more than one-sixteenth per cent upon the commerce of the Elbe. The King of Hanover, however, had refused to accede to that limitation, and the Committee had separated, having effected nothing beyond placing upon record its deliberate opinion that the Stade Dues should not exceed a certain amount. In 1843 the question had fallen into the hands of the Earl of Aberdeen, and he had succeeded in inducing the Government of Hanover to submit to the jurisdiction of the Elbe Committee, which had awarded the King of Hanover ¼ per cent upon all the traffic of the river Elbe, notwithstanding that the Swedish treaty in the most explicit manner had set forth that the duos should not exceed one-sixteenth per cent. Instead, however, of protesting against that illegal proceeding on the part of the Elbe Committee—which might just as well have handed over to the King of Hanover the right of closing the Elbe altogether—the Government of England had adopted the decision with complacency, and had made it the basis of a convention, stipulating only that certain articles of British manufacture should be liable to a lower rate of charge than that which the Committee had fixed. Such was the position in which we now stood in reference to the question; and his hon. Friend who had introduced the subject to the notice of the House simply proposed to relieve British commerce from the grievous imposition under which it was suffering, by repealing the convention of 1844. That proposition, however, would not, even if it were carried into effect, release our shipping and commerce from the Stade Dues, which differed from the case of the Sound Dues which had been levied by the King of Denmark in so far as that, while the latter had contributed
  1014
  in some degree to facilitate navigation by the erection of buoys and lighthouses, no such advantages were afforded by the King of Hanover. For his own part, he saw no means of escaping from the difficulty except by following the plan proposed by his hon. Friend the Member for Hull (Mr. Clay), and buying up these vexatious and mischievous tolls altogether; but whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be in a position to take that course during the present year it was not for him (Mr. Hutt) to say. He should, however, maintain that the necessities of British commerce required that some decided step in the matter should be speedily taken.
  MR. MILNER GIBSONsaid, the question under discussion seemed to him to have become somewhat complicated. He had listened to the speech of his hon. Friend who had introduced the subject to the notice of the House with great attention, and he felt convinced, by the arguments which his hon. Friend had adduced, that it must soon become the duty of Her Majesty's Government to devise some mode by which the Stade Dues should be abolished. The question certainly could not be allowed to remain in its present position, but he confessed that he was anxious to see some fruit produced by the Motion at the present time. The noble Lord the Member for Tiverton objected to the proposal which had emanated from his (Mr. Gibson's) hon. Friend, and also to the proposition of Her Majesty's Government to appoint a Committee of Inquiry; but the noble Lord had failed to point out any means by which a profitable result should flow from the Motion which had been submitted to their consideration. The hon. Member for Gateshead (Mr. Hutt) and the hon. Member for Hull (Mr. Clay) had told the House that the revenue derived from the tolls in question by the King of Hanover must be redeemed, and, as his hon. Friends had devoted much attention to the subject, he (Mr. Gibson) thought it was a question well deserving of consideration whether a Committee should not be appointed to inquire how far it was worth the while of the Government to redeem the Stade tolls out of the taxes of the people of England. He should therefore advise his hon. Friend the Member for Stoke (Mr. Ricardo) to accept the offer of the Government of a Committee of Inquiry. It was quite certain that the operation of these dues was most injurious to the trade of the manufacturing districts, and, without en-

  1015
  tering into detail at present, he would only mention the simple fact, that upon cotton goods sent from Hull to Hamburgh the tolls levied amounted to 128 per cent upon the freight. Inasmuch as the ships of Hamburgh and Hanover were exempt from those dues, he thought it would be admitted that British shipping and commerce were most unfavourably affected by them. He repeated his advice to his hon. Friend to accept the offer of the Government, being convinced that a full investigation of the subject must lead to satisfactory results.
  MR. BRISCOEsaid, he thought the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. M. Gibson) had misconstrued the observation of the noble Lord the Member for Tiverton, who did not object to the appointment of a Committee of Inquiry at the proper time, but said that the question of legality having been distinctly raised, it was the duty of the Government to satisfy themselves upon the point by investigation and reference to the law advisers of the Crown. When that matter had been determined, it might be proper to have a Committee of Inquiry, but in the first instance he should wish to know whether Her Majesty's Government were prepared to take the opinion of the law officers upon the question of legality.
  LORD ASHLEYsaid, that as one of the Members for Hull, he wished to impress upon the House the necessity for taking some steps with regard to this most vexatious tax. They might appoint Committees without end, but it was certain that the only way to get rid of these dues was to purchase them. He had formed part of a deputation that waited upon the late Secretary for Foreign Affairs upon this subject, who made a very satisfactory declaration that the matter was undergoing the consideration of the Government. His constituents were ready to make any reasonable sacrifice in the way of expenditure that might be necessary to get rid of these tolls, as, in truth, it was not merely a matter of money, but of annoyance and delay. At present every master of a merchant ship visiting Hamburgh had to make out a separate manifesto of his cargo, and, in addition to that inconvenience, there was the delay arising from the visitation of Customs officers. He trusted that the time would speedily arrive when this most obnoxious restriction upon our trade would be completely removed.
  MR. SEYMOUR FITZGERALDsaid, he believed they were all agreed on one point, and that was that this was not a
  1016
  party question. Upon the part of the Government there was certainly no desire to evade the discussion of this subject, or to abstain from attempting to bring about a satisfactory settlement of it, they being as fully aware as any of the hon. Members who represented commercial constituencies that the tax was not only objectionable in amount, but that there were other circumstances connected with it which rendered it of great importance to the trade of this country that the tax should at the earliest possible moment be abolished. There were now two proposals before the House, and he would refer first to that made by his right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade who suggested the appointment of a Committee of Inquiry. The noble Lord the Member for Tiverton had met that proposition by urging that it was not becoming on the part of a Government to throw loosely before a Committee a question of legality which the Government themselves had the best opportunities of solving through their own law officers. If the question had been simply one of legality, the noble Lord's argument would have been unanswerable; but the speech of the hon. Member for Stoke must have satisfied the House that besides the legal question there were many other important and historical circumstances connected with these dues which could not properly be submitted to the law officers, and which could be best considered by a Committee of the House. The hon. Member for Stoke had raised a question as to the mode in which these tolls had been acquired by Hanover, and had contended that, as they were bought with English money, in any arrangement for their purchase from Hanover the amount originally contributed by English tax-payers should be taken into account. That was a point upon which there was considerable dispute, for although it had been alleged that the £150,000 which had been paid to the Duchies was part of the grant to George I., that statement had been met by a direct negative from the Government of Hanover. Another point which would best be inquired into by a Committee was the question of how far we were estopped from questioning the legality of the tax by our recognition of it in the treaty of 1844. There was a further point, on which the hon. Member for Stoke made a very positive statement, but a statement which he (Mr. FitzGerald) had not been able to satisfy himself was entirely correct. The

  1017
  hon. Gentleman said that if we were to give notice to put a determination to the convention or treaty on this subject, we should be in the same position as before, and should not be called upon to pay an additional tax. That might be so, though he had not been able to obtain any satisfactory information upon it. Indeed, he rather thought it was a grave question, whether this country would not be in a worse position than now; whether we should not be called on to pay a very increased amount of duty on all articles whatsoever, and lose the advantage which we now had of paying about one-third less than other countries on certain descriptions of articles. The noble Lord (Viscount Palmerston) spoke of referring the matter to the law officers of the Crown; but he begged to remind the noble Lord that only last year he had declared that these Stade Dues could only be treated in the same way as the Sound Dues, and be made subject to redemption or purchase. The noble Lord, however, had never taken any step for that purpose—not even the step which he said the present, Government was bound to take in the matter, for he had neglected to obtain the opinion of his law officers as to the legality of the tax. The Government were fully alive to the importance of getting rid of the toll, and all they had to do was to ascertain how that object could be best accomplished. The question as to whether a large sum of money should be paid out of the public revenue was one which it was their bounden duty to submit to a Select Committee, not only because they would then get the best materials on which to form an opinion, but because they would satisfy the people, from whom the money came, that it was properly, judiciously, and well expended. He therefore hoped that the proposition of his right hon. Friend (Mr. Henley) would be accepted. He hoped the hon. Member for Stoke would accept the proposition of his right hon. Friend, and consent to the appointment of a Committee as the most likely mode of hereafter arriving at a judicious settlement of the whole question.
  LORD HOTHAMsaid, that as he was connected with large commercial interests of the country which were especially affected by these tolls, he trusted he should be permitted to make one or two observations on the Motion before the House. They were told that of all places Hull was one which was most interested in the
  1018
  question; but he was not about to advocate the interests of that town, which had been ably supported by hon. Gentlemen who had already addressed the House. The hon. Member for Gateshead (Mr. Hutt) had put the question very clearly before the House, and then stepped in the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ashton (Mr. M. Gibson) who truly stated that, unless the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade to refer the matter to a Select Committee were agreed to, they would be in the agreeable position of getting absolutely nothing; and therefore he thought it the wisest course which could be pursued. In that opinion he (Lord Hotham) concurred. He thought that referring it to a Committee was the only method of coming to a just and reasonable conclusion, and although he had no authority for saying so, he believed that that was a course which the parties who were more immediately connected with the question desired.
  MR. RICARDOsaid, he was very much of the opinion of the noble Lord the Member for Tiverton as to the inutility of a Committee on this subject, but it seemed to him that he had no choice left in the matter. He had stated certain facts which ought to be refuted before his Motion could be properly rejected; but the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade had not done so, but had rather chosen to refer the matter to a Committee, and he had no other alternative than to accept it. He scarcely thought that it would be denied by any one that the Government ought to take steps to get rid of these tolls. For himself, he was prepared at any time to prove all the assertions he had made before the Committee, and he was quite sure the result of the investigation would be, that the Government would feel it their duty to assert the right of England to carry on its commerce without undue interference.
  VISCOUNT PALMBRSTON: What I stated has been misunderstood. I thought the better course was for the Government to make up its mind to a definite proposal and to submit it to a Committee, instead of a Committee framing a definite proposal and submitting it to the Government. However, as the Government and the right hon. Gentleman seem perfectly agreed, of course I will not press my views further.
  MR. HUTTinquired in what manner the question would be submitted to the Committee.
  MR. HENLEYsaid, that when he heard the statement of the hon. Member who brought forward this Motion, and found that he referred to a great many facts, the accuracy of which he was neither in a position to controvert nor to affirm, he thought that the best way to deal with it would be to submit it to a Committee, in which the accuracy of those facts could be tested. After they had been affirmed he quite agreed that it was the duty of the Government to take the opinion of the law officers of the Crown on the whole of the case. On the whole he did not see how the matter could be so fairly and fully dealt with as by referring it to a Select Committee.
  MR. RICARDOasked whether the Government would move for the appointment of the Committee?
  MR. HENLEYsaid, that he had no objection to do so.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

  FALL OF LUCKNOW.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that since the House met his noble Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs had received an important telegram from India, and perhaps it would be agreeable to the House if he should read it. The right hon. Gentleman then read the telegram, containing the announcement of the fall of Lucknow, amid the cheers of the House.
REWARDS TO MEMBERS.

  RESOLUTION MOVED.
  SIR J. TRELAWNYrose to move "That the receipt of any species of reward by a Member, in consideration of the exercise of his influence in that capacity, is calculated to lower the dignity and authority of this House, and is a high breach of the Privilege of Parliament." The hon. Member said he had no wish to conceal the fact that his Motion was unquestionably founded on certain circumstances which had recently formed the subject of investigation before a Select Committee of the House, and upon the evidence adduced in the course of that inquiry. It was not his intention to impugn in any way the decision of the Committee in that case; but he thought, nevertheless, that something should be done to vindicate the character of the House. To offer money or other advantages to a Member for promoting any matter depending in Parliament was
  1020
  by a Resolution of 1695 a high crime and misdemeanour. A whole series of decisions confirmed that general proposition; and yet, according to the evidence taken before the Butt Committee, if that evidence were true—and it must be true, for it was the evidence of Mr. Butt himself— it had become the duty of the House to take some step to uphold the principle it had laid down, and to prevent the recurrence of what had taken place in that case. According to that evidence it seemed to be considered that Members were at liberty, by means of Parliamentary Motions, to endeavour to bring about an event upon which might turn a valuable consideration for themselves. If such a notion were to be acted upon, there would be an end to the independence of Parliament, nor would any Member willing to receive a reward find it difficult to evade the terms of the law. To allow the matter to remain where the recent Committee had left it would be a course most injurious to the public interests. It would then be in the power of a Minister at any time to crush an obnoxious Member by charging him with corrupt conduct upon some former occasion. It was for the interest of all parties that it should be clearly laid down what should and what should not be done. The late President of the Board of Control told the Butt Committee that it was believed that hon. Gentlemen advocated Indian claims for a consideration. That ought of itself to put the House on its guard. Members might be deterred in future from doing what was right by a fear of being accused of acting for a reward;—for instance, the grievances of the Colonies might in this way be prevented from being brought before Parliament. He was afraid, also, that the local Government of India would be lowered in the estimation of the people if it were believed that for a reward persons might be retained in the British Parliament to advocate the claims of the Native Princes and to endeavour to induce Parliament to overrule the decisions of the constituted authorities. Far better lock the doors of Parliament at once than allow it to be said that justice was sold to the highest bidder. He was a Reformer, but he wanted to see a reform in as well as a reform of Parliament. Internal corruption was fatal to the existence of public bodies, and if the conduct against which his Resolution was aimed should be exhibited to any considerable extent, or without calling forth the indignation of that House, fare-

  1021
  well to our free institutions. How could they punish electors for selling their votes when they themselves were open to the charge of receiving bribes for services rendered in their capacity as Members of Parliament? It would be recollected that in the Life of Beranger it was stated that his friend Manuel died poor, for that after he became a deputy he refused all fees as a barrister, under the notion that a deputy could not be a paid advocate without the risk of raising suspicion. That House was part of all free communities, and if it showed by its example that such things could occur, all minor communities, such as boards of guardians and petty sessions, would be found to act in a similar manner. Nay, more, the debates of this House were read in America, Belgium, Sardinia, and wherever free representative assemblies existed or were likely to exist, and a precedent set by that House would be considered as a rule by the rest of the world. The Members of that House represented, after all, but a small part of the population, and there would be great outcry for a large change in the constitution of the House, if they did not do their duty in the position they held. In making the Motion he was not actuated by an affectation of purity. So far from that, he was ready to say that he was not sure whether, if tempted, he would not give way himself; but he wished to make it difficult to himself and others to give way. He had no ill-feeling towards the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Butt), who might possibly in the course he took have mistaken the rules of the House in these matters; but as a Member of Parliament he had thought it his duty to bring forward the Motion with which he now concluded.
  MR. MELLORseconded the Resolution.
  Motion made and Question proposed,—
  "That the receipt of any species of reward by a Member, in consideration of the exercise of his influence in that capacity, is calculated to lower the dignity and authority of this House, and is a high breach of the Privilege of Parliament."
  LORD HOTHAMsaid, that he was exceedingly reluctant to offer himself to the notice of the House on a subject of such great importance, and he had hoped that some of those hon. Members who were in the habit of taking the lead in the proceedings of the House would have given the House the benefit of their opinions on the present occasion. No one felt more strongly than himself how disagreeable it was to speak on a subject apparently having a
  1022
  personal aspect attaching to it; but they were not sent to the House to consider what was agreeable or disagreeable before they proceeded to discuss it; and he was one who felt that the less agreeable the subject the more it was their duty to express their views, when they felt strongly with regard to it. The subject brought forward was one of manifest importance. Whether it were true that such scandals as his hon. Friend had referred to really did take place he would not venture to say; but there was a general belief on the part of the public that those practices did take place, and that opinion had received a colour in consequence of the disclosures made before the Committee referred to. It was the duty, then, of the House to see if it were not possible to devise some plan by which these practices, if they existed, might be put an end to, and their constituents prevented from entertaining the shadow of suspicion, that those they had sent to represent them could be guilty of conduct of flagrant scandal. He did not think that his hon. Friend had brought forward his Motion in any way calculated to raise the real issue; for he had not ever heard it imputed to any hon. Member belonging to the legal profession that he accepted money on the promise of giving his services in the House in return. What was imputed was,that Members of the legal profession, having seats in the House, were retained; but by fees of large magnitude in the ordinary manner for business professing to be about to come into the courts of law, and that afterwards certain meetings or consultations took place, when somebody suggested that the matter could not be satisfactorily worked in a court of law, and that an appeal should be made to Parliament. An application was then made to one of the learned Members, who had been retained, to take the matter up. In this way hon. Gentlemen who had received those fees were appealed to take up in Parliament matters on which they were professionally engaged. That was the imputation he had heard constantly made, and the imputation was that money had been indirectly, if not directly, received by persons circumstanced as he had described. That was a practice to which the House was bound to see if a stop could not be put. He was not going to enter at large on the matter, having risen at the moment he did because he perceived that the question was about to be disposed of. He never scrupled in private to criticize these sup-

  1023
  posed proceedings in what he conceived proper terms, and he should be ashamed of himself if he did not on a proper occasion similarly criticize them in public. He would not presume to say what should be done, but he should like to see something done which would bring the House to something like the condition in which it was when he first had the honour of a seat in it. In those days, no Member felt himself at liberty to interfere in any matter in respect to which he had a personal interest. As a proof of this, he would state that it happened to himself to be told on one occasion that he could not relieve the Members of his county to whom belonged the trouble of passing through the House of Commons an unopposed Enclosure Bill, simply because he had a field in the parish in which was the land proposed to be enclosed. He desired very much by some means, either by Resolution or by the general understanding of the House, that in future hon. Members should be relieved from such disgraceful imputations as were cast on the whole House if any one were supposed to be guilty of the practices described. They all witnessed occasionally in the courts of law one of the learned Judges declaring that he could not take part in a certain trial, because he had been concerned in the case as counsel. If that was a valid reason for a learned Judge declining to undertake his duty in his court, how much more improper was it for a person entrusted with the high privileges and important duties of a Member of Parliament, to use those privileges for the advocacy in that House of private interests, and in return for pecuniary remuneration. He made these observations without intending any personal reference, for he had long desired to see this important question raised. He was not a Member of the legal profession; but he desired to see both that profession and the House of Commons stand well in public estimation; and this neither could do, unless it showed the most earnest desire to purge itself from even the possible imputations of conniving at acts which were disgraceful alike to individuals and to the House to which they belonged.
  SIR JAMES GRAHAM: Like my noble Friend behind me, I have been long a Member of this House, the honour and integrity of which are very dear to me, and I need hardly say that anything which would tend to sustain its purity would receive my most anxions consideration and support. I do not think it at all necessary
  1024
  to refer to the case of the hon. and learned Member for Youghal (Mr. Butt) in discussing the Resolution proposed by the hon. Baronet opposite. That hon. and learned Member, grave accusations being preferred against him, challenged inquiry. The House referred the question at issue to a Committee, which was thought to be fairly constituted. I had the honour to preside over that Committee, and I think I may fairly say that no question ever received from any body of men more careful, more anxious, and, as I believe, more impartial consideration. The inquiries of that Committee ended in the acquittal of the hon. and learned Member for Youghal, and I think the hon. and learned Gentleman is fully entitled to the full effect of the report of that Committee, and it would be unworthy of any Member after their decision to refer to this subject in a manner adverse to him. With all submission, however, I do not think that any new Resolution on this subject is requisite. At the very earliest period of Parliamentary government after the Revolution, a Resolution was passed (in 1695)—the same to which the hon. Baronet has already referred—a Resolution express in its terms, plain in its language, and invariably enforced when facts bore out an accusation of this nature. It would be extremely difficult to carry a decision of this House further than it is carried by that Resolution. The fact, Is the infringement of the rule proved or not? —is always a question of evidence. I quite agree with my noble Friend behind me (Lord Hotham) that cases will arise which run very closely to a violation of the rule. But it is impossible, without losing to a most serious extent the learning of this House, to exclude gentlemen of the bar who are in great practice. Questions will arise in courts of law which ultimately may become subjects of discussion in this House; and the real test of good faith, as it has always appeared to me, is the publicity of the transaction. If there be complete publicity, and if the quantum of the fee given be not above that which the station of the advocate requires, I think there is no danger in permitting gentlemen of the long robe, in great practice in the courts, to take part in discussions here upon matters respecting which they may be professionally consulted out of doors. Now, my noble Friend refers to the early practice in this House, when he and I first became Members of it, and has alluded to that practice as regards colonial questions.

  1025
  And what are the facts? I will mention but one most distinguished Member before my time—I mean Mr. Burke; but besides him the House will remember that Sir James Mackintosh, Mr. Huskisson, and the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield (Mr. Roebuck) have been the paid advocates of different colonies. In those cases the very publicity of the payments made, did, to a certain extent, when such Members advocated the cause of the particular colony for which they were concerned, diminish pro tanto the value of their opinions: and that very publicity counteracted, in my opinion, all the evil effects which might have arisen from their having received pecuniary rewards. Now, take the words of the hon. Baronet's Resolution as they stand. I cannot say that at different periods, and even very recently, distinguished Members of this House have not received for their labours here—their most effective labours—pecuniary rewards. But in such instances, as I have observed, publicity has prevailed. Even very recently, distinguished Members of this House have, on account of the influence exercised by them in Parliament (they being in circumstances which may have rendered pecuniary reward more acceptable or necessary than any other), received remuneration in money for their services. I see the right hon. Gentleman the late Attorney General for Ireland (Mr. J. D. FitzGerald) in his place. He will remember the rewards given to Mr. Grattan for his services in Parliament. I think Mr. Grattan received £50,000, with which sum an estate was purchased, which is still enjoyed by his descendants, and which remains part of the inheritance awarded by a grateful country in recognition of the merits of that distinguished individual. I will not particularize similar instances in more modern times; but to say that there shall be no pecuniary reward for great and eminent services rendered in Parliament, which I think would be the doctrine established by this Resolution, would be carrying the theory of extreme purity further than would be desirable or necessary. In the case of any gross violation of the rule of Parliament, and of any charge of corruption impeaching the conduct of a member of this House, I think no new Resolution would be required for his condemnation. From the earliest period such corruption has been branded as rendering a Member unworthy to continue his seat in this House. Even a person who had filled the office which
  1026
  you, Sir, now so worthily occupy, was expelled on account of the receipt of 1,000 guineas for services rendered by him in his place in Parliament after he had vacated the chair. Again, a gentleman who filled the office of Chairman of the Committee, received, I think, a reward of only 20 guineas, whereupon, a corrupt motive having been proved to the satisfaction of the House, he was also expelled. I am quite sure that even the recent investigation, terminating as it did in the complete acquittal of the hon. and learned Member for Youghal (Mr. Butt), marks the jealousy of this House in respect of any conduct capable of being misconstrued, as being actuated by corrupt motives. The very circumstances of such an investigation having been made is a warning, as I think, of a most sufficient character. I certainly entertain an apprehension that any new Resolution of this kind might receive some new construction. The old practice, the old Resolution, and the construction put upon it seem to me to afford to the House an adequate protection against corruption on the part of its Members. I am not surprised that such a proposition as this should be made by the hon. Baronet, actuated, I am sure, by the purest motives; but I venture to suggest to him that the discussion which will no doubt take place on this subject, backed by the opinion of Members of higher authority than I can pretend to, will have the effect of a solemn warning for the future to all members of the long robe, more especially to those who receive large fees for services rendered out of doors, and who afterwards take part in discussions on the same subject within these walls. Such a warning, I think, will be amply sufficient, and I doubt extremely, the policy of adopting any new Resolution on the subject.
  MR. J. D. FITZGERALDthought that the cases referred to by the right hon. Baronet were scarcely applicable to the question before the House. In Grattan's case, for example, the money voted to him was for eminent public services, and was voted from the public purse. Other instances there had been in more modern times to which reference might be made, but the rewards there had usually been the result of public subscriptions, openly carried on by those who had benefited by the great exertions of some individual for the public cause. Now, such cases differed entirely from those which formed the subject of the hon. Baronet's Resolution;

  1027
  and, therefore, scarcely touched the question which the House now had to discuss. He quite agreed with the right hon. Baronet (Sir J. Graham), that this Motion did not, in the slightest degree, affect his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Youghal. He (Mr. FitzGerald) looked upon the Resolutions of the Committee as the complete and perfect acquittal of his hon. and learned Friend; and he would add that, in his opinion, the evidence of the principal witnesses examined in support of the charge was of such a character that no Committee could have acted upon it with safety. With reference to the question immediately before the House, he concurred in every word which had fallen from the noble Lord opposite (Lord Hotham). At the same time, as a member of the long robe, he rose to defend that profession from the imputations which had, perhaps, to too great an extent, been fastened upon it. Among the instances of expulsions from the House, for a breach of what was an inherent rule of the House, he could not call to mind a single case in which a member of the long robe had been thus expelled. There were, however, unfortunately, upon the records of Parliament, instances in which other Members had been punished with extreme severity, because they had infringed the fundamental rule, that no one should take a reward of any kind for his services in Parliament. This rule stood recorded in no written Resolution; it was part of the law of Parliament; and, if it was not so, then the House of Commons would cease to hold the position it did in public estimation. If Members were allowed to take rewards, one could not fail to see that the respect which Parliament ought to possess would be enjoyed no longer, that all confidence in its integrity would be destroyed, and that, in the end, the constitution would be subverted. Now, the Resolution of 1695, which had been adverted to by the hon. Baronet (Sir J. Trelawny), did not, as far as he could see, touch the evil upon which the House was called upon to express its opinion. The Resolution of 1695 was to the effect that "the offer of any money, or other advantage, to any Member of Parliament, for the forwarding of any matter whatsoever depending or to be transacted in Parliament, was a high crime and misdemeanour, and tended to the subversion of the English constitution." It was not, therefore, against the person accepting, but the person offering
  1028
  the bribe, that the Resolution was directed, and that was so because Members of Parliament had, over and over again, been expelled the House, for receiving rewards for their services, in their capacity as legislators; and the rules of Parliament, upon that particular point, had thus been placed beyond all doubt. Well, but what, let him ask, had led to the adoption of the Resolution of 1695? It was the occurrence, in the previous year, of the case of Sir John Trevor, Speaker and Master of the Rolls, who had been expelled the House of Commons because he had received a gratuity of 1,000 guineas from the city of London, after the passing of the Orphans' Bill; and of the case of Mr. Hungerford, the Member for Scarborough, who had accepted twenty guineas for his pains and services as Chairman of the Committee upon the same Bill. But those were not the only precedents to which he could refer. In 1667, Mr. Ashburnham had been expelled the House, because he had received a gratuity of £500, for promoting the business of the French merchants; and, upon that occasion, a Resolution had been passed to the effect that he had thereby committed an offence to the dishonour of the House, and was therefore discharged from service as one of its Members. It was clear, therefore, that the punishment of Members who had so far forgotten the position which they held as to accept rewards in their capacity as legislators depended upon no written laws, but was based upon well-established Parliamentary practice; and he could not help thinking that to allow that old practice of Parliament to stand was a course which it was preferable to take, to attempting to weaken it by framing any new Resolutions upon the subject. The right hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle had adverted to the circumstance that many distinguished Members of the House of Commons, and among them no less eminent personages than Mr. Burke and Sir James Mackintosh, had received rewards I for the services which they had from time to time rendered to the interest of some of our colonists by advocating their cause in. Parliament. Now be (Mr. FitzGerald), for one, did not hesitate to Condemn such conduct, notwithstanding the high position of the men who were implicated in those transactions. Possibly it might have been tolerated because the Colonies were not represented in that House, and Members who undertook laborious duties might be per-

  1029
  mitted to receive pecuniary rewards. But was not the practice open to great objections? A Member of that House did not come there so much the representative of a particular constituency, as one of the representatives of the empire, whoso duty it was, laying aside all minor considerations, to advise the House of Commons to the best of his skill and judgment upon all questions connected with the interests of the empire at large. But how, he would ask, could a Member discharge that duty efficiently if it were lawful for him to place himself in a position in which interest and duty must be found to conflict? If he were the advocate for a colony, he must support its interests by his voice and vote, and if the evil was lessened, it was only because the House knew he was a paid advocate. Such a state of things must derogate from the character of a Member of Parliament, and could only be tolerated as a necessary evil. The House of Commons itself had always regarded with the utmost jealousy the conduct of its Members in that respect, and its Journals contained more than one instance in which, after a division upon a certain measure had been taken, the name of some Member had been struck off the list because it had been found that he had had a pecuniary interest in the matter, which was held to disqualify him from voting. He referred to these rules to show that the House had amply provided against its Members advocating questions, either as paid agents or when they had their own interests to advance. He would again press on the hon. Baronet that, as the law of Parliament now stood, there was no necessity for a new Resolution. Still he thought that the discussion of this question could not fail to be of great advantage. He was sorry to hear what the noble Lard (Lord Hotham) stated to be the case. [Lord HOTHAM: Believed to be the case.] Well, believed to be the case, that distinguished legal Members of Parliament received large fees, and by management, the questions on which they were retained were thrust into Parliament and those Members advocated those questions there. If there were such cases, he believed that they were rare and exceptional, and he could say on behalf of his profession, which was bound by no law or Act of Parliament, but only by a code created by itself, and which had maintained its high character in all times, that these instances, if they did exist, were of the rarest. He found in the records of Par-
  1030
  liament in 1666, a rule to the effect, that such Members as were of the long robe should not be of counsel on any side on any Bill in the Lords' House. On all the grounds he had stated, if he thought it necessary for the House to come to any Resolution on this subject, he would have supported that of the hon. Baronet; but, believing that it was not necessary, he would urge on the hon. Baronet not to press it.
  MR. MELLORsaid, that although he had seconded the Motion, he felt assured that any Resolution upon the subject to which the House of Commons might give its assent would only tend to impair that security against the occurrence of those breaches of privilege complained of which the House at present possessed. The question had assumed greater importance in consequence of the observation of the noble Lord (Lord Hotham,) following what had been said by a Member of the recent Committee of Inquiry with regard to a genera belief that Members of that House received pecuniary reward for the advocacy of Indian claims. If such a belief existed, great advantage would be derived from this discussion. As far as the members of the legal profession were concerned, that code of honour to which his right hon. and learned Friend had just alluded was, he thought, a sufficient guarantee that they would not be found to resort to practices which all parties must concur in condemning. There could be no difficulty in distinguishing between a colourable fee and the real just reward for bona fide legal services. The noble Lord (Lord Hotham) said, that gentlemen of the long robe were open to these temptations. [Lord HOTHAM: Some of them.] He knew that in some instances temptations had been offered to eminent Members of that House who were also members of the profession to which he belonged, but these offers had always been rejected. He thought, as the hon. Member for Tavistock had achieved all he could desire by the discussion which he had raised, he would be satisfied with the result, and would withdraw the Resolution. If the hon. Member thought fit to press it, he (Mr. Mellor) should feel bound to support it, as the House could not too often record its opinion upon this important point.
  MR. MANGLESsaid, he could not concur in the request which had been made to the hon. Baronet for the withdrawal of the Resolution. He thought it most desirable

  1031
  that the sense of the House should be expressed on this subject in plain language, which could be understood not only here, but in distant territories. In the few words he was about to say, it was not his wish to make any observations that might be disagreeable to the hon. and learned Member for Youghal, for he readily accepted the verdict of the Committee as a complete acquittal of that gentleman; but still he knew that great mischiefs had resulted from a practice that had largely prevailed of legal gentlemen taking large fees from persons having grievances to complain of against the Government of India, and then advocating, or professing to advocate, those claims in that House. Whether that advocacy was stimulated by the fees received it was impossible to say, but undoubtedly some who had received large fees as barristers had appeared as advocates of the same cause in that House. It was most important that the Natives of India should believe in the purity of that House, and when they came to this country they could never be brought to understand the distinction between gentlemen who receive large fees as legal advisers and Members of Parliament. The people of India were generally a corrupt people, and thought it no offence to accept what we should call bribes, but which they regarded as absolutely necessary to expedite all business. Those Natives of India who came to this country with grievances to complain of would not fail to tell their countrymen that the services of Members of that House could be obtained for money, and that opinion would prevail as long as the present practice continued. The Natives of India would not make any distinction between the legal and the non-professional Members of that House, or between one Member and another, but would believe that every Member could be bought if they could only pay his price. Every one had heard stones of presents made of shawls and jewels, not only to Members, but to individuals of the fairer sex who might be supposed to have influence over Members of that House. Those stories went to India, and the result was, that the wealthy Natives believed that Parliament was entirely a venal body, and every Member willing to be bought. Some means should be adopted whereby it should be declared that it was not honourable or proper for any gentleman of the long robe, a Mebmer of that House, to support in that House a cause on which he had received a
  1032
  legal retainer, especially in cases coming from India. If that could be done by Resolution or by a plain expression of the opinion of the House, he thought it would redound alike to the credit of Parliament and the good government of India, by removing the false impression on the subject which prevailed there.
  MR. FOXsaid, he did not agree with those who advised the hon. Member for Tavistock to withdraw his Motion, and he thought the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Ennis (Mr. FitzGerald) justified his opposition to that course, for he showed that, not only was there a general law against the acceptance of pecuniary rewards by Members, but that the Resolutions to that effect had been renewed from time to time. That being so, there could be no objection to a renewal of the Resolution at the present time. The hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Mangles) had spoken of the effect which the Resolution would have upon a generally corrupt people like the Hindoos; but he (Mr. Fox) thought of the effect which it would have upon a people who were not generally corrupt—the people of this country, who would not wish to regard that House as a venal body; and he thought that a decided expression of opinion would tend to impress them with confidence. It was the apology for the great Lord Bacon that, although he had sold justice, yet he had never sold injustice. That was a very dangerous apology, which it required a very strong mind to observe. It involved a double danger—a danger to the individual who sold and to him who bought. There was the double danger of the effect upon the individual's conscience and also of inducing others holding different opinions to shape their views upon a belief in his sincerity. Much of the present discussion had turned upon the conduct of gentlemen of the long robe, and he did not intend to offer an apology for any Member having a pecuniary interest in any cause advocating that cause as a Member of Parliament; but he would remark there were gentlemen, not lawyers, who had interests in matters which came before the Mouse, railways and other schemes, which they advocated, notwithstanding the advantages which success would confer upon them. The true principle was for every man to divest himself of every consideration save that of the public good. Was there nothing in the connection between constituencies and their representatives as to

  1033
  obtaining places which was to the purpose in this discussion? Was there not subserviency on the one hand and corruption on the other? If a line was to be drawn it should be drawn as widely as possible to include all such cases. He would go the length of making it a misdemeanour for any legislator not connected with the Executive Government to interfere in making any public appointment whatever. Getting a place for one of his constituents might be as much a money matter on the part of a Member of that House as giving a fee to a member of the long robe would be. They were looking forward to the time when they expected to effect a considerable change in the constitution of that House, and he trusted they would be able to do away with influences that were now operating injuriously, both in the way of bribery and intimidation. Looking to that time, they should do all they could to keep up among the people a pure spirit of patriotism; and by sanctioning such a Resolution as that before the House they would show that the cause of purity and patriotism was not dead among themselves.
  MR. BRIGHTthought the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Fox) had not shown his usual clearness of perception in the view he had taken of this matter. He argued that, because they had adopted Resolutions on this subject in past times, therefore they ought to pass another now. But he should recollect that all these Resolutions were passed after some one had been found guilty; whereas he proposed to pass a Resolution after an inquiry had taken place, and the Member whose conduct had been inquired into had been fully acquitted. He was a member of the Committee which sat upon that gentleman's case; and his understanding was, that when they went into Committee, it was not because there was no rule on the subject, but because there was a rule; and the object of the Committee was to ascertain whether the Member had broken that rule. Before they took any evidence, the right hon. Baronet who was the Chairman of the Committee went through a number of cases that had previously occurred, and read the Resolution of the House upon each of them, and he was sure there was no member of the Committee who was at all at a loss to discover what was the rule of Parliament with regard to these questions. At the conclusion of the proceedings there was some discussion as to whether any recommendation should be made
  1034
  to the House to make the rule more clear and more stringent; but it was the unanimous opinion of the Committee that no good result would flow from any such course. It was his own distinct opinion that the rule was perfectly clear to every man's mind and conscience, and that, therefore, no Resolution was required. With regard to the Resolution now proposed, every Member must see—whatever his opinion was as to the desirableness of doing something—that this was not the proposition which the House ought to pass; because those cases to which the hon. Member for Oldham had referred, in which Members were interested very remotely, would come under the language of the Resolution. He was quite sure that, with these words, unless they allowed them to become obsolete, as they would do to-morrow, they would be laying traps for themselves, without in the slightest degree adding to the security for the honourable performance of their duty. One of the purest, highest names ever placed on the muster roll of Parliament was that of Andrew Marvel, yet he received a regular salary for his services in the performance of his Parliamentary duties. And when that change took place, to which the hon. Member for Oldham referred, when, probably, they might get rid of the property qualification, and obtain a more extended suffrage, they might possibly have some Members of that House who were not men of property— not, to use a professional phrase, men of station—but men of character and intellect, belonging to an order of society that had not been directly represented there hitherto. When such men got into the House, was it not likely—would it not be a thing to be commended and admired— that the constituencies should undertake to furnish them with salaries of £200, £300, or £500 a year, that they might be able to subsist and attend to their duties in Parliament? He should be very glad to see such a case. It would show them that the constituencies were improving, as at present the burden lay in the other direction. But if such a Member were in that House, he would violate this Resolution in the form in which it now stood. The discussion had turned a good deal on the case of lawyers. It was not necessary for him, or any man not a lawyer, to defend them; but, if the Resolution was intended only for lawyers, let it plainly say so. Lot them have a net with meshes made for

  1035
  them alone, and not one which would involve Members of every class. He would gay, generally, that unless they had good grounds for new legislation, they should not legislate. Unless they had some clear and specific ground for new legislation, they should not pass resolutions of this kind. There was a tendency to do too much. The case before them was one in which the Member was not guilty of the accusation brought against him. The sum of money he had undertaken to receive had no reference to Parliamentary proceedings, but had reference strictly to an engagement to go to India, leaving, as he did, a lucrative employment at home. He believed that contract would be fulfilled, and that, at the end of the present Session, the Gentleman would probably go to India, to transact the business he had taken in hand. There was no case made out by the evidence; the Gentleman charged was fully acquitted, and no member of the Committee believed him, in the slightest degree, guilty. Therefore, there was no cause for new legislation or new resolutions on this subject. The public did not believe that Members of Parliament were corrupt, in the sense in which this Resolution implied they were. They knew that, in the fights of parties, men sometimes did things that, in their cool hours, they could not justify; but that was not the sort of thing referred to in the Resolution. He had not the slightest fear that the country would judge any of them as if they were in fear of their reputations. He would rather stand on their character and honour, which the country knew, than endeavour to set themselves up for something purer than they had been heretofore, by passing a Resolution like this. If the House divided, he should certainly vote against the Resolution of the hon. Baronet.
  MR. WALPOLE: I quite agree with the hon. Member who has just sat down, and I think if it were intended to impeach the conduct of the Member for Youghal on the ground of any evidence taken before the Committee held for the purpose of inquiring into the matters in question, that there ought to have been a specific Motion made for the purpose. I think, therefore, we can only make use of that Committee and the proceedings before it to this extent—as probably inducing the hon. Member for Tavistock (Sir J. Trelawny) to bring forward the Motion; and if he has done so with the view of either con-
  1036
  firming an old custom of Parliament, or of introducing a new custom, he ought distinctly to make out to the House which of those two propositions he wishes to establish. If it he that he wishes to pledge the House to this Resolution as the introduction of a new rule, I shall beg leave to take issue with him on that point, and say that no new rule is necessary on the subject. If he wishes, by this Resolution, to confirm an old rule, I say that it is much better the old rule of Parliament should be left in the breast of the House, than that any attempt should be made to tie it up by the introduction of any new words. And I am perfectly confident that if you do attempt to tie up (for such I will presently show you will be the effect of these new words) the known rules and usages of Parliament, you will hamper yourself in a manner that you little imagine; and the very Resolution you are proposing to apply to one object you will find applies to objects to which you did not intend it to be directed, and that you will not be able to apply it to the objects which were the subject matter of your original intention. I do not quite agree with the limited view that my noble Friend the Member for the East Riding (Lord Hotham) took of this question. He discussed it as if it related solely to the gentlemen of the long robe—to those who are engaged in professional pursuits connected with the law. The rules of Parliament on this question are applicable to all Members— certain rules are applicable to all Members, and certain rules are applicable to Members of the legal profession. Those rules are very old. Those applicable to the legal profession are as old as the year 1666, and their application is perfectly well known. No Member belonging to the legal profession can undertake any business pending in Parliament, or which is likely to be pending in Parliament, and with a view to Parliamentary proceedings, without violating the known rules of the House. So much is this the case that we very well know, in one instance, the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield (Mr. Roebuck) asked permission of the House to conduct a matter in the Upper House. He was allowed to do so because it was a public Bill. I allude to the Sudbury Disfranchisement Bill. But we know that another Member made a similar application, and the House refused to sanction such a proceeding. But why? The distinction laid down by the Speaker was

  1037
  this: that a Member of this House, being a barrister, may have the permission to conduct business in the Upper House of Parliament accorded to him if it relate to a public Bill, but he cannot have that permission if it relate to a private Bill. The application in the second instance to which I alluded, had reference to a private Bill, and therefore it was refused. Then, there was another rule distinctly laid down with reference to Parliamentary agents, and in that instance it was particularly applied to Mr. Daniel Whittle Harvey. It was decided that he was not entitled to transact any business as a Parliamentary agent with reference to matters proceeding in Parliament, he being the partner of a person who was conducting that business. If, therefore, you want to apply the rules of this House to professional men for the purpose of preventing them from undertaking any business which has any reference to Parliamentary proceedings, you see you have the power already, by existing rules of this House to prevent them from doing so. And if you ascertain that, contrary to existing rules, any gentleman has attempted to transact such business, then he is amenable to this House, and he may be reprimanded, be may be censured, or— as in some instances it has been done—he may be expelled from this House. Therefore, as far as relates to that part of the question, as to the consideration of the duties of Members of the legal profession, I say, with confidence, that it is not necessary for you to lay down any new rules. And I say, further, that if you intend to apply any new rule, you may desire to introduce to any Member of the long robe, you ought specifically to have mentioned it in your Resolution. I now come to the greater question—namely, whether Members of this House, belonging to the legal profession or not, are, or are not, bound by the rules of Parliament to refrain from the acceptance of any reward of any sort or kind which can corrupt the influence to be exercised on their duties in Parliament. I say that the rule of Parliament has been invariably against it, and that there has been no exception to this rule from the oldest times down to the present moment. The very instance which has been referred to, of 1695, brings us back to the most remarkable period of our history. In that year, remember, it was proved to the House that certain Members—the Speaker included—had received rewards, in the shape of pecuniary bums, advanced to
  1038
  them for the conduct of what was called the City of London Orphan Bill; the House instantly took notice of the matter—expelled the Speaker, Sir John Trevor—yes, expelled the Speaker for that conduct; and he, I am sorry to say, was a gentleman of the long robe. I only mention that because of what fell from the hon. Member opposite — they expelled the Speaker and Mr. Hungerford, the Chairman of the Committee, and reprimanded Mr. Guy. That was the conduct pursued by Parliament with reference to the City of London Orphan Bill. But what was its conduct with reference to the Best India Company's charter? No less a sum than £100,000 was ascertained to have been distributed by the East India Company for the purpose of procuring a renewal of their charter, and large portions of that sum of money had come into the hands of some Members of the House. How did the House deal with that question? Did the House say it wanted a Resolution passed specially to deal with it? No, the House simply used its powers—singled out the particular cases, censured one, expelled another, and directed the impeachment of a third—the Duke of Leeds. It then passed the Resolution of 1695, which was not intended to apply, and does not apply to Members of the House, but which was intended to reach those beyond the House. That is the meaning of the distinction drawn between "the offer of the money" and "the acceptance of the money." The Resolution was intended to apply to the offer that was made by gentlemen outside the House to Members of Parliament. The House evidently thought that it had no necessity for laying down any Resolution as to the acceptance of money by its Members, because, by its inherent power and authority it could deal with such Members, and effectually mark its sense of such offences. That being so, I put it to the hon. Member who has brought forward this question, whether the Resolution now proposed is at all necessary? For confirming those rules that exist it is clearly not necessary, for your own Resolution was only made in pursuance of a larger and greater power which is inherent in this House. As the introduction of a new rule, it should not be passed, because it will hamper and fetter this House in the exercise of its discretion on future occasions, when particular cases of bribery and corruption may be brought under its notice. No words can so well specify what this House intends to

  1039
  do, when any undue influence is exercised on its Members, as those already in existence; and no power can be given to it superior to that which the House can itself exercise by its own inherent authority of taking notice of any particular case which is brought before it, dealing with that case according to its merits, and refusing to be hampered by any words which possibly, if introduced, may hereafter raise questions as to whether the case before them is brought within those words or not. For these reasons, entertaining a strong opinion that every species of corrupt influence on the conduct of Members of this House, fettering their judgment and freedom of opinion in the smallest degree, ought to be condemned at once, and believing that it will be condemned quite as effectually and much more readily under those powers which the House itself possesses than by introducing any new Resolution—which may or may not meet particular cases when they are hereafter brought forward— I say it is safer for the House to proceed upon its own known laws and usages than to introduce a new Resolution, which in one sense may be considered as too limited and in another sense much too extended: too limited if it does not meet every case of corrupt influence which may be brought under your notice—too extended, if it attempts, as it does in these words, to impugn the conduct of Members who have received testimonials publicly and honourably. Many such cases can be mentioned that have occurred within our own memories, and one especially. It happens, undoubtedly, in the instance I refer to, that it was given by the vote of this House, and not by his constituency, or rather perhaps that the country gave it to him through this House. But we do know that not even a twelvemonth has passed over our heads since one gentleman of this House was presented with a testimonial by his constituency. Not many years have passed over our heads since another gentleman, not now, but then, a Member, received a testimonial for his great exertions in a great cause. I think I may include honourable testimonials of that description which gentlemen may receive as instances which would render such words as those proposed too extensive. If you introduce words too extended in your Resolution, instead of stopping corruption, as you intend to do, you are much more likely to stop the honourable exertions of mankind. For all these reasons, I think that the hon.
  1040
  Member will do well not to press his Resolution. I think the declaration of opinion that he has heard from all sides of the House, of an intention to put down any reward which is corrupt in its character, must fully answer his purpose—must maintain the dignity and authority of this House in the country, and will not endanger the existing rules, or prevent their application wherever they may be found to be requisite.
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: I think that in a matter which concerns the honour of Members of this House, nothing is more important than that the rules laid down should be clear and precise. Anything like a vague declaration of the impropriety of certain conduct, while it is a mere trap for tender consciences, is no restraint upon those of a different description. The present law of Parliament, which is known and understood, appears to me to be sufficient for the purposes for which it has been established; and I think the Resolution now proposed is objectionable on account of the vagueness of the terms in which it is couched. If I had entertained no doubt upon that point before, the speech of the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Fox), opened a view which would have induced me to pause, because, if the Resolution is to apply in the extensive manner contemplated in that speech, there is hardly a function which Members of this House could perform in regard to matters connected with their constituents which might not render them in some degree subject to censure. Therefore, holding as high as any one can, the necessity of maintaining the honour of Members free from any imputation of corruption, I am disposed to think that the present regulation, with the discretion which the House must always possess of judging of the conduct of its Members, when that conduct comes before them, affords a sufficient security for the integrity of Members; whilst there would be great danger in the vagueness of the Resolution now proposed. I think the appeal made to my hon. Friend not to press the Motion to a division is, an appeal which he will exercise a wise discretion in acceding to.
  Sir JOHN TRELAWNY Sir JOHN TRELAWNY, in reply, denied that his Resolution would limit the operation of the order of the House on this subject. The resolution passed in 1695 was limited to the offer of rewards to Members of Parliament, but his Resolution would go further, for it would prohibit the acceptance of them; but it did not apply to tes-

  1041
  timonials to Members for past services. He regretted that his hon. Friend below him had referred to the inquiry into the charge preferred against Mr. Butt. His hon. Friend had said that the Resolution of the select Committee was a distinct acquittal; but in his (Sir J. Trelawny's) opinion it simply affirmed that the statements of the petition had not been proved to the satisfaction of the Committee; but he contended that the evidence amply sustained the position he had taken in his opening statement. He, at the same time, wished it to be understood that he did not express any opinion on the charge against Mr. Butt. Neither malice nor ostentation had induced him to bring forward this subject. His simple object was to suggest the desirableness of taking some step with the view of preventing an erroneous impression being made in the public mind by the result of the inquiry into Mr. Butt's case. As it appeared to be the general wish, of the House that his Motion should be withdrawn, he had no objection to that course.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

ENLISTMENT OF NEGROES.

  PAPERS MOVED FOR.
  Mr. LOWE Mr. LOWE, in moving for returns relating to the engagements of Africans for the Indian service, said that the present state of the slave-trade question must be his excuse, if any excuse were needed, for his Motion. To make it intelligible he must briefly mention a few circumstances. On the 22nd of March last, in another place, a noble and learned Lord, (Lord Brougham) most honourably known during the last half century from his connection with the slave-trade question, asked a question of the noble Lord at the head of Her Majesty's Government with regard to the truth of a report then prevalent that two officers in the service of the East Indian Company were about to be despatched by Her Majesty's Government to the coast of Africa to enlist negroes for service in India. The President of the Board of Control was not in his place at that time. The answer received by the noble Lord from Her Majesty's Government, from both the Prime Minister and the Under Secretary for War, was, that nothing of the kind had ever been thought of. On the evening following, the President of the Board of Control, in the same place, made a very remarkable statement to the House. He took no notice whatever of the fact that the Prime Minister and the Under Secre-
  1042
  tary for War were ignorant that there had been any intention on the part of Her Majesty's Government to enlist negroes for service in India; but avowed that it had been intended by the Government to despatch that very day two officers to the western coast of Africa by a steamer which was to leave that evening, for the purpose of enlisting a class of men called Kroomen to serve in the vessels and flotillas at the mouths of the rivers Ganges and Irrawaddy, as a sort of preparation for serving as light troops in Her Majesty's army. Now, sending men to sea by way of preparing them to serve as light troops was very like putting a soldier on horseback by way of preparing him to march. However, let that pass. The noble Earl the President of the Board of Control proceeded to say that he found some difficulty had occurred in the matter, owing to the Mutiny Bill for the United Kingdom having already passed through some of its stages. That Bill, he said, would require some alteration to enable the Government to enlist these Kroomen for Indian service. He added, that he had corresponded with the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary at War on the subject, and the result of that correspondence being that it was too late to make the necessary amendment in the Mutiny Bill, the plan was abandoned. He would offer no objection on the fact that the noble Earl had not communicated his intention of taking such a step to his colleagues. In his evidence before the Indian Committee in 1852 the noble Earl stated that when he was at the Board of Control it was not his habit to communicate with the Prime Minister. He did not so communicate with Sir Robert Peel, and probably, therefore, he kept to the rule now. The other night, too, he bad stated that since the last vote of the House of Commons he looked upon the Court of Directors as having nothing more to do with India than any other body of private individuals; consequently, it could not be expected that he should communicate with them on such matters. After such a frank declaration of his opinions no one had a right to complain of the noble Earl's conduct in this respect; but still it was fitting that the House of Commons should be favoured in this matter with the confidence which he had witheld from his colleagues. It was important that the House of Commons should know what the precise instructions of these officers were, in order that they might judge whether proper precautions had been taken to prevent this proposed

  1043
  enlistment degenerating into a species of slave trade. He hoped, therefore, that there would be no objection to lay on the table copies of these instructions, which must have been prepared, as they were only countermanded the day before the mail sailed. He hoped, too, that some information would be given as to the precautions which had been taken to insure these Kroomen who were to be enlisted were genuine Kroomen, should offer themselves voluntarily, and not be prisoners of war sold by the chiefs on the coast. He should also wish to know what clause of the Mutiny Act would have required alteration to enable this proposition to be carried out, for he was totally unable to understand how the Mutiny Act could have anything to do with the matter. Undoubtedly, if these men were to have been enlisted for the service of Her Majesty in the United Kingdom, some alteration would have been necessary in the Mutiny Act, as it was passed annually; but if they were to be engaged in the naval service of the Crown anywhere, then, as the Naval Mutiny Act passed once for all, no alteration would have been required. The East India Company's Mutiny Act, too, was passed once for all, and no alteration would have been needed in it if these men had been for their service. Moreover, he could not see how it was impossible to have altered the Mutiny Act at that time, as had been stated. It stood then for a third reading, and it would have been quite possible to recommit it, and then introduce the necessary alteration. The right hon. Gentleman concluded by moving—
  "That there be laid before this House, a Copy of all Instructions for the engagement of Natives of Africa in the Indian Service:
  "And, Return of the alterations in the annual Mutiny Act which such engagement would render necessary."
  MR. BAILLIEsaid, it was quite clear that the right hon. Gentleman neither understood the Mutiny Act nor the rules of Parliament. He was very much surprised that the right hon. Gentleman, who he believed was a lawyer, should have put such a notice on the paper. He asked for "a return of the alterations in the Mutiny Act, which such arrangements would have rendered necessary;" in fact, for a return of alterations which had never been made, and which, in fact, could not have been made at the time. It was plain that the right hon. Gentleman had never read the Mutiny Act. It gave authority to enlist and attest recruits in different parts of the world for Her Majesty's service; but it
  1044
  gave no such authority to the East India Company; and the alteration, if it could have been made, would have been to give this power to the East India Company. As regarded the instructions, the right hon. Gentleman should not only have them, but something more. It would be impossible to understand these instructions without having all the papers relating to the matter, and he should, therefore move, as an addition to the right hon. Gentleman's Motion, for—
  "Copy of a Letter of Mr. Spence, relative to the enlistment of Kroomen:
  "And, Memorandum of Interview between the Court of Directors of the East India Company and Mr. Spence relative thereto, and all subsequent Correspondence and Instructions relative thereto; together with Memorandum of the Amendment required in the Mutiny Act, to enable the East India Company to enlist and attest in the same manner as Her Majesty's Government."
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: I quite agree in the opinion which seems to have been entertained by Her Majesty's Government, that it would have been desirable to enlist a negro force for employment in India. I believe it would have been an expedient arrangement, and I know that that is the opinion of the Governor General. They would be exceedingly useful, they would stand the climate better than Europeans, and would be free from those objections which apply to Native Indian troops in respect to their peculiar feelings of caste. The difficulty would be, how to raise a Black force, without giving any indirect encouragement to a renewal of the slave trade, and I presume that was the view taken by the Government in this matter. I do not know that it was likely we should have been able to obtain any efficient troops from that coast, for so far as the information which I have received goes, these Kroomen are generally seafaring men, and are not willing to engage for more than a temporary absence from home. They will only take short voyages, and would not be likely to engage for service in India. Neither my right hon. Friend nor myself, wish to imply any objection to the principle of raising Black troops for India, if proper means had been taken for that purpose; what we wish to impress upon the House is, that in raising such a force, great care should be taken that no means be employed which will have the effect of indirectly renewing the slave trade.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I cannot pretend to give an opinion on the capabilities of the Kroomen,

  1045
  because, though I have had the advantage of recently conversing with two gentlemen who have had great personal experience of the country in which this particular section of the human race resides, their accounts were unfortunately very much opposed to each other. The one told me that they were a race admirably adapted for naval warfare; the other, that their capital accomplishment was shooting with the rifle. One told me that they were perfectly willing to quit their country for any length of time; the other, that they could be relied on only for a very short time. My noble Friend at the head of the Board of Control has in this matter been actuated solely by a feeling of public spirit, and by a desire to omit no opportunity at a moment of exigency of obtaining resources for carrying on the war in which we are engaged in India, and which, from the news we have received to-night, will, I trust, soon be brought to a successful termination. The noble Lord (Viscount Palmerston) may be perfectly certain that, however desirous we may have been to raise a black force for service in India, we should avoid everything which could in the slightest degree have the appearance even of renewing that slave trade which this country has made such immense sacrifices to put down. The tone of the noble Lord requires no comment, and he has taken a very fair view of the matter. I think the Secretary of the Board of Control has made a perfectly sufficient and satisfactory answer to the observations of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Lowe), whose tone certainly did not resemble that of the noble Lord.
  GENERAL THOMPSONsaid, it had once been his fortune to be a commandant of Kroomen, and unless they were greatly altered from what they were when he knew them, he believed no Kroomen ever hit a mark yet. He had once held a field day with them, when threatened with an attack from the interior. The Kroomen formed a loose line—in what the old English disciplinarians would have called "some filthy order"—and then each man ran out, and after, like a prudent man, he had turned his face to the rear, he discharged his piece and ran back to the line again. He could not help thinking that somebody had been attempting a joke upon the Government, for they might as well talk of forming a regiment of Cuirassiers out of the journeymen shoemakers of London on account of their aptitude for the prœlium equestre, as attempt to turn the Kroomen of Africa into light infantry.
  MR. LOWEsaid, he had been reprehended by the Secretary to the Board of Control for his ignorance of Parliamentary practice, because he said that a Bill when it stood for a third reading should be recommitted and Amendments introduced. He reasserted that statement. By a recent order the House had given up its power of amending Bills substantially on a third reading, but they could recommit a Bill and place it for a third reading on a future day. It might not have been worth while to mention it but for the unmerited contradiction of the hon. Gentleman.
  MR. LOWEwithdrew his Motion.
  Papers moved by Mr. H. Baillie ordered.
  House adjourned at Ten o'clock.

MINUTE.
PUBLIC BILL.—la Oaths.
NEGRO IMMIGRATION INTO JAMAICA.

THE ACT OF LEGISLATION.—EXPLANATION.
THE EARL OF CARNARVON THE EARL OF CARNARVON, referring to a question which had been put to him by a noble and learned Lord (Lord Brougham) before the Easter recess, referring to an enactment of the Legislative Assembly of Jamaica, which he apprehended might tend to a revival of the slave trade, stated, that although the Bill, which had been received from the Legislature of Jamaica, contained many valuable provisions, still, as there were in it two or three objectionable clauses with regard to immigrants into that colony, the Government had had no alternative but to disallow the whole measure.
THE HEW COURT OF PROBATE.

  APPEALS.
  LORD LYNDHURSTwished, without putting any question on the subject, to call

  947
  the attention of his noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack to circumstances likely to attend the hearing of appeals from the Court of Probate, established under the recent Act of Parliament. Under the old system the appeal was from the Ecclesiastical Courts to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, and such appeals were, he Was informed, usually heard and decided within a period of three or four weeks. Under the Act recently passed the appeal was to their Lordships' House; and the result would be, that if these appeals were brought in in the ordinary course, nearly two years would elapse before judgment could be given, during the whole of which time the creditors of the estate in dispute and the legatees would be kept out of their money. What he would suggest to his noble and learned Friend was that, these appeals should be placed in a separate list, and that arrangements should be made for bringing them on at regular intervals.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORwas obliged to his noble and learned Friend for calling attention to this subject; but he thought that his suggestion had better be addressed to another noble and learned Lord (Lord Cranworth), who he believed would shortly have charge of a Bill for the amendment of the Probate Act.
  LORD CRANWORTHsaid, that he should be happy to take the suggestion of his noble and learned Friend into consideration.
  LORD CAMPBELLsaid, he believed that the country would never be satisfied until there was an opportunity of trying appeals at the bar of their Lordships' House throughout the whole judicial year. The cases to which his noble and learned Friend had referred required great despatch, and it would be gross injustice to creditors and legatees to keep them out of their property until such appeals could come on in their regular order. There were many other cases which were not less urgent; and he therefore hoped that his noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack would consider whether some provision could not be made for disposing of the appeals which came to that House in a manner which would be satisfactory to the public and creditable to their Lordships.

LIBEL BILL.

  SECOND READING. NEGATITED.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  LORD CAMPBELLsaid, that, in asking their Lordships to give this Bill a second
  948
  reading, he would occupy but a small portion of their time, for it seemed to him that he ought rather to apologize for not going further with the proposed alteration of the law than to combat the objections that had been urged against moving at all in this matter. Even if the measure he now proposed became the law of the land, it would still not be in a perfect state, although within the last few years very great improvements had been effected in it; morn particularly by that Act which provided that the party charged with having published a libel might plead the truth of the statement on which the action was founded, and that it was for the public benefit that the matter charged should be published. When that Act was before Parliament there were some who expressed their apprehension that the proposed alteration would lead to an increase of libellous accusations; but he could take upon himself to say to their Lordships that the effect had been quite the contrary — that it had had a manifest and sensible effect in discouraging slander. It had had, besides, this very beneficial effect—that persons who were subjected to actions for slander or libel could no longer allege, as they used formerly to do, that if the law allowed them they were able to prove the truth of the statement, and that they were only found guilty because they were not allowed to prove that what they had said was true. Now they were allowed to plead that it was true, and the consequence was, they thus were more chary of their assertions. Another of the beneficial enactments of the Act of 1843 was, that those infamous attempts to extort money by threatening to publish slanderous statements in low-class newspapers unless money were given for the suppression of the libel, had been put an end to, and the class of publications which existed by these means were at an end. Still, much remained to be done to place the law of libel in a satisfactory state. The distinction between verbal and written slander could not easily be defended. As the law now stood, to say at a public meeting that a man was a coward, a liar, and a scoundrel afforded no cause of action unless some special damage had been sustained. So also a woman, if assailed by the coarsest language that could be used, could obtain no redress unless she could prove that she had suffered some special injury. He had himself tried most strenuously in the year 1843 to redeem our law from that reproach; but he failed then; and he did not now feel encouraged to renew his

  949
  attempt. He feared that the present Bill would cause great disappointment to those who had petitioned in its favour. They had asked for a great deal more than he proposed to grant. This movement owed its origin to the action of "Davison v. Duncan," of which their Lordships had probably heard, which had been brought in the Court of Queen's Bench against the proprietor of a respectable journal in the county of Durham, because he had published an account of what took place at a public meeting held under a local Act appointing Commissioners with large powers and authority to impose taxes for public objects. It was pleaded in that action that a true and faithful report had been given of what occurred at the public meeting: but on the case being argued on demurrer, this was held to be an insufficient justification. Great sensation was produced by the ultimate result of the action, for, the demurrer being overruled, the parties went to trial, and the jury found that the report in the newspaper was a good and true representation of what was spoken in public, and that it had been published without any malice. The jury, however, were told, and very properly, by the Judge, that, technically speaking, the publication was a libel, and that they must find a verdict for the plaintiff. They accordingly found a verdict for the plaintiff, with one farthing damages. The defendant had not to pay the costs of both sides, but his own costs in the action amounted to about £400. Upon this, petitions came in from various parts of the country, praying for a complete change in the law of libel; most of the petitions asked that there might be entire immunity to the proprietor and publisher of every public journal for the publication in newspapers of all that is spoken at all public meetings, if the report be faithful; that the only remedy should he against the person by whom the words at which offence was taken had been uttered at such meeting; and that if it were proved that the party had spoken anything, however calumnious, the individual injured should have no redress whatever against the publisher. That appeared to him (Lord Campbell) to be an excessive and unreasonable demand, and it purported to be based on a misconception of what was called Lord Northampton's Case, which was supposed to have established the rule that one might say or write anything respecting any man, woman, or child, provided only that he
  950
  gave the name of the author of the slander. That was certainly a very alarming doctrine; but it had no foundation; no such thing as that had been ruled in Lord Northampton's case. In the discharge of his duty, he had last Session moved for a Select Committee to consider whether the same immunity might not be given to reports of the proceedings of both Houses of Parliament which was now given to reports of the proceedings in courts of justice, and whether it might not also be extended to other public meetings. A Select Committee was appointed, composed of some of the most distinguished members of their Lordships' House, chosen from all shades of politics. Some most eminent members of the Committee thought that there was no occasion for alteration, that there was no serious practical inconvenience from the present state of the law on the subject. But a considerable majority were of a different opinion; and they recommended that the same immunity should be granted to faithful reports of the proceedings of either House of Parliament at which strangers have been permitted to be present, as was now granted to reports of the proceedings in the courts of justice; and they further recommended that there should be a certain concession made to those who complained of the present law respecting reports of public meetings, namely, that in the case of reports of public meetings called by lawful authority, where there was every reason to suppose that nothing but what was lawful would take place, and where the report was faithful, there should be this protection for the publisher of the report,—not that he should have complete immunity, but if the jury should be of opinion that no actual injury had been suffered by the party complaining, so that they would only give, if required according to the present law, one farthing damages, they should be at liberty to find a verdict for the defendant, which would relieve him from any damage arising from the action, and throw all the costs upon the pettifogger who got up the proceedings. The Bill consisted only of three clauses—the first referring to reports of proceedings of the two Houses of Parliament; the second to reports of public meetings called by the public authorities, by the publication of which no damage could be proved to have been occasioned to any person; and the third defining what are public meetings. He could not understand on what ground

  951
  a difference should be made between the reports of the proceedings of the two Houses of Parliament and the reports of Courts of Justice. It had been solemnly determined that a fair and faithful report of what took place in a court of justice afforded no ground for an action of libel. In the case of "Curry v. Walter," decided more than seventy years ago, it was solemnly declared that such was the law of England, Mr. Justice Eyre stating that as to a true account of what had taken place in a court of justice, which is open to all the world, the publication of it was not unlawful. That had been called judge-made law. It was true there was no Act of Parliament for it, but he thought the Court was well authorised in coming to that decision. Why, then, should not the reports of the proceedings of the two Houses of Parliament be put upon a similar footing? His Bill, he should add, proposed to restrict the immunity to reports of proceedings within the Houses at which strangers should have been permitted to be present, and not when they were sitting foribus clausis. Was it not for the advantage of the public that that should be done? He admitted that between the proceedings of the two Houses of Parliament and the proceedings of general meetings there was, for purposes of this kind, a very great distinction. Some of the witnesses examined before the Select Committee upon this subject went so far as to claim, even for the reports of public meetings in Hyde Park on a Sunday, for seditious and mischievous purposes, the same immunity as was given to the reports of proceedings in a court of justice. In this he (Lord Campbell) could not concur; but he had high authority in favour of the proposition; but he would only trouble their Lordships with the opinions of two distinguished men. Mr. Justice Laurence, one of the greatest Judges that had ever adorned the bench in the country, in the case of "Curry v. Walter," said:—
  "Though the publication of such proceedings may be to the disadvantage of the particular individuals concerned, it is of vast importance to the public that the proceedings in courts of justice should be made universally known. The general advantage to the country of having those proceedings made public more than counterbalances any inconvenience to private persons whose conduct may be the subject of investigation. The same reason also applies to the proceedings of Parliament. It is of advantage to the public, and even to the legislative body, that due accounts of their proceedings should be generally circulated; and they would be deprived of that advantage if no
  952
  person could publish them without being punished as a libeller."
  His distinguished predecessor (Lord Den-man), when examined before a Select Committee on the law of libel, which sat in 1843, said—
  "The result of my consideration of the subject generally is, that a faithful report of all proceedings in a court of justice ought not in any case to be considered libellous, unless it tends to corruption of manners; I extend this even to ex parte applications with a view to ulterior proceedings, because I think that on the balance of evils that evil is much less, and that it is upon the whole the more desirable course even for parties publicly questioned. I have no doubt that the publication of police reports is extremely useful for the detection of guilt, by making facts notorious, and for bringing those facts more correctly to the knowledge of all parties interested in unravelling the truth. The public, I think, are perfectly aware that those proceedings are ex parte, and they become more and more aware of it in proportion to their growing intelligence; they know that such proceedings are only in course of trial, and they do not form their opinion till the trial is had. Perfect publicity of judicial proceedings is of the highest importance in other points of view, but in its effects on character I think it desirable. The statement made in open court will probably find its way to the ears of all in whose good opinion the party assailed feels an interest, probably in an exaggerated form, and the imputation may often rest on the wrong person; both these evils are prevented by correct reports. With regard to the reporters of debates in Parliament, I cannot help entertaining a strong opinion that no faithful report of a debate ought to expose the publisher to an action or to a criminal proceeding. This is a question involving privilege, and therefore one of great delicacy; but as long as the debates are practically public, it seems to be unjust and wholly inconsistent with public freedom to subject their promulgation to punishment."
  The great objection which had arisen against the first clause of his Bill was a question of privilege. Now, he (Lord Campbell) had always been a "privilege" man. When he was a Member of the other House of Parliament, he on all fitting occasions resolutely defended its privileges, and if the privileges of their Lordships should ever be invaded he should defend them with equal zeal. This Bill would not in the remotest degree interfere with the privileges of either House of Parliament. Time was when there was an order in both Houses that the proceedings should not be published by their own Members or by public journals. But already, in both Houses, all these orders had been practically done away with, and he would show that if this Bill passed it would not be necessary for either House to alter one single syllabic of its existing Standing Orders. He would give their Lordships a

  953
  history of the origin of the supposed privileges of Parliament with reference to publication of their proceedings. Until he had closely investigated the subject he had been at a loss to understand that extreme jealousy on the subject of the publication of their proceedings which had induced both Houses of Parliament to make Standing Orders constituting such publication a high breach of privilege; for in all other countries where similar assemblies existed, and in which those assemblies enjoyed the right of canvassing the acts of the Executive, full liberty of publishing their proceedings had been enjoyed. Their Lordships knew very well that some of the greatest orators and lawyers of antiquity —Cicero, for example — published with great applause and effect their speeches before senates and courts of justice immediately after their delivery. Why should not we in England enjoy the same privilege? The reason why the Orders prohibiting the publication of the debates had been passed by both Houses was this: — During the progress of the struggle between the Crown and the two Houses of Parliament every effort was made by the two Houses to prevent the Crown from exercising the illegal power which it had usurped of punishing Members for what they spoke in Parliament, and it was then that these Orders were made. Secrecy was then of great consequence, because when the Crown heard that proceedings which it disapproved were going on in the House of Commons next morning, the Black Rod would knock at the door and summon the Commons to the Upper House, and Parliament was dissolved. Sometimes matters went further than this. Members were summoned before the Privy Council and examined as to their speeches, and if they could not give a satisfactory explanation they were sent to the Tower, there to pass their time until the prorogation. It was to prevent the Crown from getting notice of what was going on in Parliament that these Orders were made, and they were chiefly directed against the publication by Members of their own speeches. On the 13th of July, 1640— not to go further back—the Commons ordered that "No Member shall either give a copy or publish in print anything that he shall speak here, without leave of the House;" and on the 22nd of March in the same year—"that all Members of the House are enjoined to deliver out no copy or notes of anything that is brought into the House, pro-
  954
  pounded or agitated in the House. On the 28th of March, 1642, the Commons resolved that "What person soever shall print or sell any act or passages of this House under the name of a diurnal or otherwise, without the particular license of this House, shall be reputed a high contemner and breaker of the privilege of Parliament, and so punished accordingly." Their Lordships followed the example of the Commons, and made similar orders; and they summoned persons before them for publishing accounts of their proceedings. But, as their proceedings were more moderate and discreet than those of the Commons, they had not the same dread of punishment, and their Orders were not so frequent. On the 13th of March, 1647, a message came up from the Commons with a vote for inhibiting the publication of Parliamentary proceedings, in which the Lords were desired to concur. They did not, however, immediately concur, but replied that they would send an answer by a messenger of their own. After the Revolution, when constitutional government was established, it might have been expected that, as the reason for the rule had ceased, the rule also would have ceased; but this was not the only instance in our history of old customs and laws remaining in force long after the cause for them had ceased. It was just at this period that their Lordships made the Standing Order which was now the only one remaining on their books in reference to this subject. In 1698 there was published by one Churchill a book which called in question this very jurisdiction of their Lordships; whereupon it was resolved that "it is a breach of the privileges of this House for any person whatsoever to print, or to publish in print, anything relating to the proceedings of this House without the leave of this House." Until the year 1771 both Houses set their faces steadfastly against any publication of any part of their proceedings: but the rule was violated by reports under fictitious names. There were reports, for instance, of the proceedings of the Parliaments of Lilliput and of Utopia, in which the speeches of Bolingbroke and other great speakers of the reigns of Anne and the first two Georges were given under fictitious names. But there was great apprehension that the publisher of these might at any time be sent to prison. Since 1771, however, the rules against the publication of reports had been relaxed, in consequence of a memorable

  955
  crisis that then occurred, and of which an excellent account was given in Lord Mahon's history, when the House of Commons tried to enforce their order to prevent the publication of debates, and sent a messenger to arrest the publisher. But the messenger himself was arrested and sent to Giltspur Street Compter; and although the House of Commons sent the Lord Mayor and an alderman to the Tower for contempt, the House was finally baffled, and from that time any person who pleased had published the debates in Parliament without fear. The question was, whether there was anything upon the records of either House to prevent this Bill obtaining the approbation of the Legislature. Their Lordships were governed by the Order of 1698, which forbade the publication of any of their proceedings without the leave of the House, and he maintained that their Lordships had given this leave in the most ample and authentic manner. In 1849 a Committee was appointed, at the instance of Lord Beaumont, to consider the accommodation of the new House, to which were referred several petitions relative to the reporting of Parliamentary proceedings. That Committee made the following report: —
  "The Committee have examined witnesses respecting the facility of hearing in the temporary gallery erected for the convenience of strangers connected with the public press, and in consequence of the evidence given by them the Committee feel themselves justified in recommending a permanent structure on the plan submitted to them by Mr. Barry. Mr. Dod, the senior reporter, and Secretary to the Reporters' Committee, states that they hear in the present gallery of the House of Lords as well as in the House of Commons, or as well as they ever heard in any House of Parliament. Other witnesses corroborate Mr. Dod's evidence. But notwithstanding the success which has attended the experiment made by Mr. Barry, neither the strangers who are allowed to be in the precincts of the House, nor even the Members present in the House itself, can expect to hear distinctly unless strict order is preserved both below the bar and on the steps of the throne. The Committee recommend that a portion of the space at the foot of the throne be railed off."
  Again, on the 30th of July, a Resolution was carried for an Address to the Crown, praying that a gallery, according to the recommendation of the Select Committee, and upon the plan of Sir C. Barry, should be erected. The Address was presented, and upon that Address the gallery was erected which was now occupied by the reporters. Until 1845 there were positive orders of the House of Commons against the admission of strangers:—
  956
  "Ordered that the Serjeant-at-Arms attending this House do from time to time take into his custody any stranger whom he may see, or who may be reported to him to be, in any part of the House or galleries."
  It was forbidden to any stranger to come into any part of the House or gallery belonging to the House. It was also ordered:—
  "That no Member of this House do presume to bring any stranger into any part of the House or galleries."
  In consequence of a Motion of his friend Mr. Christie, those Orders were reformed in 1845, and now stood in this shape:—
  "That the Serjeant-at-Arms attending this House do from time to time take into his custody any stranger whom he may see, or who may be reported to him to be in any part of the House or gallery appropriated to the Members of this House.
  "That no Member of this House do presume to bring any stranger into any part of the House or gallery appropriated to the Members of this House while the House or a Committee of the Whole House is sitting,"
  The prohibition directed against the admission of strangers, therefore, now only applied to those parts of the House appropriated to Members, and there was no necessity for the slightest alteration in the Standing Orders of either House of Parliament. Both Houses had, in fact, recognised the presence of strangers, reserving at the same time the right to exclude them. That right would not be affected by the passing of the present Bill; and he agreed that if any person published reports of what took place when either House had ordered that strangers should be excluded, he would be justly punishable, as now, for the breach of privilege. But it was said that there was no necessity for the Bill, because no practical evil had arisen from the present state of the law. But an action might be brought, or an indictment preferred, for the publication of anything that transpired in the course of their Lordships' proceedings that could be construed as reflecting upon the character of any one. And no later than last Session the noble Earl opposite (Earl Grey) had, while bringing forward the case of "Shedden v. Patrick," found it necessary to make the strongest imputations against private character, for which an action might have been brought against the journal publishing a report of them. It would be seen whether it was true that no one suffered by the evidence given before the Select Committee. One of the first witnesses was Mr. Dobie, a very respectable solicitor,

  957
  who was the solicitor for The Times newspaper. Mr. Dobie gave this evidence:—
  "Will you be good enough to state any facts which have come within your experience bearing upon this subject? I consider that this fact will arise from the experience which I have had in defending the proprietors of The Times newspaper from the consequences of actions for damages in reporting proceedings of the House of Commons and proceedings in public meetings:—If the press had the same immunity or protection in publishing the reports of the proceedings of Parliament and public meetings as they enjoy with regard to courts of justice, it would be a great benefit to them and a great advantage to the public.
  "Have you known any actions brought against The Times newspaper for reports of proceedings in either House of Parliament?—I defended one action for a speech of Dr. Lushington's and another for a speech of Lord George Bentinck's, and the proprietors of The Times were put to very considerable expense in justifying the truth of those two speeches, as well as proving that they were true reports."
  One of those instances was a speech of his learned friend Dr. Lushington, who, in representing the misconduct of an individual, said he had been suspended as a proctor three times. It turned out that the man had really only been suspended twice, but Dr. Lushington said three times, and was correctly reported; but for this inaccuracy an action was brought against The Times, the proprietors of that newspaper were harassed by legal proceedings, and they had to pay some costs. In the other case of Lord George Bentinck there was a scandalous informer who had raked up a long-forgot ten Act of Parliament, and had brought an immense number of qai tam actions upon an obsolete statute. Lord George Bentinck very properly spoke strongly of such a scandalous use of an old Act of Parliament, and for a report of what Lord George Bentinck said an action was brought against The Times. If it had occurred in a court of justice there would have been complete immunity; and why should there not be the same immunity when a matter was discussed in Parliament? Mr. Hansard, a name well known to their Lordships, after stating that he had not had actions brought, but had been in constant dread of them, gave this evidence:—
  "Your Lordships are very well aware that my publication is the only publication which professes to record the proceedings of Parliament in extenso, and with very considerate fidelity, but that I am nut in any way recognized—that I have no protection whatever more than any other person who should publish in extenso or otherwise any reports of debates in your Lordships' House or of debates in the other House. Now, the consequence of the present state of the law of libel is
  958
  this: that if matter is uttered in debate in either House which would be libellous and would be unprotected if published out of the House, I am obliged to consider whether it would be safe for me to print that matter; and if I am clearly of opinion that it would not be safe for me to do so, inasmuch as the publication is not of such a nature that I could stand the expenses of a prosecution, the result is that I strike the matter out without any attempt at modification or otherwise.
  "That apprehension induces you to suppress that which ought to appear if the report were fully accurate? It is, advisedly and systematically so.
  "Earl Stanhope: Am I to understand you to say that those instances occur often?—Not often; but they do occur with sufficient frequency to be, as I conceive, of material consequence."
  It had been said that if his Bill were passed into a law, and if immunity were given, persons would come to public meetings and deliver libellous speeches, which would then be published with a view to libelling their enemies. But no such thing could happen. There was a case in the books— "The King v. the Earl of Abingdon." The Earl of Abingdon made a speech in that House libelling his steward, which speech he afterwards published. For that offence the Earl of Abingdon was very properly indicted, convicted, and punished; and if parties followed the Earl of Abingdon's example the same result would occur, for the publication of such a speech would not be a fair or bonâ fide use of the privilege of publication of the debates in Parliament Their Lordships need be under no apprehension that such an abuse could possibly occur if this Bill should pass. It was argued that as no action would he against a Member of Parliament for what he had spoken in his place in Parliament, so an aggrieved man would be deprived of all remedy if he could not proceed against the journal which published such a speech. But the same thing took place daily in the courts of justice. No action could be maintained against a counsel for a speech made in a cause, or against a Judge for a charge to the jury, or against a witness for what he might say in evidence. Therefore, it might be said that a person whose reputation suffered was left at present without any remedy for the loss he had suffered. But what loss could thus be sustained which could counterbalance the infinite advantage offered by the publication of the proceedings of courts of justice? He trusted, therefore, that their Lordships would agree to this clause of the Bill. He now came to the second clause of the Bill, the great object of which was

  959
  to protect the public press from vexatious and pettifogging actions, which were now sometimes brought where no injury had been sustained. This object had been in some measure attained by a recent Act of Parliament, enacting that if the damages were under 40s. costs equal to the damages should alone be given; but this Act had not afforded that protection to the press which it was entitled to. The press had a right to expect that where actions were brought against them without foundation all the costs should be thrown upon the plaintiffs. But still in an action where the jury might find for the plaintiff with a farthing damages, by which he would be entitled to no costs, yet the defendant would have to pay his own costs, which might amount to £300 or £400. Surely, where the report published contained a bonâ fide account of the transaction and no damage had been done, the person who published it should not be saddled with his own costs. It was supposed that some of the journals had declared that his Bill would be of no advantage to the press; but he believed that journalists looked to the Bill with great expectations of relief, and two witnesses, who were examined before the Select Committee, stated that they should gratefully accept such a measure. A most respectable witness, Mr. Baines, proprietor of the Leeds Mercury, gave the following evidence:—
  "Has it ever suggested itself to your mind that it might be a relief if, under such circumstances, the plaintiff were liable to pay the costs of the defendant if the jury should be of opinion, by finding a farthing damages, that the plaintiff had no real cause of action?—It would be a very important relief to the press if the plaintiff were thus rendered liable.
  " In that case the danger of vexatious actions being brought would be very much lessened?— It would be exceedingly lessened."
  Mr. Dobie, the solicitor of The Times, was asked—
  " Do not you think it might prevent actions from being brought where there has been no real damage sustained if the law were to be, that upon the jury finding only the nominal damages of a farthing the defendant should be entitled to recover costs from the plaintiff?"
  He replied—
  "Certainly it would be a very great assistance to the defendant."
  That would be the exact result of the second clause, because it would allow the defendant to plead in bar to an action that it was a faithful report of the proceedings of a public meeting lawfully assembled, and then the jury might find a verdict for the defendant and all the costs would
  960
  fall upon the plaintiff. Who would be injured by such a clause? If any real damage had been sustained the remedy was untouched, the jury would find for the plaintiff and the defendant would have to pay the damages and costs; but if no damage had been sustained, no one could say that the party to a pettifogging action would be at all aggrieved if he had to pay the costs that had been incurred by the defendant. The only other clause in the Bill referred to the definition of public meetings, to which he was not aware that any objection had been made. In the category of public meetings were comprehended all meetings the publication of the proceedings of which was likely to be of service to the public such as meetings called by any public functionary authorised to call such meetings, meetings to petition the Queen or either House of Parliament, meetings for the election of Members of Parliament, meetings of town councils, of local boards, and generally of all meetings held under the authority of Acts of Parliament. It was of as much advantage to the public that the proceedings of such bodies should be reported as that the debates in Parliament should be published. These were meetings of bodies at which decency would be observed, and over which some control would always be exercised. He had never contemplated giving an unrestricted liberty of publishing all speeches made at any public meeting whatever without any remedy for parties aggrieved. His noble and learned Friend (Lord Lyndhurst) was of opinion that the speaker at a public meeting ought to be equally liable for what he said when his speech was faithfully reported and published in print as he would be if he himself had published it, or caused it to be printed and published. Objection might be taken that this would be doing away with the distinction between written and spoken slander: but the answer was that such a distinction was absurd in this particular instance, for if a man knew that his speech would be taken down by a shorthand writer with a view to publication, and if he spoke the speech with a view to its publication, then he ought to be liable for it as he would be if he published it himself. This would enable the party aggrieved to resort to the speaker in all cases, and there would be no apology for the person who said that he was injured by words spoken at a public meeting not bringing his action against the person who made the speech.

  961
  The change might be made without injury to any individual, and with a most beneficial effect. With these observations he must leave the Bill in their Lordships' hands, and trusted that they would give it a second reading. No doubt they would hear many predictions of evils which would follow the change which he proposed. Such predictions had been made before, and had always been falsified. There was no record of what occurred when the application of the peine forte et dure to persons who refused to plead was abolished; but no doubt that alteration of the law was not made without many predictions as to the evils which would follow it. Similar predictions were uttered when the law was altered so as to allow witnesses to be sworn for prisoners, and to give to accused persons the benefit of counsel. Many persons whose opinions were entitled to great respect were much opposed to the latter of these two measures, and apprehended that it would produce the most serious consequences. The last great improvement which was made was allowing parties to a cause to be examined as witnesses. His noble and learned Friend opposite (Lord Wensleydale) was at the time opposed to that measure, but he had since given to it his important sanction, and had admitted that it had been productive of great advantage to the administration of justice. His noble and learned Friend disapproved this Bill as he did of that, but he trusted he would live to see the day, and that not a distant one, when it would be shown that his apprehensions in this case were as groundless as those which he entertained in the other. The noble and learned Lord concluded by moving,
  That the Bill be now read 2a
  [Here the EARL, OF DERBY interrupted the debate, and communicated the receipt of a telegram announcing the fall of Luck-now on the 19th. The telegram was read amid general cheering.]
  Loan LYNDHURST: My noble and learned Friend the Lord Chief Justice in closing his address referred to something which fell from me with respect to this measure on a former occasion, and I therefore feel called upon to state as shortly as possible the views which I take of it. I need hardly say that I entertain all proper respect for my noble and learned Friend, and also for the Select Committee to whom the present question had been referred, and upon the Resolutions of which this Bill, as I understand, is based. At the
  962
  same time, I must recall to your Lordships' recollection the fact that only one-half of the said Committee was present when these Resolutions were agreed to, and that less than one-third of the Committee voted in their favour. The Committee consisted of sixteen members, of whom eight were present when the Resolutions were discussed, and five voted in their favour. I therefore feel that I am perfectly at liberty to entertain my own opinions upon this subject without running the risk of being charged with being either obstinate or presumptuous. I must say that I altogether dissent from the conclusion at which the Committee arrived. With all deference to my noble and learned Friend, I think that, if it is necessary to legislate at all upon this subject, the measure which he has brought forward is most inefficient for the purpose, and ought to be greatly extended. In my opinion, as the Bill stands at present, it would be almost wholly inoperative. Every one of your Lordships, I feel certain, will admit the importance of the reports to which the measure relates. They are indeed marvellous for their accuracy. Every man, without stirring from his home, is made acquainted by them with all the circumstances attending all these public meetings—held not only in the Metropolis, but in every part of the Kingdom — and with all the facts and arguments which are discussed at them. It is hardly possible to overrate the advantages which result from this system, and it is, I conceive, the duty of Parliament, as far as possible, to do justice to those persons to whom we are indebted for these great advantages. Now, my Lords, a word upon the law. My noble and learned Friend very properly drew a distinction between libellous and defamatory words spoken, and those words when actually reduced to writing, With but few exceptions, persons may calumniate and defame by word of mouth to almost any extent with perfect immunity, and without being subject to any punishment; but the same words, when reduced to writing, may subject a party to a prosecution, and to the payment of damages, if found guilty, to the person injured. The principle upon which this distinction is founded I imagine is this. Words may be uttered hastily, in a moment of passion, and without consideration; they may have been misreported, and may be forgotten; whereas, writing denotes premeditation, care, opportunity for consideration. The written libel

  963
  is permanent, and may be extensively circulated. These are the grounds upon which the law at present draws a distinction between words spoken and words actually written. Now, apply the principle upon which this distinction is founded to the meetings which are the subjects of this Bill. A man attends a public meeting, and from the most malicious motives makes a speech defamatory of the character of another person. He knows it will be taken down in writing: he sees the reporter before him. He knows that it will be published; the very object for which he speaks it is that it may be published. Yet that man passes with impunity; the law cannot take hold of him. On the other hand, the reporter, whose mind is intent upon one object only,—taking down accurately what he hears,—who has no time for consideration as to whether the language uttered be libellous or not, who sends his slips off one after another as fast as they are completed; who, when he revises them, revises them in the utmost haste because they must be published immediately and without delay; such a man, under such circumstances, having no malicious motive, perhaps not knowing the point on which the calumny turns, is made the scapegoat; an action is brought against him, and he is fined in damages, or he may be indicted for the libel, and punished as a criminal. Now what can be more unjust than that state of things? My Lords, when you come to consider the circumstances attending a public meeting such as I have described, the principle on which the distinction between written and oral slander is made, hardly applies. A man goes to a meeting prepared with a slander. He sees it taken down; he speaks it for that purpose; he knows it will be published. Take, however, another illustration. Supposing I dictate words detracting from the character of another man to a person who puts them down, and I wish him to publish them. In that case I am responsible, and may be indicted for the libel. It is true that in the example we are now considering there is no authority given—no expression of a wish that it should be published. But everybody knows that it is the intention of the speaker that it should be published; and therefore I say, the distinction between oral and written slander does not apply to the case we are now dealing with. The law should be so altered as to make the party who utters the slan-
  964
  der solely responsible. A very trifling link in the chain, if supplied, would do justice to the parties. I mention these facts in the presence of my noble and learned Friend, to give him an opportunity of considering them, with a view to giving effect to the principle I have stated. But if he should think it impracticable to adopt that principle, still, looking at the Bill in its present shape, I must hold it to be very inadequate and imperfect. The second clause provides that if an action be brought to recover damages for the publication of a report the defendant may answer that "this is a faithful report of what passed at a public meeting lawfully assembled for a lawful purpose." And if the jury under those circumstances should be of opinion that the plaintiff had sustained no loss or injury, the defendant will be entitled to a verdict. The consequence of his being so entitled to a verdict is, that all the costs of the proceedings must be paid by the plaintiff. No doubt, this would afford great relief to the publisher, because as the law now stands, if the publication be in strict law a libel however small the damages, be they only one farthing, the plaintiff has to pay no costs, and in the case of Davison v. Duncan, to which my noble and learned Friend has so repeatedly referred, we have an instance of the costs under such circumstances amounting to between £400 and £500. Therefore, if the Bill stopped here, it would give a very great relief to the publisher; but, unfortunately, it does not stop here. The very next clause entirely neutralises the provision which precedes it. Clause 3 defines the meetings which are to be deemed lawful meetings lawfully assembled within the meaning of the Act. Never was there so extraordinary a definition! My noble and learned Friend gives, under four heads, meetings as convened by lawful authority, namely, for presenting petitions to either House of Parliament or to Her Majesty; meetings of Town Councils; meetings for the election of Members of Parliament; and, lastly, meetings held under any local Act for the purpose of imposing any rate or transacting any business with respect to a parish or a district. On first seeing this limitation, I turned it over and over again in my mind to discover upon what principle it proceeded. Is it that these meetings are meetings where order and decorum pre-eminently prevail? If I wished to select any meetings of a contrary character, I should se-

  965
  lect one of the very heads inserted in this Bill. Take for instance a vestry meeting for the purpose of making a church rate—is that the kind of meeting which is peculiarly marked by order and decorum and by an absence of personality? My Lords, I have seen a vestry meeting presided over by the clergyman of the parish. Argument goes on, turbulence succeeds to argument, the clergyman is obliged to abandon the chair; some other person takes his place, when renewed confusion and perhaps tumult ensue, and certain resolutions are passed which are probably of a most objectionable description. And yet this is one of the special, or, according to the phrase of my noble and learned Friend, one of the "favoured" meetings to which his measure extends. He has condescended to include the meetings of this House and of the other House of Parliament. We, too, are "favoured" meetings, we are "lawful meetings," and are to enjoy the benefit of my noble and learned Friend's Bill. We shall not be turned out of this House; he does us the honour, and I am grateful to him, of styling us a lawful meeting within the operation of the Act. But, my Lords, what will the right rev. Bench say to it? The right rev. Bench remained present during three quarters of an hour of my noble and learned Friend's speech, but they abandoned their places before its conclusion. What, however, would they say, if they were here and heard that Convocation is not a "lawful" assembly? Neither the Lower nor the Upper House of Convocation is included in the Bill. In the Lower House, indeed, perhaps a few sharp words might be exchanged.
  LORD CAMPBELLhere interrupted the noble and learned Lord.
  LORD LYNDURST: I beg you will hear me out; you will have an opportunity of replying if you wish.
  LORD CAMPBELL: I did propose to insert the House of Convocation, but I was out-voted.
  LORD LYNDHURST: The Upper House, presided over by a most rev. Prelate, and consisting of right rev. Prelates, the dignitaries of the Church—sober, quiet, silent, unruffled—what does my noble and learned Friend say to it? Why he excludes it entirely from his Bill. There really never was such a Bill framed before for the consideration of Parliament. A Select Committee meets day after day to consider it, and at last they come to the conclusion that Convocation is an unlawful assembly.
  966
  Certain meetings, held at Exeter Hall, are presided over by a right rev—I mean by a noble Friend of mine who has a seat in this House. Those meetings, which occur three or four times a-week, are of a religious character, or for a charitable purpose; sometimes they are meetings on behalf of schools, and are attended by Clergymen of the Established Church and Dissenting Ministers. The speeches are sometimes of great eloquence, and the questions discussed most important. Yet they are not lawful assemblies within the meaning of this Bill. They are all deemed unlawful! Why my Lords what a Bill it is! I wish that a noble and learned Friend of mine— a walking cyclopedias, who is now doing suit and service in a neighbouring country, were now present. He would, I have no doubt, feel himself somewhat aggrieved by the definition given by his noble and learned Friend, as to what would be lawful meetings under this Bill. I remember reading the report of an address which my noble and learned Friend (Lord Brougham) delivered last autumn at Birmingham. The meeting, on that occasion, was held to consider very important subjects, most interesting to society, and it comprised Members of Parliament, literary and scientific men, and, in fact, the élite of the population of this country. I don't know whether the attention of my noble and learned Friend opposite was directed to that meeting. I hardly know how to characterize it. I am not quite sure that I have organs sufficient to articulate the name of it. It was called a Sociological Society, and I am not sure whether a noble Duke opposite was not one of the Vice Presidents [The Duke of ARGYLL shook his head]. At all events, this combination of Latin and Greek is, I think, most amusing; and the objects of the society appear to be very comprehensive. That society, however, if it should still be continued, will not be a lawful society under this Bill. Need I go further, my Lords? It may be remembered that about this time last year a meeting was held, presided over by a noble and learned Friend of mine, whose absence on the present occasion I greatly regret, upon a subject of the utmost possible consequence in a commercial country. It was, I believe, attended by commercial men from the large towns in the north, and, if I am not mistaken, some countrymen of my noble and learned Friend were present. I refer to the great meeting held for the purpose of considering the law of Bankruptcy. Now, what could be a more proper subject for a public meeting?

  967
  Yet that would not be a lawful meeting within the terms of this Bill. What does the Bill mean? What does it include? It excludes everything; it includes literally almost nothing. Before I left home this morning, I noted upon a paper a number of cases, including meetings of the greatest gravity and importance that were not included in the Bill. I came to one hundred and four, and then I stopped. I certainly expected to hear my noble and learned Friend, coming fresh as he does from a great judicial trial at which he was presiding, offer some more satisfactory explanation on this head, but I am grievously disappointed. The proposition of my noble and learned Friend seems to me most extraordinary. If a jury are of opinion that there is no damage, how can it be material at what kind of meeting the alleged libel was uttered? Mark how the Bill will operate. An action is brought for libel. It is proved that the meeting at which the alleged libel was uttered was a lawful meeting, assembled for a lawful purpose, and the jury say, "We are of opinion the plaintiff has no damage." The defendant says, "Oh, then I am entitled to a verdict."—"Oh no," exclaims the Judge, "this was not a vestry meeting; it was not a lawful meeting within Lord Campbell's Act—a carefully drawn measure." The meeting might have been held to consider the propriety of raising a monument to one of the best and bravest heroes of modern times—General Havelock —but the Judge must direct a verdict for the plaintiff, who may have his farthing damages, while the defendant is saddled with costs amounting to £300 or £400. What foundation, then, is there for this restriction? The noble and learned Lord said, as I understood, in the Committee, that it would not do to include all meetings in the Bill, because then the proceedings at seditious or treasonable meetings would be protected. Seditious meetings! treasonable meetings! — it is impossible, my Lords, for they are not lawful meetings, assembled for a lawful purpose. Such a ground, then, is no pretence for supporting the Bill. What I would suggest to my Noble and learned Friend, if he does not choose to assent to the alterations I propose in the first instance, is that he should agree to strike out the third clause altogether in Committee, and leave the second clause as it is, applying to any "public meeting lawfully assembled for a lawful purpose." Is not that protection enough. It should also be distinctly laid down that nothing in
  968
  the Bill should affect the privileges in any way of either Houses of Parliament. I wish the Bill to be read a second time, and to go into committee upstairs, in order that we may ascertain whether this Bill is not totally inefficient and inoperative, and that we may devise a measure marked by some common sense.
  LORD WENSLEYDALE LORD WENSLEYDALE, who was very imperfectly heard, said, that he had always been an advocate for useful reforms in the law, and scarcely any measure with that object had been brought forward by his noble and learned Friend (Lord Campbell) to which he had not given his active support. He could assure his noble and learned Friend, therefore, that it was with very great reluctance he felt obliged to oppose the present Bill. Any one who contemplated the history of English law for the last quarter of a century must be struck by the importance and with the extent of the improvements which had been made in the common law, in criminal law, and in equity law; and if the noble Earl (Earl Stanhope) should complete the history which he had commenced, he would undoubtedly refer to that period as distinguished by the most valuable improvements that had ever been effected in the legal institutions of this country. He entertained very strong objections, however, to the present Bill, and he did not agree with his noble and learned Friend who last addressed their Lordships, that it ought to be allowed to pass a second reading. One chief objection was, that it would have the effect of placing a person charged with verbal slander on the same footing as the man who was charged with written slander. It had long been established as the law of this country, that with respect to verbal slander an action could only be maintained when offences were imputed, for the commission of which the offender would be punishable by law, or for saying what might exclude the person slandered from society, or hurt his trade or livelihood, or discharge him in an office of public trust—indeed, the cases in which such actions could be maintained were very limited; but an action would he for any slander in writing or in print, because this writing or printing gave the slander a character of perpetuity, and also extended it far more widely than it could be spread by verbal publication: the injury inflicted by a written or printed report was therefore much greater than that done by verbal slander. The proprietors of public journals were undoubtedly at perfect liberty to pub-

  969
  lish fair and correct reports of the proceedings of the two Houses of Parliament; and; the public had been greatly benefited by such reports. But the Bill raised the question, whether newspaper proprietors should be permitted to publish with impunity, speeches vilifying the character of individuals on the ground that those speeches had been made in Parliament. That certainly ought not to justify the publication of slander. Among several witnesses examined before the Select Committee was the solicitor to The Times, who stated; that the proprietors thereof had been sued for having printed a speech made by Dr. Lushington in the House of Commons, and had to pay the costs of the action brought against them by the party who considered himself aggrieved by the report of the speech. That, in fact, was the only instance in which an action had been brought against The Times for printing reports of the proceedings in Parliament; and, in fact, the witnesses altogether failed to show that newspaper proprietors suffered any practical inconvenience from the law of libel as to reports of Parliamentary proceedings. They admitted that the law made them act with great caution with reference to speeches in Parliament of a libellous character. The law at present gave ample privileges to every person to express his opinions upon all subjects, so long as it were done fairly and without malice; but this Bill introduced a new provision into the law which had hitherto been unknown. At present every man had a right of action whose character was injured by slander; but the noble and learned Lord wished to lay it down that, a man must have suffered some pecuniary loss or damage before his action for slander would lie. No sufficient reason had been shown for these innovations on the ancient law, and he should therefore move that the Bill be road a second time that day six months.
  Amendment moved, to leave out "now" and insert (" this day six months.")
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, he would not have ventured to introduce his unlearned opinion amongst those of the noble and learned Lords who had addressed the House, if he had intended to enter into any detail or make any minute examination of the question. He rose only to suggest that the House should give the Bill a second reading, and that his noble and learned Friend on his right should consent that the Bill, having been so read, should be referred to a Select Committee. No doubt
  970
  there was a great difference between libel and slander. The slander might be spoken at some district meeting of a person, it might be of a tyrannical or bad character, but would never become known beyond the meeting or the district; but if those statements were reported in the newspapers all over the kingdom, and remained uncontradicted, no doubt it created a great difficulty; and the greater the publicity that was given to them the more highly injurious to the individual. At the same time it had been suggested by the noble and learned Lords whose opinions had great weight, that a person so speaking had a right to expect that his words would be reported, and consequently was justly liable for the injury done. Provisions to suit these difficulties might be made in committee on the Bill with respect to the practice of publishing reports of proceedings in Parliament. It appeared to him perfectly monstrous that, after both Houses of the Legislature had given every possible convenience to reporters to report their proceedings, and when they expected to have them properly reported, that they should be held liable for these reports, He had only heard of two accusations against the press—only two complaints, one to the effect that their Lordships' speeches were too condensed, and another of a noble Lord who complained that he was not reported at all. He thought the general feeling of Parliament and the public alike, was one of astonishment that the press gave the debates so well immediately after they were spoken. It was unreasonable too that the publishers of those reports should be held liable for whatever might be said, when it was impossible in many cases, to say whether such reports were libels or not. It was very undesirable that the reporters should be left to exercise their own discretion in such matters. In a great many cases, that which was spoken affecting the character of one man was the only defence of another, and it was better for the public to have the whole thing than to have mere garbled extracts. He was not sure whether or not it was not even to the advantage of persons accused that the greatest publicity should be given. It was of advantage under all circumstances to have the most accurate report, and that it should be brought before the public eye in the best and widest way. It was surely much better that a man against whom something had been said in either House of Parlia-

  971
  ment, should learn what had been said from an impartial report, rattier than from the casual and often imperfect report of a friend. He did not wish to go more fully into the merits of this case, but he did feel it desirable that they should give the Bill a second reading. The noble and learned Lord had told them that he had had occasion to observe a deficiency in the law, and that he had accordingly brought the matter before the House, and it was carried before a Select Committee composed of some of the most eminent men in the House. He (Earl Granville) did not belong to the Committee, which certainly was composed of some of the most eminent men of their Lordships' House; but when he found that only five Members of that Committee voted on the question, and eight were absent, it appeared to him to be a most extraordinary thing. When he observed that there were on that Committee the noble and learned Lord (Lord Campbell), holding one of the highest positions in the criminal judicature of the country, the then Lord Chancellor, and three noble Earls, he thought it was for the dignity of their Lordships' House that they should support the measure which had resulted from the Report of the Committee. Under the circumstances, he thought that the Bill should go to a second reading, in order that it might go before a Select Committee, which would have the advantage and might avail themselves of the discussion that had taken place upon the question, and be able to collect the details and bring about a good and effective remedy to the blot that had been discovered in our legislation.
  The LORD CHANCELLOR:— I regret, my Lords, that I for one cannot agree with the suggestion of the noble Earl (Earl Granville) to permit this Bill to go to a second reading for the purpose of referring it to a Select Committee. The proposition is one which I am sorry to say I cannot accede to; and I think, my Lords, there is not in the slightest degree anything undignified in your Lordships' coming to the conclusion as to the impropriety and undesirableness of giving this Bill a second reading, because my noble and learned Friend who has proposed it to us presents to us a certain principle, on which we are called on to decide at this stage of the Bill, as it is a principle to which I intend to address your Lordships' attention; for I think my noble and learned Friend has not established any case what-
  972
  ever for the Bill which he now proposes. My Lords, I have been so accustomed for years to pay implicit deference and submission to my noble and learned Friend, that I feel as if I were guilty of some impropriety in venturing to put forward my opinion in contradistinction to his. My noble and learned Friend has a very great advantage over me in the discussion now before your Lordships. The noble and learned lord has had great experience, he has entitled himself to considerable weight and respectful consideration in your Lordships' debates; he has entitled himself to weight and authority both in and out of this House;—and he is the author of many very excellent laws, particularly one upon the law of libel; and if my noble and learned Friend had never passed any other measure than his recent one, by which he suppressed the sale and circulation of impure and infamous publications, I think he would be entitled to the gratitude of every one who has the morality and well being of society at heart. But, my Lords, my noble and learned Friend must not be allowed to draw too largely on his stock of merit, and upon the influence which he possesses in your Lordships' House, by calling on your Lordships to take upon trust, without very careful examination, any proposal which he submits to your Lordships' attention. The Bill proposes alteration in the existing laws; and the real question is, is there any necessity for the change? is there any grievance? or is there any mischief arising from the present law which requires that any alteration should be brought about in the law? My noble and learned Friend has, I think, failed altogether in the establishment of any case in support of his Bill. Now, a full consideration of the question is requisite for the purpose of enabling your Lordships to come to a determination. The law is perfectly well known, and has been acquiesced in by the public press for a great number of years; they know precisely the extent of their responsibility, and they are constantly acting under a sense of it. A case has occurred which appeared suddenly to have roused them to a sense of their danger. A report was published in the Durham Advertiser of proceedings at a meeting of the West Hartlepool Improvement Commissioners. Whether it was a lawful meeting or not, I will not stop to inquire; but in the course of the proceedings some very injurious remarks were made against the

  973
  chaplain and secretary of the Bishop of Durham on the subject of a licence of a chaplain to the West Hartlepool Cemetery. The secretary brought an action against the newspaper in the court over which my noble and learned Friend presides. The editor of the paper pleaded that what he had published was a faithful report of the proceeding's of that meeting. To this plea, the plaintiff demurred; which is an admission of the truth of the statement and that it was a faithful report, but denies that it was any answer to the action. The Court of Queen's Bench decided in favour of the demurrer—decided according to the well-known law upon the subject. This decision, however, appears to have excited a groat deal of attention. I will not say in consequence of what appeared in the public journals, but following upon this publicity, my noble and learned Friend moved for a Select Committee to deter mine whether the same privilege could not be accorded to reports of proceedings in Parliament and at public meetings, such as was accorded with regard to reports of proceedings in courts of justice. The Committee, undoubtedly composed of most distinguished members of your Lordships' House; but I must be permitted to say, with the greatest deference to them, that their inquiry appears to me to have been much more directed to the consideration of the matter as regards the newspapers than how the interests of individuals and their security against slanders and calumny should be secured. My Lords, there were four witnesses—and only four, examined before this Committee — Mr. Baines, the proprietor of the Leeds Mercury; Mr. Dobie, solicitor to the Times newspaper; Mr. Hansard, the well-known publisher of the Parliamentary Debates; and Mr. Hargrove, the proprietor of the York Herald. No other persons than those who were concerned for the protection of the newspaper publications were called before the Committee. Now, what was the result of that inquiry? Was there any grievance established on the part of the press? Was there any inconvenience, any mischief shown to have arisen from the present state of the law? Mr. Baines, the proprietor of The Leeds Mercury, stated that for thirty years there had never been any action brought against that newspaper for any slanderous or calumnious publication. Mr. Baines, on the question being put to him—"Do yon know of any practical evil from the present state of the
  974
  law?" answered "None whatever." A similar inference might be drawn from Mr. Dobie's evidence with regard to actions brought against The Times. Why was that? Why, the answer was to be found in the evidence of the persons examined before the Committee. No actions had been brought against the proprietors of newspapers because they exercised care and caution in what they published; they acted under a sense of responsibility which. attached to them. What Mr. Hargrove says on that point is rather material: "In the existing state of the law I take care not to insert anything which has a libellous tendency." Now, my Lords, I say it is for the advantage of the public that this state of things should continue; that there should be a responsibility attaching to the proprietors of newspapers. It has been suggested, that if the law were changed there would be the same care and the same caution observed, and the same abstinence from publishing anything which would have a tendency to injure the character of individuals. My Lords, I must be permitted to doubt whether that would be the result. I know how much easier it is to be indiscriminate in publishing everything that is taken down; how difficult it is, in the hurry of publication, day by day, to select the portion of a report which is fit for publication, and to reject that which is not. Your Lordships may recollect this, that we are here dealing not only with those respectable journals to which the noble and learned Lord has alluded, and the editors of which would most likely be careful of private reputation, but that the privileges which they are to enjoy under this Bill are to extend to every newspaper throughout the kingdom; and I ask your Lordships whether there are not some journals at least which it is not likely would be extremely guarded and careful as regards doing injury to private character. When I look to the Resolutions which ultimately emanated from the Select Committee, and to the names appended to those Resolutions, I find that some noble Lords, Members of that Committee, whose opinions would have been extremely valuable, were not present when those Resolutions, which were carried by a majority of five to three, were put to the vote; for upon the decision of the Committee has been founded the Bill of the noble and learned Lord, which contains only three clauses, but those are of great importance. The noble and learned Lord proposes, in the first place,

  975
  to legalise the reports of all proceedings in either House of Parliament, however defamatory, however injurious these reports may be to the character of individuals; and the noble and learned Lord proposes that any person who is injured, and may be ruined by the report of debates which take place and in which his character has been assailed, should be utterly remediless; that proof of the publication being a faithful report of proceedings in either House of Parliament should be a complete answer to any action against the newspaper. I cannot help adverting to a little difficulty which seems to me to arise in the terms of my noble and learned Friend's clause. My noble and learned Friend proposes that the answer should be that the report is "a faithful report of the proceedings in Parliament." Now, how is the fidelity of the report to be established? On whom is the burden of proving that it is "a faithful report" thrown? Will it be sufficient for the proprietor to state that he considers what he has published to be a faithful report? If he is bound to prove it, how is he to do so, except by an invasion, in some degree, of the privileges of Parliament, by proving what actually passed in either House of Parliament? My noble and learned Friend assimilates the proceedings in Parliament to the proceedings in courts of justice; but there is a marked distinction between the two classes of proceedings. In courts of justice the proceedings are not ex parte. The whole case is heard, from beginning to end, on both sides; and the whole is published for the information of the public. But with regard to slander which takes place in the course of debates in either House of Parliament, it is mere ex parte statement. No answer may be given— probably no answer can be given—at the time the charge is made, and that constitutes, as it appears to me, a material and striking difference between the two cases. Consider the danger to which private persons will be exposed, if this Bill passes. I am sure that, if the noble and learned Lord's Bill passes, no noble Lord would abuse the decorum that pervades your Lordships' House by taking advantage of the altered state of the law in order to make his speech in debate a vehicle for private malice. I am sure that the same may be said of the Members of the other House of Parliament; but I can imagine that Members of some future House of Commons might avail themselves of the
  976
  advantage afforded them by a law as proposed to be altered by my noble and learned Friend, and knowing that what they said would be circulated throughout the country on the following morning, might use their position, and embrace the opportunity given them for the purpose of gratifying their private malice. Sly noble and learned Friend who proposed this Bill, referred to the case of Lord Abingdon. He might have referred to a similar case—that of Mr. Creevy; but both those were cases in which the speakers published their own speeches. The Bill, I admit, will make no alteration in the law in such a case. But the alteration which the noble and learned Lord proposes, refers to newspaper publications. At present, if a newspaper publishes slander spoken in the course of a Parliamentary debate, an action may be brought against the newspaper, and the party bringing it has an opportunity of vindicating his character; and the proprietor of the newspaper has this advantage, that if the statement be correct, he may plead that fact in justification. I will suppose a case in which a Member may be acting honestly and faithfully in the discharge of a public duty, and may yet commit a great wrong on an individual —do him, perhaps, an irreparable injury if the statement which he makes of that individual be published. I must be permitted to illustrate this by a case which lately occurred before the Privy Council. Proceedings were taken there in which certain respectable merchants of the city of London were charged with having been implicated in certain slave-trade transactions. The matter was debated and discussed at very considerable length before the Privy Council, and their Lordships took time to consider their judgment. Now, I have reason to know that the publication of those proceedings was most injurious to the credit and character of those respectable persons, and that it was only when the judgment was pronounced, in which they were entirely acquitted of all participation in the nefarious traffic, and in which very strong observations were made on the proceedings of. the Crown, and the Crown was saddled with the costs, that their characters were vindicated. I can imagine some Member of this or the other House of Parliament, whose heart burns within him when he speaks of the abominable slave traffic, breaking out in indignant reproach at the conduct of some London merchants whom he supposes to

  977
  have been engaged in it. My Lords, as long as that language is confined within the walls of this or the other House, the injury done those merchants would not be so great; but if on the following morning all that has been said flies through every part of the country, and is taken up by the country newspapers, the characters of the individuals, who are upon the assumption wholly innocent of any participation in this infamous trading, are completely destroyed, and they are irreparably injured. If this Bill passes, they will have no opportunity of vindicating their characters; all the remedy they will have will be, that they may address a letter to all the news apers which have inserted the injurious statement contradicting it. This letter may be inserted, or the newspapers may say, "Prom pressure of matter, we are unable to insert the letter;" and then the consequence of this measure which my noble and learned Friend deliberately proposes to the House, will be, that these persons will be irretrievably ruined and left without a remedy. My Lords, I cannot help thinking that this would be a most dangerous innovation and a most mischievous change in the law, which I think has been found, even on the evidence before the Committee, to provide a sufficient protection to newspaper proprietors, and, at the same time, has not left the characters of individuals defenceless. I now come to the clause of my noble and learned Friend's Bill which refers to proceedings at public meetings. It is perfectly true, that for words spoken, no action can be maintained unless they charge some indictable offence, with the single exception of cases in which it can be shown that special damage had resulted from the speaking of the words. My noble and learned Friend does not propose to abolish this distinction; indeed, the Report of the Select Committee condemns any such alteration. The Report says: —
  "To meet this objection it has been proposed entirely to do away with the distinction between verbal and written slander, or to make the speaker at a public meeting always liable for all true printed reports of his speech. But we think that such alterations of the law are unnecessary, and would be inexpedient."
  He must be permitted upon the subject of these reports of public meetings to quote the words of my noble and learned Friend himself—words not uttered in this House, but used in the course of that case which has given rise to this discussion. My noble and learned Friend said,—
  978
  "If this plea is good a fair account of what takes place may be published, whatever harm the publication may do to private character, provided it take place at a meeting of a public nature —a wide description, embracing all kinds of meetings, from a county meeting to a parish meeting. At such meetings things may well be said very irrelevant to the subject in hand, yet very calumnious. In what an unhappy situation a calumniated person would be if a calumny might be published, and yet he could not bring an action and challenge the publisher to prove the truth of the statement."
  That was the language of my noble and learned Friend, who now proposes to legalize the publication of all reports of what takes place at a meeting lawfully assembled. [Lord CAMPBELL: Not so!] My noble and learned Friend must forgive me when I say that this is the effect of his clause. I admit that he allows an action to be brought for damages; but the party is not to be entitled to recover unless he can prove loss or damage. Now, my noble and learned Friend knows that that means pecuniary loss or damage; the consequence of which will be, that in ninety-nine cases out of a hundred the person calumniated at a public meeting will be deprived of all remedy, because he cannot show that he has sustained any pecuniary loss or damage. Suppose he be a person not in trade, and that he be charged with a gross breach of morality, or with being guilty of some falsehood. Now, such an imputation is more painful to an honourable man than a pecuniary loss of thousands of pounds. My Lords, are we to set a money value only on reputation? Is it to be weighed against a quantity of gold? I trust the time will never come when, in this country, the reputation of a man will cease to be considered as the dearest of his possessions. I am sure that if such a time ever arrives it will not be until this country has been reduced to the lowest standard of morality. It has been suggested that the Bill should be committed, with the view of introducing into it an Amendment, constituting the person who published the agent of him who uttered the words. Of such a course I cannot approve. After the humorous description which has been given by a noble and learned Lord (Lord Lyndhurst) of the great number of public meetings which had been omitted from the definition contained in this Bill, I think that if the Bill ever goes into Committee my noble and learned Friend will find that the difficulties in its way are so great as to be insurmountable even by his great power of overcoming obstacles. Under these

  979
  circumstances I cannot, consistently with my position, give a silent vote on this subject, nor can I, after the most careful attention I have been able to give to this important matter, bring myself to agree to the proposal of my hon. and learned Friend. I do not find any real grievance in the existing state of the law. I think my noble and learned Friend was bound to establish some case. He has utterly failed in doing so; and, therefore, I think the Bill ought not to have a second reading.
  LORD CRANWORTHthought that, although the Bill of the noble and learned Lord Chief Justice might not be adopted in its integrity, it at least contained the germ and foundation of a good measure, and that, therefore, it ought to be read a second time. As to the reporting of Parliamentary proceedings, he doubted very much whether they were not proceeding altogether upon a fallacy. He did not believe that the character of a person calumniated in Parliament was likely to be damnified by the slander being reported; on the contrary, the fact of publication the next morning afforded him the best means of becoming acquainted with the charges made against him, and of refuting those charges. But for that report he might never know of the calumny, and might, therefore, suffer from imputations which he never had an opportunity of refuting. It was not at all clear to him, therefore, that it was not for the interest of the very person calumniated that there should be no restriction of publication at all, and, therefore, he thought that this alteration of this law should be made. But the case of journals publishing reports of public meetings required the utmost consideration. Was the law, as it stood, in a satisfactory state? It was said that there had been no cases of hardship. There had been one case, at least, and, in his opinion, it was the duty of their Lordships, when the principle of the law could not be justified, to act even upon a single instance. It was a great hardship to the publisher of a Durham newspaper that he should have had to pay £400 because he had published something which was actually stated at a public meeting held with reference to the improvement of the town of Hartlepool. And what had happened in that instance might, and most likely would, happen in many others. He did not, however, think that oral should he treated in the same manner as written slander. Such a rule would give rise to disgrace-
  980
  ful, pettifogging actions as was exemplified in the lawbooks of the reign of James I. and Charles I., when endless questions were raised as to whether such and such words were not slanderous so as to subject the person uttering them to an action. He was glad that, whether by judge-made law or otherwise, we had escaped from those difficulties, and, practically speaking, oral slander was not a ground of action. The case, however, was very different when the oral slander was uttered at a public meeting. There was little distinction between the act of directing libellous words to be published and that of uttering such words orally in public with the knowledge that they would be published; a person so speaking might properly be regarded as his own publisher, and it would be consistent with reason and justice to make him the party responsible. But under this Bill the injured party would bring his action against the publisher, who might plead that the report was a true and faithful one, made without malice. He would not encourage the notion that they ought to legislate on a mere theory; but when they saw that a certain amount of practical evil had already resulted from the state of the law it would not be wise to overlook what had occurred, and wait till further mischief arose before applying a remedy. He therefore hoped that their Lordships would read the Bill a second time.
  LORD CAMPBELLrose to reply, when
  THE EARL OF DERBYsaid, that the noble and learned Lord had already addressed the House at considerable length, and that on the Motion for a second reading he had no right to a reply.
  LORD CAMPBELLsaid, he was not aware of any instance in which the courtesy of a hearing in reply had been refused in such a case; but the noble Earl, not content with having overwhelming numbers on his side, insisted that there should also be no argument. He should be most willing, if the Bill was read a second time, to refer it again to a Select Committee; but it should be remembered that the measure had already been carried by a large majority in the Select Committee. Under those circumstances would their Lordships affirm that it was so vicious in principle that they could not hope to improve it at any subsequent stage? The powerful speech of the noble and learned Lord (Lord Lyndhurst), whose jocular observations had enlivened a very dull debate, was to a great extent favourable to the measure. It had pleased

  981
  the noble and learned Lord to assume that all meetings not included in the third clause, and, among others, those of Convocation, were unlawful. Now, it so happened that in the Committee he had himself proposed to include Convocation, but he was outvoted on the ground that it was disrespectful to suppose that anything libellous could fall from so grave and venerable a body. His reply to that had been, that he had heard right rev. Prelates use very sharp words in the House of Lords. To have enumerated meetings for the purpose of raising a monument to an illustrious General, or the meetings at Exeter Hall, to which reference had been made, might, he thought, have been deemed indecorous; but, if desirable, they might yet be included in the Bill when in Committee. His noble and learned Friend on the woolsack had done him the honour of referring to some of the measures he (Lord Campbell) had had the good fortune to originate and to carry into law, and, among others, to the Act for Preventing the Sale of Obscene Publications. His noble and learned Friend might have been aware that that measure was assailed even with more bitterness than the Bill now before their Lordships, and that all means were adopteed to cover it with discredit and ridicule. That Bill, however, received the sanction of their Lordships and of the other House of Parliament, and it was admitted by his noble and learned Friend, and by other eminent lawyers, that it had operated most beneficially. If the present Bill should pass and should become the law of the land, he believed it might receive as high commendation. [A laugh.] It was impossible to foresee what might happen, and in the course of the year this measure might receive the approval of some other occupant of the woolsack. The object of the Bill was, in the first instance, to give immunity to reports of Parliamentary proceedings; and next, to protect the public press, to a certain extent, in the publication of the proceedings at meetings of a particular description. Were their Lordships prepared to say that in secula seculorum they would invite reporters to attend, and would allow reports of their proceedings to go forth to the public; but that they would leave the; proprietors of newspapers liable to be sued by civil action, or imprisoned upon criminal information, for the faithful discharge of this duty? Bid the proposal to change this state of things involve so vicious a principle that their Lordships
  982
  would refuse a second reading to the Bill? Would they refuse to entertain any proposition for giving protection to the public press in the publication of faithful reports of proceedings at public meetings, and were the proprietors of newspapers to despair of any remedy or redress for the grievances of which they now complained? His noble and learned Friend had greatly misunderstood the object of the second clause, for he (Lord Campbell) had always regarded as wholly inadmissible the claim that complete immunity should be given with regard to everything that was said at every public meeting, and the clause applied exclusively to cases where no loss or damage was sustained. He foresaw what the fate of the Bill would be; but he had discharged his duty in bringing the subject under their Lordships' consideration.
  On Question, That ("now") stand part of the Motion? their Lordships divided:—
  Contents 7, Not-Contents 35: Majority 28.

  CONTENTS.

  Clarendon, E.

  Campbell, L. [Teller.]

  Granville, E.

  Cranworth, L.

  Saint Germans, E.

  Wrottesley, L. [Teller.]

  Stanhope, E.

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Chelmsford L. (L. Chan-

  Doneraile, V.

  cellor.)

  Eversley, V.

  Hardinge, V.

  Beaufort, D.

  Hutchinson, V. (E. Do-

  Northumberland, D.

  noughmore.)

  Bath, M. [Teller.]

  Bateman, L.

  Exeter, M.

  Belper, L.

  Salisbury, M.

  Berners, L.

  Blayney, L.

  Carnarvon, E.

  Boston, L.

  De La Warr, E.

  Colville of Culross

  Derby, E.

  [Teller.]

  Ellenborough, E.

  De Ros, L.

  Hardwicke, E.

  Feversham, L.

  Huntingdon, E.

  Monteagle of Brandon,

  Malmesbury, E.

  L.

  Mayo, E.

  Redesdale, L.

  Sandwich, E.

  Sondes, L.

  Seafield, E.

  Tenterden, L.

  Verulam, E.

  Wensleydale, L.

  Resolved in the negative; and Bill to be read 2a this day Six Months.
  House adjourned at Nine o'clock, to Thursday next, half-past Four o'clock.