Sitting of 12 April 1864

MINUTES.
NEW WRIT ISSUED—For Devizes v. The Hon. W. W. Addington, now Viscount Sidmouth.
PUBLIC BILL—Ordered—Joint Stock Companies (Voting Papers)*.

BARNSTAPLE ELECTION.
MR. WALPOLE reported from the General Committee of Elections, the names of the Members of the Select Committee appointed to try and determine the matter of the Petition complaining of an undue Election and Return for the Borough of Barnstaple, to which they had annexed the Petition referred to them by the House relating thereto, and the List of Voters severally delivered in to the Committee on behalf of the Petitioner and of the sitting Member: —ALEXANDER MURRAY DUNLOP, esquire; Sir FRANCIS HENRY GOLDSMID, baronet; WILLIAM HENRY HUMPHERY, esquire; GEORGE SCLATER-BOOTH, esquire; EDWARD HOWES, esquire, Chairman.
Report to lie upon the Table.

EGYPT—THE SUEZ CANAL—QUESTION.
MR. DARBY GRIFFITHsaid, he would beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether the Sultan has recently ordered the Pacha of Egypt to discontinue the supply of forced labour to the works of the Suez Canal; and whether Her Majesty's Government will support the Sultan in that determination?
VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: Sir, the hon. Gentleman is well aware, and so is the House, that some time ago the Sultan gave an order that forced labour should be discontinued in Egypt, as it has long been in every other part of the Turkish Empire. The parties engaged in the Suez Canal, who had been employing forced labour to a great extent, petitioned for a prolongation of time, which has been, I believe, twice granted to them. No doubt it is very much to be regretted in the interest both of England and of France that, when both countries are much in need of cotton, 30,000 or 40,000 people who might he usefully employed in the cultivation of cotton in Egypt, are occupied in digging a canal through a sandy desert and making two harbours in deep mud and shallow water. I should hope that so useless an occupation will soon be put an end to.

IRELAND—DAUNT'S ROCK.—QUESTION
MR. MAGUIREsaid, he rose to ask the President of the Board of Trade, As to the intentions of the Government with respect to Daunt's Rock; whether they intend to take immediate measures to have it removed by blowing it up, or whether they have resolved on at once giving the usual notice of the intention to place a Light Ship, with fog bell and signal gun, near it; and, if so, out of what sources do they propose that the cost of such Light Ship is to be defrayed?
MR. MILNER GIBSON: Sir, there is no intention, on the part of the Board of Trade, to take the measures referred to by the hon. Gentleman. Considerable difference of opinion exists as to whether it would be desirable to place a Light Ship upon Daunt's Rock. If it should be decided that such a ship should be placed there, the Elder Brethren of the Trinity Corporation are of opinion that, considering the proximity of the Rock to Cork Harbour, the expense of supporting the Light Ship should be borne by the vessels frequenting or otherwise using Cork Harbour. Inman's Company, one of the ships of which was recently lost upon the Rock, signified their willingness—not lately, but some time ago — to pay any toll upon their ships which it might be necessary to impose for the support of a Light Ship. Although the Government has no intention to place a Light Ship at present, it has been recommended that an improvement should be made in the light on Roche's Point. That proposition has been sanctioned by the Board of Trade, and will shortly be carried into effect. It is such that the light exhibited on Roche's Point will indicate to a ship making for Cork Harbour when she is approaching Daunt's Rock, so as to warn her against running into that danger.
MR. MAGUIRE: Is not Daunt's Rock five miles off the extreme point of the entrance to Cork Harbour? I also wish to know, Whether the attention of the Government has been directed to the necessity of removing Daunt's Rock altogether, and whether there has been any survey made with that object in view?
MR. MILNER GIBSON: There has been no Government survey of Daunt's Rock with a view to ascertain the expense of its removing by blowing it up, but I am informed that a private survey is now going on, and that the opportunity is being taken of the steamer lying upon the Rock to
872
ascertain its exact dimensions, and to arrive, if possible, at an estimate of what the cost would be of removing it by blasting. I cannot say whether such a scheme is practicable or not, but I hope the survey now going on will throw some light on that question.
MR. MAGUIRE: The right hon. Gentleman has not yet answered my question. I desire to know, Whether Daunt's Rock is not five miles off the extreme point of the entrance of Cork Harbour?
MR. MILNER GIBSON: I believe the Rock is between four and five miles from the entrance of Cork Harbour, but there are two lights visible, the light upon the Head of Kinsale and the light upon Roche's Point. The latter is visible in clear weather in the neighbourhood of the! Rock. Provided, therefore, the weather be clear, there are sufficient lights to enable any prudent navigator to avoid Daunt's Rock,
MR. MAGUIRE: I have only one question more. Is it not a fact known to the right hon. Gentleman that Robert's Head shuts out the light on Roche's Point?
MR. MILNER GIBSON: Only in the case of a ship being so close in to the Rock as to be out of her proper track would the light on Roche's Point be screened by Robert's Head.

BURIAL GROUNDS.—QUESTION.
MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, he rose to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Under what provisions of the Law is the power to grant Licences for Private Burial Grounds or Places vested in the Home Secretary, and should not such Licences be published; where does the Law require the Registers of Burials performed within such Private Burial Grounds or Places to be kept, and are there specified by Law any means by which, or conditions subject to which, the Public have the right of access to and inspection of such Registers; who are the Persons or Officers whom the Law holds responsible for the Registration of Burials in such Private Burial Grounds or Places within the Metropolitan District; the same questions with respect to Places beyond the Metropolitan District; who are the Persons or Officers whom the Law requires to make, or to afford facilities for making, extracts from such Registers, and to certify such extracts; and which of the Statutes relating to Burials apply to the

873
Registration of Burials in such Private Burial Grounds or Places; and, if no Statute applies or is sufficient to enforce such Registration, does the Government intend to introduce a Bill to amend the Law in these respects?
SIR GEORGE GREY: Sir, there is no express power given by law to the Secretary of State to grant licences for Private Burial Grounds; but, by the 15 & 16 Vict. c. 85, s. 9, it is enacted —
"That no new Burial Ground shall be provided or used in the Metropolis, or within two miles of it, without the previous approval of the Secretary of State."
And by 16 & 17 Vict. c. 134, s. 6, power is given by Order in Council to prohibit the opening of a new Burial Ground beyond the Metropolis, within the limits mentioned in the order, without the same approval. Before the Act passed as to the Metropolis any Burial Ground might be opened without any approval, and this is the case still beyond the Metropolis in any place with regard to which no prohibitory Order in Council has been passed. By the 52 Geo. III. c. 146, s. 5, it is enacted that, where the burial is performed in any other place than the Parish Church, and by any other person than the incumbent, the officiating minister shall transmit to the clergyman of the parish a certificate of the burial, and the clergyman of the parish is to register it in the parish register. The same Act provides for access to and search of parish registers. The parish clergyman is charged with the custody of the register and with the duty of registering. I believe this Act is in force with regard to all Burial Grounds not provided by Burial Boards under Burial Acts, and with regard to which there are special provisions. This is independent of the registration of death required in all cases by law.
MR. NEWDEGATE: Do I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say, that a clergyman of the Church of England of the parish is the person responsible for the registration of burials performed by other ministers?
SIR GEORGE GREYreplied in the affirmative.

CHANCERY FUNDS.—QUESTION
MR. MURRAYsaid, he wished to ask Mr. Attorney General, Whether he intends to introduce this Session any Bill to carry into effect the improvements in
874
the management of the business of the Court of Chancery in the Accountant General's Office, as recommended by the Report of the Chancery Funds Commission, and in other respects to carry into effect the other recommendations of the Commissioners?
THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, in reply, that it was not the intention of the Government to introduce a Bill of that character this Session. The Report of the Commissioners was not unanimous, and it was necessary that it should receive the most careful consideration. If, however, there were any improvements in this matter which could be carried out by virtue of the powers belonging to the Lord Chancellor, the Lord Chancellor would no doubt be glad to adopt them.

LICENSED HOUSES IN THE METRO POLIS.—QUESTION.
SIR JOHN SHELLEYsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether the Government have come to any determination in reference to an alteration of the Law regarding the regulations as to the hours at which Licensed Houses in the Metropolis should be closed during the night?
SIR GEORGE GREY, in reply, said, he had received strong representations from some parts of the metropolis of the evil arising from certain public-houses and refreshment houses being kept open during the whole of the night. It was suggested that it would be desirable to make such an alteration in the law as would compel the closing of such houses between the hours of one and four o'clock in the morning. He believed that such an alteration would be of great benefit to the public, and in accordance with the wishes of the majority of licensed victuallers. The right hon. Gentleman was understood to say that a measure was in course of preparation on the subject.

UNITED STATES—THE BARQUE "SCIENCE."—QUESTION.
MR. HASSARDsaid, he wished to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If the case of the barque Science, seized at Matamoras on the 5th November last, has yet been adjudicated upon; and, if it has not been adjudicated upon, if he will take steps to have such case disposed of without further delay?
MR. LAYARDsaid, in reply, that the case of the Science was still under adjudication, and nothing had yet occurred, as far as he was aware, to authorize any interference with the usual proceedings of the Prize Court. All the proceedings relating to seizures at Matamoras were under consideration by Her Majesty's Government.

ARMY—GARDEN ALLOTMENTS TO SOLDIERS.—QUESTION.
MR. W. EWARTsaid, he would beg to inquire of the Under Secretary of State for War, What steps have been taken, or are about to be taken, to enable soldiers in camp (or elsewhere, where it is possible) to employ themselves in the cultivation of gardens?
THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON, in reply, said, he had very little to add to, and he did not think he had anything to retract in, the answer which he gave to the hon. Gentleman on this question some time since. He then stated that his noble Friend (Earl de Grey.) had every disposition to afford facilities to soldiers desiring to employ themselves in the cultivation of gardens, and that a commencement had been made in the matter, and would be extended as much as possible. The Horse Guards had received a Report from the officer commanding the Artillery at Alder-shot, that two batteries of Artillery had been for some time cultivating ground ns gardens, and that the very best results had followed. Occupation had been afforded to the men, and their comfort also greatly increased by the production of vegetables for their mess. The land had also been allotted for that purpose for the Military Train at Aldershot, but owing to a question having arisen as to the payment of rates by the soldiers, it had not yet been cultivated. At Warley three acres had been allotted for that object. In the southeastern division, in the neighbourhood of Brighton and Dover, some of the troops had had allotments made to them. In Woolwich also some allotments were in existence, and more were being provided. At Colchester arrangements of a similar nature were in progress. No general rule could be laid down on that subject, and each case must be dealt with as it arose. In some places land was easily procured, and in others not so readily; and it became a question, of course, whether the soldiers were not to pay rent for land taken out of
876
occupation; but he could assure the hon. Member that every representation made by the Generals commanding at the different stations would be taken into consideration by the War Office, and that every disposition existed to encourage this system.

LAW AND EQUITY COURTS (IRELAND).

  QUESTION.
  MR. BUTTsaid, he wished to ask the Attorney General for Ireland, Whether it is intended to bring in any measure to assimilate the proceedings of the Law and Equity Courts in Ireland to those of the English Courts; and, if so, when such Bill will be introduced?
  MR. O'HAGANreplied, that he hoped in a very few days to introduce a Bill for assimilating the constitution and procedure of the Courts of Equity in Ireland to those of the English Courts of Equity, and also to assimilate the practice and procedure of the Courts of Law in Ireland to those of the English Law Courts.

  DENMARK AND GERMANY—THE CONFERENCE.—QUESTION.
  MR. BERNAL OSBORNEsaid, he rose to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to be good enough to inform him, Whether Her Majesty's Government have any objection to lay on the table the Despatch of the French Government of the 30th of March, suggesting that the wishes of the population of Schleswig and Holstein should be consulted; also, whether he will lay on the table the answers to the invitation to join the Conference about to assemble, which has been sent out by Her Majesty's Government?
  MR. LAYARD, in reply, said, with regard to the first part of the hon. Member's question, that to the best of his belief that despatch was only read and not communicated in copy to Her Majesty's Government. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would repeat his question to-morrow, and he would then be able to answer it.
  MR. BERNAL OSBORNEsaid, he wished for an answer to his second question.
  MR. LAYARDsaid, he would request the hon. Gentleman to repeat that question also to-morrow.

INDIA—INDIAN OFFICERS.

  RESOLUTION.
  CAPTAIN JERVIS, in rising to bring-forward the question of which he had given

  877
  notice, said, he was aware how careful the House always was in entering upon subjects connected with the details of military affairs, not to interfere with the prerogatives of the Crown. The body of officers, however, to whose case he wished to draw attention, were dealt with by his Motion in their capacity of late servants of the East India Company. Ever since the formation of the East India Company, their military as well as civil servants had been protected by the House; and in consequence of the Report of a Committee, which sat more than a century ago, an Act of Parliament was passed which pointed out how promotion in the Indian army should be carried out. Subsequently, in 1794, a memorial was sent home from the officers of the Bengal army, complaining of certain grievances under which they suffered. That memorial, by order of the House, was brought to the bar, and its subject taken into consideration. It was then referred to the Board of Control who undertook that justice should be done to the memorialists. The Board of Control thereupon, in 1796, laid upon the table of the House the principles upon which the East India Company were to carry out promotions and other matters relative to the service; and the regulations which were then put in force may be said to have emanated from that House. In 1832, the Committee of the House appointed to investigate the state of the East India Company, inquired most fully and carefully into the organization and administration of the Indian army, and, in consequence of its Report, the organization of 1796 was ordered to be continued. In 1858 it having been considered desirable to put an end to the administration of the East India Company, and to transfer it to the Crown, so careful was the House that no injustice should be done, that it enacted that the officers of the Indian army should retain the whole of the rights and privileges which they enjoyed under the East India Company; and in 1860, when it was considered desirable to abolish the local Indian army, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley) insisted on the introduction of a clause reiterating that pledge, for fear of its being otherwise broken— a pledge which that House distinctly affirmed — namely, that the original instructions given by the East India Company for the protection of their officers should be carried out by the Secretary of State for India. It was therefore, with no little astonish-
  878
  ment, that shortly after the passing of the Act containing that clause, that the officers of the East Indian army found, from a despatch published by the Governor General in Council, that the whole of those privileges and advantages had been entirely destroyed. They at once took the usual steps for memorializing through their commanding officers, the Governors of the various Presidencies, and through them the Governor General, and through him the Secretary of State for India; but for two years they had been unable to obtain any redress. At last the Secretary of State, on the recommendation, or at least in accordance with the unanimous feeling of the House, appointed a Commission, composed of some most eminent and able men, to inquire whether the promises made in 1858, and renewed in 1860, had or had not been departed from; and that Commission, after a careful and anxious inquiry which extended over several months, decided that they had been departed from, and reported accordingly on the 9th November last. Six months had elapsed since the presentation of that Report, without anything being done by the Government, and petition after petition was still being presented to that House for a redress of grievances. Now, if the organization of the Staff Corps, which had been put in force, and had caused so much difficulty, had not previously been inquired into or thought of, or if there had been but a mere attempt made to enact something better than had hitherto existed, perhaps some excuse might be found; but for years the East India Company had been anxious to carry out a Staff Corps as proposed, and been unable to do so. In 1833 the question had been fully gone into by the Committee, who examined Sir John Malcolm and every other eminent and able officer who had served in India, and in whom the country at that time placed reliance. The Committee reported that from the peculiar organization of the Indian army the arrangement for the formation of the proposed Staff Corps could not be carried out without injuring the prospects of those whom the Government had promised should be confirmed in all their privileges and advantages. When, in 1860, the Act was brought in for the stoppage of the recruiting for the Indian army, and the clause was to be inserted for the fulfilment of the promise contained in the Act of 1858, a Committee had been appointed, which was presided over by the noble Lord the Member for the East Riding (Lord Hotham), to

  879
  inquire whether the proposal intended to be carried out by the Secretary of State for I India would be within the guarantee given by Parliament. That Committee reported on the 30th July, 1860—the day on which the right hon. Baronet accepted, in the fullest possible manner, the pledge asked of him of inserting a clause—that if the right hon. Baronet carried out his proposition for the re-organization of the Indian army, it would be contrary to the pledge that had been given by Parliament. The question had been fully gone into by a Commission, of which the noble Lord the Member for King's Lynn (Lord Stanley) and the then Secretary of State for War (Generel Peel) were members, and that Committee distinctly reported that the Crown could not interfere in any way with the re-organization of the army, because if it did it would interfere with the pledges that had been given by Parliament. It was now high time that something should be done to allay that feeling of irritation which had been felt by so many of these gentlemen; and it was only right and just, when they asked a body of noble and gallant men to serve for years in a foreign land, and to be ready at a moment's notice to sacrifice their lives and their interests for the good of their country on the faith that certain pledges should be scrupulously adhered to and carried out, to act fairly and honestly by them. He should not enter into what might be called the details of military organization, but merely confine himself to the pledge that was given. The main point in the whole of these Reports and Acts of Parliament to which he had referred was, that any man entering the Indian army and agreeing to serve a certain number of years, did so upon condition that he should not be superseded by others in his profession, and that at the end of a certain number of years he should retire on a fixed pension. This was, however, completely set aside by the formation of a Staff Corps. When, also, the Committee of that House, which sat in 1833, were investigating the affairs of the East India Company, it directed the Company to turn its attention to the fact that their officers did not retire at a sufficiently early age to enable them to obtain active and intelligent men to command their regiments. The Company not only granted increased retiring pensions, but induced their officers to form a fund amongst themselves, to induce men, when they attained a certain age, to accept the pensions offered by
  880
  the Company. This has lately been declared by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for India to be illegal, and the large sums of money which these gentlemen have advanced are not to be held as giving them a claim in equity to compensation. When discussing the point last year with the Commission appointed by himself, the right hon. Baronet said they must assimilate the practice of bonus in the Indian army to the practice which prevailed in the British army. But what was the fact? The Queen's Regulations warned any officer who gave against giving more than regulation prices for Commissions; that he did it on his own risk, as it was contrary to law, for if more was given than the regulation price it was a misdemeanour, and on its coming to the notice of the Commander-in-Chief, he was bound to prosecute; and if the person was convicted, he, in addition to other penalties, lost his commission. But what was the case with regard to the officers of the Indian army? It was publicly announced in 1838 by the Governor General of India in Council, that the East India Company fully recognized their junior officers subscribing to regimental funds for the purpose of buying out their seniors. The East India Company could do nothing without the sanction of the Board of Control, and that sanction had been given in this instance. So far as India and the Indian army were concerned, any order of the Governor General of India in Council had the force of law. The Secretary for India, in reply to these statements submitted to the Royal Commissioners, said that they were not facts. But if orders from the East India Company, agreed to by the Board of Control and published by the Governor General, were not facts, it was difficult to know what were facts. He also said that the facts, if facts, were not recognized by the Board of Directors. But what was the fact? In 1855, a case having occurred in a Court of Law by which the practice he had described was decided to be contrary to law, the Directors of the East India Company entered into correspondence with the Government of India and the Board of Control with a view to the introduction of a Bill into that House to make the practice lawful. He would urge upon the House that it was highly necessary that some arrangement should be made to put an end to n state of things which was very unsatisfactory. If our countrymen abroad were to be required to observe the

  881
  discipline and obey the regulations prescribed, they were entitled to demand fair treatment. The present position of those officers was not of their seeking, but it was the result of an act of the Government, and therefore it was the duty of the Government to see that justice was done to them. The hon. and gallant Member concluded by moving—
  "That this House, having by the Acts 21 & 22 Vict. c. 106, and 23 & 24 Vict. c. 100, guaranteed to the Officers of the late East India Company's Service that their advantages as to 'pay, pensions, allowances, privileges, promotions, and otherwise,' should be secured to them, has learnt with regret, from the Report of the Royal Commission on Memorials of Indian Officers, that in certain cases this assurance has been departed from, and is of opinion that full and speedy reparation should be made to those who have suffered by such departure."—(Captain Jervis.)
  SIR DE LACY EVANSsaid, he cordially seconded the Motion, as he considered the subject brought under the notice of the Government and the House was of very great importance. The grievance of which these officers complained was one that ought to be removed, and he was astonished that the Government should for so long have continued to overlook their complaints. Perhaps an explanation might be found in the fact that these officers were a long way off, and therefore their complaints might safely be treated with neglect. Not long ago the privates of the Indian army were induced to believe that the Government had not behaved well towards them. When it was proposed to identify the privates of the Indian army with the Queen's army, the noble Lord at the head of the Government stated in that House that the men, if they preferred to remain in their former positions, would be entitled to an additional bounty; but when the time came for payment of that bounty, the Government in India refused to give it. He believed that after some time Lord Canning had thought it was advisable that the bounty should be paid; but in the meantime a great deal of indiscipline, approaching to mutiny, took place among the men. He had more than once in that House reminded the noble Viscount that he was in some measure the cause of that mutinous feeling, as he had led the men to understand that they would be entitled to receive an additional bounty whenever they transferred their services to the Queen's army. The noble Lord had not given any reply to any of these representations. Then, as to
  882
  the officers of that army, there certainly did prevail among them a feeling that they could not rely upon being treated with good faith by the Government. He had had considerable experience with armies in different services, and he knew no surer way of promoting indiscipline and even mutiny, than by raising a belief in an army that they would not be fairly dealt with by the Government. When the Government decided that the two armies should be amalgamated, some of the most experienced officers of the Indian army declared that it would be a very difficult operation to carry out; and so it had proved. An equitable arrangement had not yet been come to, although if the Government deemed it right to carry out the amalgamation, they ought also to have done justice to those who were affected by that determination. After more than a year since the amalgamation took place, complaints still continued to be made, and at last the right hon. Baronet caused a Commission to inquire into them. He had not seen the Report, but he was told that that Commission declared the officers had not been treated with good faith. He hoped, now that the subject had been formally brought before the House, the right hon. Baronet and the noble Viscount would admit the necessity of setting at rest all doubts as to the treatment of officers belonging to the late Indian army.
  Motion made, and Question proposed.
  COLONEL SYKES: Sir, I rise to support the Motion of the hon. Member for Harwich; and, as the question is of great gravity, affecting the rights of some thousand British officers, and affecting the policy of the proposed military organization of the native armies of India, I will beg the indulgence of the House for some little time. As an old Indian officer who has passed through all the grades of the service, I naturally feel a strong interest in the subject before the House; but probably on that account not much weight would be attached to my testimony. When, however, the House saw two officers of the Queen's army taking the initiative, he hoped they would accept that fact as an evidence of the importance of the subject and of the justice of the complaints. Let the House consider how large a number of officers were affected. It was shown by a Return before the House that, at the time of the annexation, or re-organization, or amalgamation, that the establishment of

  883
  the Indian army comprised 6,333 officers, and the number absolutely on the roll on the 1st January,1861, was 5,121. Surely, when complaints were made by a great proportion of so large a body of officers, that they felt themselves aggrieved and their prospects blighted by the non-fulfilment of the promises of the Government, the House would give them a ready hearing, and grant them that redress which a Resolution of that House alone could give them. In the first place, it is necessary to have a distinct idea of what the several Parliamentary guarantees have been. They are as follows: that by 21 & 22 Vict. c.106, Clause 56, August 2,1858, it was enacted that—
  "The Indian military and naval forces of Her Majesty shall be under the same obligations to serve Her Majesty as they would have been under to serve the said Company, and shall be liable to serve within the said territorial limits only, and be entitled to the like pay, pensions, allowances, and privileges, and the like advantages as regards promotion, and otherwise, as if they had continued in the service of the said Company."
  That by the Act of the 23 & 24 Vict. c. 100, 1860, it was further enacted that—
  "The advantages as to pay, pensions, allowances, privileges, promotions, and otherwise, secured to the military forces of the East India Company by the former Act, should be maintained in any place for the re-organization of the Indian Army."
  That on the 18th January, 1861, the Secretary of State for India addressed a military despatch, dated India Office, London, to the Governor General of India, containing the following paragraph:—
  "In the execution of these measures, the amalgamation, the pledge that due regard shall be paid to the rights and claims of the officers of Her Majesty's Indian forces will be scrupulously adhered to,"
  I would beg to call my right hon. Friend's particular attention to the terms "scrupulously adhered to;" and the Governor General of India in a General Order, dated Fort William Military Department, 10th April, 186], assured the army that—
  "In the execution of the measures to bring about the proposed amalgamation, it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government that the pledge that due regard shall be paid to the rights and claims of the officers of Her Majesty's Indian Forces, shall be scrupulously adhered to."
  That notwithstanding these several guarantees by Acts of Parliament, and pledges by the Secretary of State for India, and the Governor General, numerous grievous violations, consequent upon the amalgamation, have taken place, affecting the pay,
  884
  allowances, privileges, rights of promotion, or otherwise, of the officers of the East India Company's late forces. The most vital and important of these is the fundamental right of the armies of India to regimental promotion by seniority up to the rank of major; and, after that, promotion by seniority in a general list of field officers; and so rigid was supersession guarded against, that on a lieutenant-colonel obtaining his colonelcy, in either of the three armies of India, all the senior lieutenant-colonels, both in the Indian and Royal armies, had the brevet rank of colonel given to them to prevent supersession. Two Acts of Parliament have made this rule a law, and both Lord Hotham's and Lord Cranworth's Commissions have declared that, in the amalgamation of the Indian and Royal armies, this rule must be carried out; and Lord Cranworth's Commission have reported that it has not been carried out, and, consequently, there has been a violation of two Acts of Parliament. The fact being that the Secretary of State for India has sanctioned, upon his own authority, a new system of promotion to substantive rank from length of service, and independently of seniority, which is contrary to the system guaranteed by the two Acts of Parliament, and is, therefore, contrary to law. I maintain, therefore, that all the promotions made in the Staff Corps are ipso facto null and void; for the Secretary of State for India was destitute of the legal power to make them. He has stated on former occasions that he has only exercised the power which the East India Company could have exercised; but I deny that they had any such powers; and even if they had had the power, they never would have exercised it in the extensive and crushing manner my right hon. Friend has done. But independently of the injustice done to Royal and Local Officers by the multiplying supersessions consequent upon these promotions, the Staff Corps system is repugnant to public policy. The promotions made on the completion of a prescribed period of service in the Army and in the Staff Corps are necessarily cumulations of the higher ranks. The lieutenant-colonels and majors having substantive rank and pay, together with staff allowances, have no motive for retiring; and their number is ceaselessly increasing to the great embarrassment of the Government which cannot find suitable employment for officers of their rank, and is consequently constrained

  885
  to continue them in the performance of duties which should be limited to captains or subalterns; and the pay of the substantive rank of the field officers is, in fact, an unnecessary waste of the public money. The Staff Corps also, as at present constituted, causes injury to the public interests, as they were not obliged to join their regiments when in the field. Under the old system, all Staff Officers were morally obliged to join their regiments when taking the field (or be sent to Coventry), to give proper efficiency to Native regiments, which, in a line-of battle or in a storming party, all experience proves are efficient precisely in the proportion of the number of European officers accompanying the men. European regiments need to be fully officered in the field; Native troops need it ten times more. Formerly, also, officers absent from their regiments on the staff contributed to the band and mess funds, and to the retiring funds of their respective regiments. They no longer continue to do so, and great injury is consequently done to the remaining officers of their regiments. Now, as the supersession injuries inflicted by the promotions in the Staff Corps are to be remedied, the question arises of how it best can be done. There are three methods—
  First, by giving substantive rank, and consequently pay, to all officers superseded.
  Secondly, by throwing all the officers of the army of each presidency into one general list, both regimental and staff, putting the superseded officers into their proper places, and then promoting by seniority or from length of service.
  Thirdly, by abolishing the Staff Corps; allowing the present Staff Officers to hold their present appointments, but promoting them only regimentally.
  The first method would occasion very great expense, and would not remedy the evil of the cumulative rank and expense in the present Staff Corps system, and would occasion endless promotions to remedy supersessions which are occurring and must occur almost daily—not by ones and twos, but in shovelsful, as is shown in the following recent general orders:—
  The Madras Services—Military General Orders.
  (From 19th Feb. to 4th March 1864.)
  PROMOTIONS AND APPOINTMENTS.—Lieutenant D. Standen having completed twelve years service, four of which were on permanent Staff employ, to be captain.
  The undermentioned officers having completed twenty years' service, six of which were on permanent Staff employ, to be majors:—Captains Robert Renton, Edward Bannerman Ramsay, James Langford Pearse, Edward Herbert Hartington, Goodson Adey.
  The undermentioned officer having completed twelve years' service, four of which were on permanent Staff employ, to be captain:—Lieut. G. A. A. Warner.
  Major F. J. B. Priestley, having completed twenty-six years' service, eight of which were on permanent Staff employ, to be lieutenant colonel.
  The Bengal Services—Military General Orders.
  (From 3rd to 17th Feb. 1864.)
  PROMOTIONS AND APPOINTMENTS, &c.—The undermentioned officers having completed twenty years' service, six years of which were on permanent Staff employ, to be majors:—Captains J. Fendall, E. J. Spilsbury, T. A. Corbett.
  Bombay Services.
  (From, 15th to 20th Feb. 1864)
  The undermentioned officers having completed twelve years' service, four of which were on permanent Staff employ, to be captains:—Lieutenant A. F. Danvers and Lieutenant T. Kettlewell.
  (From 13th to 28th Dec. 1863.)
  The undermentioned officer having completed twenty years' service, six of which were on permanent Staff employ, to be major from the date specified, under the Royal Warrant of the 16th January 1861, subject to Her Majesty's approval:—Captain (Brevet Major) Henry Hastings Affleck Wood, 9th December, 1863.
  The undermentioned officers having completed twenty-six years' service, eight of which were on permanent Staff employ, are promoted to be lieutenant colonels, under the Royal Warrant of the 16th January, 1861, subject to Her Majesty's approval:—Majors William Edmonstone MacLeod and Samuel Thacker, from 11th December, 1863.
  The undermentioned officers having completed twelve years' service, four of which were on permanent Staff employ, to be captains from the date specified, under the Royal Warrant of the 16th January, 1861, subject to Her Majesty's approval: Lieutenants Claude Malet Ducat and Henry Rivett Mandeville Van-Heythuysen, 12th December, 1863; Lieutenants Charles Frederick Boulton and Trevenen James Holland, 13th December, 1863.
  Most of these promotions having occurred so recently as the last and the preceding months, the House can judge of the rapidity of the cumulative process to constitute the Staff Corps a body of majors and lieutenant-colonels only, at an early period. The total number of officers who joined the Staff Corps on the 18th of February, 1861, from the Native Infantry alone were:— Bengal, 586; Madras, 319; Bombay, 229: total, 1,134; but transfers to the Staff Corps from the other branches of the armies raised the number to 1,297. So that these

  887
  officers had a privilege conferred upon them to the prejudice of their brother officers, not only of the local Service, but to those of the Royal Army.
  The first method would he very expensive, but he concurred with a noble Lord who said in another place that the "redress of India's wrongs must not he a question of money."
  The second method, though it might restore all officers to their right position, would abolish regimental succession and regimental organization, and destroy that esprit de corps which is the foundation of discipline, the bond of friendly regimental social relations, and the emulative stimulus between regiments so usefully applied to the army.
  The third method is the simplest and most effectual. That is the abolition of the Staff Corps and the cancelling all promotions made in it, which are, in fact, illegal. Officers at present on the Staff Corps would only be too happy to keep their appointments and be promoted in their regiments as formerly, and, in fact, revert to their former conditions of service; and they would have little right to complain of losing that illegal rank which has been accompanied by the solace and advantage of superior pay, but to which they had no proper title, at the expense of their brother officers (often their seniors) of the local armies.
  Sir, the grievances of the officers of the Indian armies were arranged under twelve different heads, but the Royal Commission has reported that the Parliamentary Guarantees have only been departed from in the following instances:—
  First.—That the supersession of local officers by officers who have entered the Staff Corps, is a departure from the Parliamentary Guarantee.
  Second.—Retaining the names of officers who have joined the new Line regiments from Native Cavalry and Infantry regiments on the lists of their old corps, and thereby obstructing promotion therein, is a similar departure from the guarantee.
  Third.— Retaining the names of lieutenant colonels who have retired from the service on the list governing promotion, and thereby obstructing and delaying promotion long since due, is a departure from the guarantee.
  Fourth.—That the average time fixed for regulating the promotion of lieutenant colonel to colonel, namely, twelve years, is too much.
  Fifth.—That the Royal Warrant, dated 1st January, 1862, amalgamating the general and field officers of the Regular Army, with officers of similar rank in the Indian Army is inapplicable, and may cause injury to the latter officers.
  Unfortunately the Commission has not viewed favourably (under a misconception,
  888
  I assume) a very serious grievance, namely, the loss of the Regimental Retiring Funds, which, for many years past, had frequently been sanctioned, not only by the Court of Directors, but by the Board of Control, and consequently by the Government of the country. The establishment of the Staff Corps has broken down these funds, because the staff officers will not contribute to them, as they are promoted independently of regimental seniority. Some officers have lost sums to which they would have been entitled of £3,000 up to £5,000 upon their own retirement, and towards which they had contributed for many years; and yet the Secretary of State looks without sympathy upon these serious sacrifices, and the discomfort, indeed deprivation in old age, which the loss will occasion to worn-out officers. My right hon. Friend has said the practice was pronounced by a Court of Law illegal, and therefore he could not accept its breaking down as a grievance. No doubt by the Act of Geo. III. the sale of commissions or offices was, and is, prohibited. But the Retiring Funds of regiments could never have been contemplated by the Act, and their operation, neither in law nor equity, should come within the prohibitory clauses of the Act. In the Indian retiring system there is no bargain or sale between any two individual officers. All the officers of a regiment according to their rank subscribe to a common fund; out of this fund, when a senior officer wishes to retire upon his pension and return to Europe, usually after twenty-five to thirty years service, a bonus is given to him, to alleviate his condition after retirement; and without this bonus he would be obliged to continue in India, probably in bad health and with a broken down constitution, to the detriment of the efficiency of the army and the public interests, for the pension of his rank would not support him and his family in Europe. The practice should rather be encouraged than denounced. Independently, however, of the twelve grievances enumerated by the petitioners to the House of Commons, new grievances have arisen consequent upon the so-called re-organization of the Bombay army, which converts the old regular regiments into irregular regiments, and attaches six European officers to each regiment, instead of the regimental establishment of twenty-five as heretofore. Secondly, in posting officers to take command, and do duty with regiments to which they do not belong, and with which they had never

  889
  served, to the disgust of the old native officers and men. Thirdly, in divorcing Native regiments from their old European officers. Fourthly, in appropriating, or rather confiscating, the mess plate and property belonging to the old regimental officers, and giving it to the six officers attached to the irregular regiment, and to which they may never have belonged at all; and fifthly, in reducing the former pay and allowances of cavalry officers to the infantry scale; and sixthly, giving the commanding officer and second in command of regiments, authority over the other four officers, although some of them may bear senior commissions. With respect to the conversion of the regular regiments of the Bombay army into irregulars, and attaching to them six officers only who may not belong to the regiments, and giving them regimental rank and authority, notwithstanding the Parliamentary guarantees, but as I have a separate Motion on the subject I will not at present trespass upon the House on this additional grievance. In regard to the third additional grievance, the divorcing regiments from their officers. Strange as the phrase may seem to military men, it is nevertheless quite true. A regular Native regiment had its number in the line, and its twenty-five officers. By the General Bombay Orders, dated the 28th December, 1863, the Commander-in-Chief, Sir William Mansfield, carries out what he is pleased to call the re-organization of the army; that is to say, he converts the native regiments, whether the native officers and men like it or not, into irregulars; posts six officers to each regiment, whom he selects at his pleasure from Line or local officers; and the real officers of each regiment whom he may not have selected, he permits to exist upon papers in the army list, but to have no right to join the regiment with which they may have served from the date of their first commission, or to have authority or status therein. They are literally, therefore, only paper officers. I have presented to the House a petition from Captain C. F. Grant of the 3rd regiment, of twenty-seven years' service, to this effect; and there are scores of others similarly circumstanced. Why, Sir, an owner of cattle could not dispose of his animals with less ceremony. The fourth additional grievance relates to the disposal of the mess plate and property, and the following extract of a letter from a field officer will best explain its nature:—
  890
  "We are, for the most part, justly enraged at the cool order issued by the Chief on the formation of the old native infantry corps into irregulars; and without our knowledge or consent making over all our mess property to the half-dozen officers who have been appointed to the different corps; for instance, the flower vase which cost me £25, which I gave to my mess (the old 19th), is now by this order the property of the officers who now compose the 19th irregular corps, and who, with only one exception, never belonged to the corps on its original footing!"
  The fifth additional grievance is the reduction of the former pay and allowances of cavalry officers to the infantry scale of pay, with the addition of the staff pay of any command they may hold in an irregular regiment. The infantry pay and the staff allowance together, it is said, do not amount to the pay and allowances guaranteed by the two Acts of Parliament; but as official information has not, I believe, been yet received at the India Office of this new arrangement, I would hope the paltry saving is not really contemplated. The sixth additional grievance is of a very serious character, as it abrogates the power of an officer's commission; but the following order of the Commander-in-Chief, Sir William Mansfield, appeared in The Overland Times, of the 20th February to the 14th March, 1864: —
  "The Commander-in-Chief is pleased to intimate that it has been ruled by the Government of India, that in all oases the officer appointed to the command of a regiment organized under the new system, the commandant in virtue of his appointment commands the regiment, the second in command will rank next in the corps, the other officers taking rank regimentally according to army standing."
  By the above extraordinary order, any junior officer selected by favouritism, or any other cause, to command or to be second in command of a regiment, is to nullify the commissions of any senior officers who may be in the regiment, but who have not had influence enough to obtain the command, or second in command.
  In conclusion I must add a few words of appeal to the House and to the country. The East India Company's armies, in conjunction with a comparatively small proportion of Royal troops, in the course of 100 years, annexed an empire of nearly 200 millions of souls to the British crown. Distinguished loyalty and gallantry had been manifested by the native troops for more than 100 years, with the melancholy exception of the mutiny of the greater part of the Bengal army in 1857, attributable, however, chiefly to British ignorance, disregard of caste, pre-

  891
  judices, and want of tact; but, at that critical period, the Madras and Bombay armies, with the exception of two Bombay regiments, remained faithful and actively efficient, and preserved the British dominion in the west and south of India. These armies are surely, therefore, officers and men, entitled to the gratitude and confidence of the British Government and to the maintenance of their former status and proud distinction of regular troops; and it is equally impolitic and unjust to make such changes in their ancient organization, as wounds their self-respect, and, by shaking their reliance upon the stability of their rights, jeopardizes their attachment to the State.
  SIR CHARLES WOOD: I quite admit the importance of the subject which has been introduced in so temperate a manner by the hon. and gallant Member (Captain Jervis). There is, however, not the least reason for supposing that the Government has been disinclined to do justice to the officers of the Indian army. We have all along admitted that they are entitled not only to justice, but to the most liberal and generous treatment on the part of the Government. I have never denied that for a moment, nor have I a single syllable on this matter to retract. Our object has been to adhere scrupulously to the Parliamentary guarantee given to these officers. I need hardly remind the House that the whole of these arrangements were sanctioned by a great majority— indeed, by almost the whole—of the council of India, who naturally sympathize with the officers of the Indian army, and were little likely to withhold anything to which they were fairly entitled. I can assure the House that the very last thought in our minds was the idea of doing any injustice to the Indian officers. After the statements which have been made, I hope I may be permitted, without going into details, to say that a very large measure of consideration was given to the army of India. We adopted, of course, those arrangements which we deemed best calculated to promote the efficiency of the public service; but in doing so we endeavoured to give to the Indian officers every possible consideration. The very first step that was taken in regard to pensions, pay, and allowances, imposed an additional annual charge of a quarter of a million on the Indian revenue. We cannot, therefore, be accused of having stinted our measures by mere considerations of economy. When
  892
  the question was raised in the House I felt that Parliament had a right to see that the guarantee which they had given was fairly carried out, and I recommended the appointment of a Commission to inquire into the subject. The testimony which the hon. and gallant Officer has borne to the character of that Commission justifies, I think, the selection which was made. I did not endeavour to choose those who were prejudiced on my side of the question, but did my best to secure an unbiassed inquiry. We owe our best thanks to the noblemen and gentlemen who served on this Commission for the exceeding pains which they have taken in considering the subject, and for the impartiality with which they have drawn up their Report. When the question was under consideration by my Council, we certainly did not think that we were in any way infringing the Parliamentary guarantee. In order to make ourselves sure on that question we submitted the whole of the despatches to the then Law Officers of the Crown, who reported that we had done nothing which might not have been done by the East India Company, and which, therefore, we were not justified in doing. Being fortified by that authority, I hope the House will not suppose me to be exceedingly obstinate in continuing to be unconvinced that we have departed from the guarantee. At the same time, I defer to the opinion expressed by the Commission, and frankly and fully accept their Report. The Commission, it will be observed, have classed the complaints made under thirteen different heads. In regard to eight out of that number they have reported that the Parliamentary guarantee has not been violated; in regard to two they say that there may be an infringement; and in regard to three that a departure from the assurance of Parliament has taken place. With respect to the retiring fund, to which allusion has been made by the hon. and gallant Gentleman, it was a Court of Law which declared that it was illegal; and I only cited that decision. The Commission very justly remark that it is impossible to suppose that Parliament could have intended to guarantee the continuance of a practice contrary to law. The Court of Directors, in a despatch to the Bombay Government, in 1838, expressed disapprobation of their having received payment of subscriptions even provisionally, or given any encouragement to the service to expect a sanction to the system. It is, however, not worth while

  893
  going into that question now. The hon. and gallant Member for Aberdeen (Colonel Sykes) has said that the majority of officers of the Indian army, whom he stated correctly enough to be below 5,000 and 6,000, have cause for complaint; but that is far, indeed, from being the fact. The officers who volunteer into the Line are benefited by the change, and so are the officers of the Staff Corps, and of the Artillery and Engineers. Those officers who were appointed on the distinct understanding that they would be subjected to any change which might be made, have no just cause of complaint. In fact, instead of a majority of the officers in the Indian army having complained, the utmost number who can be injuriously affected by the changes, and can have possible cause of complaint, is about 1,500. Moreover, I must be permitted to say that there is a good deal of unfairness in many of those who complain, for although they gain on the whole, they say nothing about their gains, but insist only on what they lose, For instance, an officer complains that he has to remain lieutenant-colonel longer than would have been the case under the old system, but suppresses the circumstance that he reaches that grade more speedily. If a major becomes a lieutenant-colonel four years sooner than he would otherwise have been, but remains a lieutenant-colonel two years longer, it is clear that he is a gainer by the change. He gains four years' pay as lieutenant-colonel, instead of as major, and actually obtains a colonel's allowances two years sooner than under the old system. In complaining of the delay in getting beyond the rank of lieutenant-colonel, it is, therefore, not fair to keep back the fact that promotion to that grade is much accelerated. If you deduct the cases of that kind from the whole number of complaints, you will see that no very large proportion of the 1,500 Indian officers have any real cause to complain. The hon. and gallant Member for Aberdeen says, that promotion by regimental seniority was the legal right of the officers of the Indian army. If that is so, of course there can be no question of the promotions complained of being illegal; but all I can say is, that in the time of the Company many promotions and appointments were made in utter derogation of regimental seniority. [Colonel SYKES: They were exceptions.] I do not deny they were exceptions, but you cannot have an exception to that which is a legal
  894
  right. Besides, no person will tell me that the occurrences which took place two years ago were not of a very exceptional character. It was certainly an exceptional state of affairs when sixty-two regiments mutinied in Bengal and disappeared entirely from the service. So, too, the great reduction which has been made in the Indian army was an exceptional measure, because, up to very recently, the number of Native troops had always been on the increase. When the Indian army was reduced to the extent of 130,000 men, the necessary result was, that there were far more officers than were required to officer the existing army. I apprehend nobody will maintain that it was not as competent to the Crown as it would have been to the Company, or that it was not as much the duty of the Crown as it would have been the duty of the Company, to reduce the army. But then came the question, how the officers were to be dealt with? The hon. and gallant Gentleman says that the officers of the Indian army had a right to pay and promotion just as if they had continued to be employed. But is that the case with any other army in the world? When reductions were made in the English army the officers are put on half pay for life. In the case of the Indian army, the pay and promotion up to the rank of General will go on just as if the officers continued to be employed; so that a young gentleman who was appointed in December, 1861, will be promoted up to the rank of General, with the pay of the rank which he may hold, though he had never served at all when the change was made. Surely that is not dealing hardly with the Indian officers? Reference has been made to certain cases mentioned in the Report of the Commissioners of some retardation of promotion in consequence of the reduction. The Commissioners say it was competent to the Crown to reduce the Indian army, and they add it was the duty of the Crown to show every consideration to the officers. I think when we have continued to them the whole of their pay and promotion, although the regiments to which they belonged have ceased to exist, it cannot be fairly said that we have evinced any want of consideration for them. But there are three cases in which the Commissioners have reported a breach of the guarantee. I am prepared to give redress in those cases. It has not been from any want of attention, of thought, or of care, that the

  895
  measures for this purpose have not been completed. I solemnly declare that these questions connected with the Indian army have cost me more time and trouble ten times over than all the rest of Indian affairs put together. The House must not forget that it was necessary to consult a great number of people—because no step can be taken in giving promotion which affects the Indian army alone. Nothing could be more simple than the course suggested by the hon. and gallant Member for Aberdeen, that the whole of the promotions to the Staff Corps should be cancelled; but, as I stated on a former occasion, I must hesitate before adopting a measure of that kind. The officers of the Staff Corps have not been selected by the Government at home. They are tried and experienced men, selected at various times by the Indian Government, and it would be extremely hard to them to cancel the rank which they have now held for three years. That would be inflicting an injustice upon them without doing good to other persons, for I believe that many of the officers who complain of the supersession actually gain by the others being on the Staff Corps. If the promotions are not cancelled, however, it becomes a difficult question to determine what can be done. It is extremely difficult to devise any mode which will even approximate towards remedying the breach of guarantee without entailing injury and hardship upon another class of officers. The hon. and learned Member for Aberdeen talked about promoting all the officers in the same way as the officers on the Staff Corps; but what, I ask, would be the effect of that upon the officers of the Line? They have not complained of the promotion of the officers in the Staff Corps, but if they are to be superseded by all the officers of the old Indian army they will have a just and legitimate cause of complaint. What is the best mode of dealing with the cases of breach of guarantee I am at present unable to say. Shortly before Easter we devised a measure which, upon the whole, we thought would answer the purpose; but difficulties occurred, and it became necessary to consult again with the military authorities in this country. The plan is at present under the anxious consideration both of the Government and of the military authorities, and it will be brought forward as soon as possible; for I need hardly say I am as anxious as anybody can be to fulfil every pledge I have
  896
  given. I do not, of course, complain of the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite for submitting this matter to the House, but after what I have said I hope he will not think it necessary to press it to a division.
  CAPTAIN JERVISsaid, that after the clear admission of the right hon. Gentleman that he accepted the Report of the Commissioners, and that it would be carried out bonâ fide, he would withdraw his Motion.
  MR. BASSwished to know, why the grievances of the medical officers of the Indian army had not also been brought under the consideration of the Commission?
  LORD STANLEY: May I be allowed to ask, whether the plan to be proposed will be produced in time to be discussed this Session?
  MR. AYRTONasked, Whether there was any scheme under consideration for the employment of Indian officers when they returned home after serving in India?
  MR. HENRY SEYMOURsaid, he questioned what had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman with respect to the retiring funds of Indian officers. He could not understand how the practice could be called illegal, considering the approving despatch of the Court of Directors in November, 1837, and the adoption of the recommendations by previous Governments.
  SIR CHARLES WOODsaid, it was not for him to pronounce what was legal or illegal—the practice was declared to be illegal by a Court of Law before which the point was raised. He was perfectly aware of the despatch which the hon. Gentleman had quoted, which, however, did not affect the opinion of the Court of Law in any way. With regard to the question of the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets, it was quite true that several Indian Engineer officers had been employed in this country, and there was no reason why Indian officers should not be employed here on general service on their return from India. As to the noble Lord's question, he hoped in a very short time to be able to announce that a conclusion had been come to upon the point. He was in hopes that he should have been able to submit his proposal before Easter, but unforeseen difficulties of detail had arisen, causing some delay. He hoped, however, to lay the proposal on the table in a short time. With regard to the question of the hon. Member for Derby, the case of the

  897
  medical officers was a totally separate one. It had been under consideration for some time, but difficulties had arisen with the War Office. He had great hopes, that as far as the existing service was concerned, the difficulties would soon be removed.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

  RESOLUTION.
    EDUCATION.
      REPORTS OF INSPECTORS OF SCHOOLS.

        RESOLUTION.
        LORD ROBERT CECIL, in bringing forward the Resolution of which he had given notice—
        "That, in the opinion of this House, the mutilation of the Reports of Her Majesty's Inspectors of Schools, and the exclusion from them of statements and opinions adverse to the educational views entertained by the Committee of Council, while matter favourable to them is admitted, are violations of the understanding under which the appointment of the Inspectors was originally sanctioned by Parliament, and tend entirely to destroy the value of their Reports,"
        said, at this interesting time of the evening, I beg to promise the House that I will be exceedingly brief in dealing with the matter which I desire to bring before its attention. It may seem to some hon. Members to be a matter of small importance; but I do not think they will be of that opinion when they reflect that it involves the truth and purity of the information on which the House sanctions the payment of large sums of money taken out of the taxes paid by the people. What I wish to bring under the notice of the House is this:—The Inspectors of Schools make, as the House is aware, Reports annually to Parliament, containing, or professing to contain, the facts which those Inspectors have had under their cognizance, and the information which they have gathered with respect to the progress of education in those districts of the country which fall under their observation. Upon that information the House legislates, or rather it passes the Estimates for Education which are submitted to it. The Estimate for Education is, as the House wells knows, an Estimate of enormous amount; it has increased for many years, until it has now reached, I think, something like £800,000. The only information which the House possesses to enable it to judge whether the grant is rightly or wrongly dispensed is derived from the Reports of those Inspectors who are appointed for that purpose, and who make their Reports to the Committee of Privy Council, and through that Com-
        898
        mittee to Parliament. Now, what the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education claims to do, and what I traverse his right to do, is this:—He claims to expunge from those Reports all opinions which differ from his own, and at the same time to retain in them those opinions which agree with his own. It will be at once plain to hon. Members that such a practice entirely destroys the value of the Reports as any guide to the House in the course it should take on educational matters. Nor is this all. What I want to point out to the House is that this is not only an injurious plan, but is a breach of the original understanding upon which those Inspectors were appointed. They were appointed in the year 1840, after, as some hon. Members may remember, very fierce contests, in which all parts of the Government scheme were sharply called in question. They were appointed under a Minute that was afterwards laid before Parliament; and when that Minute had been laid before Parliament the general feeling was that so satisfactory had the arrangement which the Government had made turned out, that all the antagonism which had been raised disappeared at once, and the scheme of the Government was allowed to go on without further resistance. Since that time the Inspectors have held their office without any opposition on the part of Parliament, they have increased largely in number, and have been relied on by this House as its source of information. Now, that Minute, I maintain, is the contract between the Government and the House, and I want to call the attention of hon. Gentlemen to its terms. It was passed in January, 1840, and says—
        "The Reports of the Inspectors are intended to convey such further information respecting the state of elementary education in Great Britain as to enable Parliament to determine in what mode the sums voted for the education of the poorer classes can be most usefully applied. Your Reports will be made to the Committee, but it is intended that they shall be laid before both Houses of Parliament. The Committee doubt not that you are duly impressed with the weight of the responsibility resting upon you, and they repose full confidence in the judgment and discretion with which your duty will be performed."
        Now, the House of Commons, knowing that that was the understanding on which the Inspectors were appointed, and receiving their Reports from year to year, have become accustomed to look to those Reports for a true account of the state

        899
        of Education as it actually existed, and on the faith of them have made the enormous grants for which the Minister applied on behalf of the Educational Department. What I wish the House particularly to notice is this: — The right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Committee of Council claims—I believe in a Minute which he passed—to exclude from the Reports all "matters of opinion." But that is not what he really does. What he really does is to exclude all matters of opinion hostile to himself. Of course, for reasons which the House will well understand, the right hon. Gentleman is rather a formidable man for his subordinates to deal with, and I cannot afford to quote any information which I may have received from them for fear of the vengeance which might descend on the head of the unfortunate wight who supplied it. But I ask the House to believe me without asking me for proof—and I can give proof if I am challenged—I ask the House to believe that the sort of things cut out of the Reports are of this character. Supposing, for instance, that there is something in the construction of a school which is, in. the opinion of the Inspector, injurious to the condition of the children, and that it is desirable that, in regard to it, the Privy Council should relax its rule —that is an opinion to which the right hon. Gentleman does not accede, and it is ruthlessly cut out. Supposing that the right hon. Gentleman has to meet opponents in Parliament; supposing, for example, he has to meet an opponent so formidable to him as the hon. Member for Berkshire (Mr. Walter), and that that hon. Gentleman gathers together some very cogent arguments against the views of the Vice President of the Education Department, and supposing that some unfortunate Inspector should in his Report state facts or opinions which would seem in any way to support the proposition which such an opponent as I have indicated would bring-forward, then that passage is ruthlessly cut out by the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President. But suppose some Inspector of more docile and loyal mind, knowing the duty he owes to his Department, knowing the allegiance he bears to the right hon. Gentleman, makes it his business so to construct his Report that the Vice President of the Council shall have available materials for the next speech which he may have occasion to deliver, and shall be able to cite the opinion of that In-
        900
        spector of Schools against such a Motion as that of the hon. Member for Berkshire, then the Report is received with open arms and appears with all the honours. The right hon. Gentleman tells us he excludes matters of opinion. Let us test that assertion. I will quote from Mr. Stewart's General Report for 1862. Mr. Stewart is a keen opponent of the views of the hon. Member for Berkshire, and the consequence is that his Report is unmutilated, and finds its way into the blue-book. He says—
        "It is not unusual to represent the schools of the class just mentioned as institutions in which an unnecessarily high quality of instruction is given to the scholars, and at the same time to make out as a grievance that your Lordships' system ignores the very existence of 15,000 schools which stand in great need of assistance, but get nothing, although, without the services of educated teachers, they really contrive to teach children the simple elements of education."
        MR. Stewart then goes on at length to refute that opinion—
        "There are, of course, examples in which the general regulations of all public departments press with severity and apparent inequality; but, on the whole, it is not correct to say that schools are unaided because your Lordships require an impossible standard of school management and instruction."
        Now, that is a direct opinion on the objections raised by Gentlemen in this House and elsewhere, and it states that those objections are futile; but, of course, it is put in by the Vice President of the Council, because it states an opinion which he himself entertains. I will now just merely read the sentence with which this Report concludes, to show how boldly Mr. Stewart advances his opinions regarding certificated teachers, and how far the right hon. Gentleman gives expression to opinions with which he concurs. He says—
        "This state of things is neither due to the enticements of public grants nor wholly to individual exertion; highly-trained teachers have obtained a fair trial, and experience has shown that they are not only the best, but the only persons qualified, as a class, to conduct schools in which the poor are to be thoroughly, although plainly, educated."
        That, of course, is a direct negative to the Motion of the hon. Member for Berkshire; it is a direct opinion on the subject of a legislative change yet under the consideration of the House of Commons; it is an opinion in sympathy with the views of the Vice President of the Privy Council; and you have the remarkable fact that it appears, while the opinions of Inspectors who adopt the other view of the question are excluded. Of course, if I had the

        901
        opinions of the mutilated Inspectors, I have no doubt I should be able to make my case a great deal stronger. The House will see that, and appreciate my difficulty. I know the ferocity, almost, with which the right hon. Gentleman exercises his powers; and I am not disposed to subject any one with whom I am acquainted to the exercise of those powers, I submit to the consideration of the House this question: —Will you trust to Reports that have been subjected to this expurgating process, by which the Minister, who represents the Department in this House, excludes all that is hostile and retains all that is favourable to himself? I ask hon. Gentlemen to apply to the case the test of their own experience. What would the owner of a distant estate think if he ordered his bailiffs to report to the land steward, and if when the bailiffs had sent in their reports he found some day that some of them containing some strong opinions on the management of land were absent, while some maintaining the particular views of the steward himself were carefully preserved? The steward might be a man entertaining opinions in which many other persons did not concur. He might entertain strange, quaint, and crotchety opinions on agricultural questions. He might be of opinion that you ought to put all your manure on rich land, and none of it on poor land. Well, supposing him to entertain those opinions, and to argue them out on letters from bailiffs which supported them, while he suppressed those letters from bailiffs which opposed them, I ask, does any Gentleman who is the owner of land think the steward would retain his situation? Sir, the remedy is in the hands of the House. They are intrusted with the expenditure of vast sums of money; and usually when they grant large sums they guard by Acts of Parliament the expenditure of that money; bat in the ease of Education they hand over enormous sums to a Minister who conducts his department, not on regulations which the House itself can control, but on Minutes which the Government are always introducing, and which, if defeated, they can reintroduce with illusory modifications by which the opinion of the House is defied or eluded. The House of Commons, in dealing with a Department so constituted, is bound to its constituents to use a double amount of caution. It is bound to insist that the channels of information on which it depends shall be pure, and that it shall not be called upon to legislate for such
        902
        vast interests as are now at stake on un-faithworthy and garbled statements. The noble Lord concluded by moving his Resolution.
        MR. WALTER: Sir, as I may be unable to address the House at a later period of the evening. I beg to say a few words in seconding the Motion of the noble Lord. If the question which my noble Friend has raised was simply one affecting the order and discipline of the Department, I should be the last to join in supporting it; but the case is of a serious character; and the noble Lord has stated very fairly that by adopting the course it has been pursuing in garbling the Reports of the Inspectors, the Education Department deprives this House of the information which it ought to possess when dealing with this question. If the Inspectors were merely correspondents of the Department; if those who have charge of the Department receive the Reports of the Inspectors merely to grind up in order to make a report of their own, that would be quite a different question, and I should not object to their garbling those Reports. But I think the Inspectors stand in a very different position. They are gentlemen of very superior education; they get high salaries; and I think I may say it is believed by this House, that of all others they are eminently competent to guide the House on this subject. Well, what is the position of any Member who entertains views of his own—-it may be crotchety, but at all events deliberate views—on this question? My noble Friend has truly reminded the House that it has been my lot to address the House on the question of certificated masters. That question has undergone discussion here in two successive Sessions, I find in the Reports of two Inspectors — Mr. Norris and Mr. Stewart — opinions to the effect that I have entirely failed by my arguments to show that the system of certificated masters is not the best one. And I find in the same Reports statements that in the uncertificated schools are good-for-nothing-masters—old crippled persons, eighty years of age, paupers, and all the rest of it; and, in short, that I have not a leg to stand on if I bring the matter forward. I do not complain of that. On the contrary, I say the Inspectors have a right to make those statements; but when I have reason to know that in a Report of a different character, by a gentleman holding different opinions—a Report which speaks of a particular school as being the very beau-

        903
        ideal of what an infant school ought to be, of its being the best school in the Inspector's district—when I find the whole passage containing that statement struck out because the Inspector thought it right to state that the school was conducted by an uucertificated mistress, I say it is not fair, because it deprives me, and any gentleman holding the same views, of the opportunity of bringing our case before the House in a proper manner. When we read the Inspectors' Reports as they appeared in the Report of the Commissioners, we felt that they were not writing under the fear of the Department. Now, I have looked through all the evidence I could find in all the volumes of that Report, and I find that those gentlemen hold very different views; and there is enough to satisfy me that I have a strong primâ facie case; but if I am told that in any opinions which may be expressed by the Inspectors in future those parts that support the views I put forward are to be struck out, then I say I have no chance of bringing my case properly before the House. Mentioning this particular case, I call on the House, if they wish to have accurate information on the subject, to encourage the Inspectors by all means to state their opinions fully.
        Motion made, and Question proposed,
        "That, in the opinion of this House, the mutilation of the Reports of Her Majesty's Inspectors of Schools, and the exclusion from them of statements and opinions adverse to the educational views entertained by the Committee of Council, while matter favourable to them is admitted, are violations of the understanding under which the appointment of the Inspectors was originally sanctioned by Parliament, and tend entirely to destroy the value of their Reports."—(Lord R. Cecil.)
        MR. LOWE: Sir, I assure the House that the case mentioned by the hon. Member for Berkshire is entirely new to me; I have not the least idea to what the hon. Member alludes. The noble Lord the Member for Stamford (Lord Robert Cecil) has spoken of the "ferocity" which we displayed in a recent instance. I quite understand what he means. On Thursday last the noble Lord asked mo to state the grounds on which Mr. Morrell had been dismissed from the office of Inspector. I said I did not think it would be right to make an ex parte statement on the subject; but if the noble Lord chose to move for the Correspondence it would be at his service as an unopposed Return. The noble Lord has not thought right to move for it [Lord ROBERT CECIL: I am going to
        904
        do so], but, without having the documents in his hands, the noble Lord attributes to the Lord President the course of conduct which he has just mentioned to the House. The House must judge of the justice of that course. The noble Lord asks us to assert two opinions. The House is asked to assert two facts; first, that the Reports of Her Majesty's Inspectors of Schools are mutilated; and secondly, that statements and opinions adverse to the educational views entertained by the Committee of Council are excluded from the Reports, while matter favourable to them is admitted. The noble Lord then calls upon the House to declare, as matters of opinion, that that is a violation of the understanding under which the appointment of the Inspectors was originally sanctioned by Parliament, and that it tends entirely to destroy the value of their Reports. Now, I maintain that those two facts are untrue, and that those two opinions are absurd. Let me state again to the House, as I stated last year, the practice of the Office on the subject, and then the House will be able to judge whether what is done amounts to mutilation or not. The matter which first drew attention to this subject was a Report of a Roman Catholic Inspector, which we inadvertently allowed to be laid on the table of the House, and a considerable portion of which was devoted to a statistical inquiry into the comparative state of Roman Catholic and Protestant countries, in order to demonstrate that illegitimate births, capital crimes, and other offences were more frequent in Protestant than in Roman Catholic countries. That Report was too offensive a document to be laid on the table of the House and to be printed at the public expense, and I felt ashamed at having been a party to its production, for it is not the business of our Department to interfere in those religious controversies. It therefore appeared to us necessary to take some steps to prevent a recurrence of such a proceeding. What were we to do? No doubt the obvious expedient would have been what the noble Lord calls mutilation —namely, to read over the Reports of the Inspectors, and to strike out the passages considered improper to be laid before Parliament. These Inspectors are appointed under the Privy Council, and the directions given to them are that they should report on the state of the schools which they inspect, and offer practical suggestions for their improvement. There is

        905
        not any exclusion of opinion. On the contrary, opinion is perfectly admissible, if directed to the practical object of the improvement of the schools inspected. Such are the instructions under which the Inspectors act. Well, then, if the Inspectors, having received these instructions, do not write their Reports in conformity with them, they obviously commit a breach of duty; and the simple question we had to consider was, what would be in such a case the proper remedy to be applied. As I said, I could have garbled and mutilated these Reports; but I did not think it right or fair to do so—because if a sentence was struck out it might very well be argued that not only was that particular sentence expunged, but its removal might materially alter the contents of the Report. Therefore, it appeared to be the safest course to make the Inspectors their own censors, to send back, in case of need, the Reports to them, with a copy of the instructions as to the manner in which the Reports were to be drawn up, and to leave it to them to bring their Reports into conformity therewith, and informing them if that was not done the Reports would be put aside as documents not proper to be printed at the public expense, That is the course which the Office has uniformly observed. It does not point out in any case passages to which objections are made, but merely lays down the rule and principle on which the Inspectors are to proceed, and leaves them to apply that rule and principle to their own Reports. The Inspectors are, as has been most truly observed, gentlemen of great intelligence, and, if they will, they can perform the office of removing what seems to be improper in their Reports. We do not proceed in any narrow spirit, but allow a considerable latitude, and it is only in extreme cases that we have thought it necessary to act on the determination I have just mentioned. I would ask the House, then, after it has now heard the statement I have made, what does it think of the assertions of the noble Lord that the Vice President of the Committee of Council cuts out this, revises that, and excludes the other? What does it think of the allegation of the hon. Member for Berkshire, that a particular statement with respect to a particular school was omitted at my instance? The House is informed of the invariable principle on which the Department proceeds, and I ask hon. Gentlemen how can they, with any degree of fairness or consistency, vote, in the face of
        906
        my statement, that I am a person who mutilates these Reports, when the aim and object of the Committee of Council are, that mutilation should not be the work of the Department, but that the Inspector himself, who may have inadvertently made his Report not in accordance with his instructions, should have the power of setting it right? Therefore, I cannot conceive with what face the noble Lord can ask the House to agree to his Motion, which he supports with statements at variance with the facts of the case, to the effect that the heads of the Office cut out passages from the Reports. It is next said that we exclude from the Reports what is unfavourable to our views, and leave in what is favourable. That assertion is liable to the same answer. We neither strike out nor retain anything. The noble Lord says that he has information to that effect; but, judging from what has fallen from that noble Lord, I should say that the information is of very little value. It is not our wish that the Inspectors should write in favour of the Department or against it; and we do not strike out passages either because they are favourable or unfavourable, if they only come within the Minute of instructions, and offer practical suggestions for the improvement of schools. What is objected to is general controversial matter, not matter of opinion within the Minute, but matter of opinion which docs not bear on the subject the Inspector has to report upon; but I do not feel it my duty to erase from a Report any argument in favour of retaining certificated teachers, because that is a matter which has to do with the improvement of the schools under inspection. It is as germane to the argument as an argument in favour of doing away with certificated teachers. I never have had occasion to notice any such argument since the Inspectors are unanimous the other way. I think I have shown the House pretty good reason why it should not vote that these Reports are mutilated or are not fair, and it now remains for me to deal with the noble Lord's two matters of opinion. First of all, it is said that the course pursued is contrary to the understanding on which the Inspectors were directed to report, and the noble Lord quotes a letter of 1840. [Lord ROBERT CECIL: A Minute.] No, it is not a Minute. All who are familiar with these matters at the beginning, know that in 1840 the only assistance which the Privy Council gave to schools consisted of grants for building,

        907
        there being then no annual grants; and the Inspector's duty was not to interfere with the instruction and management or discipline of schools, or press on the managers any suggestions which they should not he inclined to receive. The office of Inspector at that time was quite different from what it now is. The noble Lord quoted a passage as to the Reports of the Inspectors, and he said they were to report on the state of particular districts, and how far it would be expedient for Government or Parliament to provide additional means of education in those districts. But the Reports which were then contemplated are not the least like what our Inspectors make now. These former Reports were to be made on the general state of education, in order that the Government, which had not then made up its mind as to the manner in which assistance ought to be given to schools, should have their attention directed to the state of education. Our present Reports, on the other hand, are Reports on schools, and on matters which occurred to the Inspectors in connection with those schools. The one class of Reports has become obsolete in course of time, and the other class is substituted for it. I admit to the noble Lord that it is the understanding, and always has been, that the Reports of the Inspectors should be laid before Parliament. That is the object with which they report, and when we call on them to report, we do so with the intention of laying their Reports before Parliament. The Reports, however, are not made directly to Parliament, but to the Privy Council under instructions, and are then laid before Parliament if they fairly and reasonably agree with those instructions. That is the practice of my Office, and it is not peculiar to the Committee of Privy Council, but prevails in other public offices having Inspectors, such as the Home Office. It is not everything that a gentleman chooses to write which is to be laid on the table of the House of Commons, or we might have an account of every quarrel and controversy in which he had embarked, and a record of every indiscreet expression which he may have penned. It is quite open to the House to express an opinion that the Inspectors should report directly to Parliament, and not to the Privy Council, and thus exonerate us from all responsibility in the matter. I have not the slightest objection to any amount of report which the House may then choose to require; but only while we
        908
        have the responsibility we are bound to exercise a control. The matter which first drew attention to the subject was the Report of Mr. Fletcher in 1849. That gentleman drew up a Report of more than 200 pages, which referred not only to education, but went into the statistics of crime, and into the amount of committals for offences; and all this was printed at the public expense. That was considered an abuse, and a circular was issued to prevent the recurrence of such cases. But, if the House thinks it advisable that a number of very clever men should exercise their faculties in giving greater latitude to these Reports, and that they should be printed at the public expense, nothing can be easier. Let the House give its orders, and they shall be obeyed. No delusion can be greater than that the Privy Council Office is in any way afraid of any criticism of their proceedings. We have undergone every criticism that the whole of a highly educated class could bring upon us. Every one of these Inspectors can write what he likes, not in a Parliamentary blue-book, which nobody reads, but in the Reviews, which everybody reads. There is no soreness at anything that can be said. You have heard the worst of us, and we are not the least afraid of any facts that can be brought against us. But what we are anxious for, what we do wish, is to keep the Office in discipline; if we do issue instructions, to see that they are not disobeyed, and to keep the officers within the limits of those instructions. The House may itself undertake the duty of those by whom the Revised Code is to be administered; but, in that event, relieve us from the responsibility. I shall then be happy to congratulate the noble Lord on the triumph he has obtained, and I hope the House will not grow tired of the task. There is one more matter of opinion expressed by the noble Lord—that the effect of the exercise of our jurisdiction over these Reports is entirely to destroy their value. The noble Lord appears to consider the whole and sole value of the Inspectors' Reports to consist in their being damaging and derogatory to their superiors, and furnishing arguments to those who always talk of the largeness of the Education Estimates, but have done everything to make them larger and less efficient. The sort of thing the noble Lord contemplates maybe very delightful, but it is scarcely practicable. He seems to contemplate a department, nominally

        909
        responsible to Parliament for large sums of money, living under an Aulic Council of Inspectors, criticising its action, condemning its conduct, and furnishing arms to any one who may attack it. That, according to the noble Lord, may be the beau ideal of a public department; but such a department must necessarily end in perfect anarchy. Responsibility would be utterly frittered away and destroyed, and your Inspectors, having their own way, you would have a bad system of inspection. I think, therefore, I have shown that it is not true that these Reports are mutilated as the noble Lord says; nor is it true—at any rate the noble Lord is quite unable to adduce any evidence on which the House can act— that there is any capricious or unfair dealing with the Reports in order to make them pleasing to the Department. Nor can it be said with any justice that the withholding, in some cases, of these Reports is a violation of any understanding; for whoever said it was the intention of the I Department that they should all be laid before Parliament? To make that out it should be shown that the Privy Council bound themselves to lay these Reports in every case on the table of the House, which no one has ever asserted. And as to the opinion that these Reports are only valuable so far as they are condemnatory of the Office under which the Inspectors act, I think that is an assertion which it will not do the House much credit to take from the lips of the noble Lord. One thing-more I have got to say, and I hope it will give satisfaction to the noble Lord; it is this, that this policy of vivisection, or mutilation, or whatever he may call it, has been entirely successful. I have the greatest pleasure in telling the House that, in the present year, we have now got in all the Reports of the Inspectors, and I am proud to say it has not been necessary to send a single Report back to the Inspectors. The noble Lord will, of course, say that the reign of terror had prevailed; but I can assure him that is not the case. The noble Lord appears to think that it should be a source of the greatest satisfaction to the House and the country to find the Department in a state of civil war, and the public service in jeopardy; but there is nothing of the kind. I can assure him that the Inspectors—a very valuable body of men, who have undertaken, no doubt, duties which press very heavily on some of them —are doing good service, and the system is worked with a smoothness and success
        910
        which surprise us. We really see no rock ahead, except such Motions and speeches as are made by the noble Lord, which would lead the House to suppose that the system was really founded on the principle of having antagonistic influences at work—those representing the Department in Parliament and the Inspectors—and that the best thing they can do for the public service is that it shall be be torn in pieces between them. I sincerely hope that the House will not listen to the Motion of the noble Lord, because it will be fatal to the present organization of the Office, and because the two statements which it expresses are utterly untrue, and his two opinions absurd.
        MR. W. E. FORSTER: Having brought forward this question last year, I wish to say a very few words to show the position in which the great educational question, which we have all at heart, now stands. The right hon. Gentleman has made great changes—I am not going to say whether they are advantages or disadvantages— but no doubt great changes have been made. A crisis has arisen in the question; and just at this moment, when we are most anxious to get all the information possible as to facts, the right hon. Gentleman comes forward and pleads for the discipline of his Office—what none of his predecessors found it necessary to do—by saying that it was not the original understanding that all the Inspectors' Reports should be produced. Those who knew the history of the Education movement understood that when the Government gave State aid they were to receive information from impartial and educated gentlemen as to how that State aid was applied. It was never more important that we should know the facts; but no facts are given which run, counter to the view of the right hon. Gentleman. He says it is very easy to print these facts elsewhere; but I say the place where they ought to appear is that in which by the arrangement of the Office they ought to appear—I mean in the Reports of the School Inspectors. There is another point. Perhaps the House is not aware that this year the right hon. Gentleman only gives Reports for half the kingdom—the Reports are only from half the Inspectors in the course of the year. I do not suppose that he has taken care to pick the half most favourable to himself, but at the present time, when information from all parts of the country is so much required, he steps forward and says, "I

        911
        will save the country a few pounds in the printing of these Reports." Never was there a more penny wise and pound foolish policy. If, as he says, the Inspectors send foolish Reports, let us see them; it may be a reason for getting rid of them. Then the right hon. Gentleman said the Reports did not contain practical suggestions:—let him be good enough to produce those Reports which he says were not mutilated, but sent back to the Inspectors;—let us see them, whether with or without the marginal marks upon them, and then the House will form its own opinion on the subject. There is another reason why the Office which is concerned in the distribution of the Educational Grant does, to use plain language, want watching and control. The right hon. Gentleman has issued a new Code himself in the shape of supplementary rules. I say that is a reason why we ought to know as well as we possibly can from those gentlemen who go through the country, and whose business it is to report the local circumstances of the schools, what it is that the great central bureaucratic establishment is doing in the matter. The right hon. Gentleman, in the conclusion of his speech, gave the strongest possible argument in favour of the Motion. He said, that while the last thing the Office was afraid of was opinions, yet that he could not work the Office if these gentlemen were allowed to give us their opinions and practical suggestions.
        MR. LOWEexplained that he did not mean to say that if the present system were abolished the Office would not work, but he intended to imply that the Government of the Office would be taken out of their hands. With respect to the reduction in the number of Reports—under the original system they had head Inspectors and assistant Inspectors, and the head Inspectors only made reports; but the system had been changed, and now all were Inspectors and made Reports. According to the present plan of one-half of the Inspectors reporting this year, the same number of Reports would be presented as in former times.
        MR. LIDDELLsaid, there was an old saying that hard words did not always constitute sound argument; and the speech of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Lowe) showed the truth of the saying. He had said that the noble Lord's (Lord R. Cecil) assertions were untrue, and his opinions absurd; but how had he proved what he
        912
        had said? To prove the first part of his assertion he had said that the Reports were not mutilated by the Department, but by the Inspectors themselves. Now, the Government of Japan, when it was wished to punish an officer did not punish him themselves, but called upon him to commit suicide; and this was precisely the course which the right hon. Gentleman had taken. The right hon. Gentleman had also said that the Reports contained opinions which ought not to be printed; but surely the best way would be to give the House an opportunity of judging of that, and then, probably, an expression of opinion would correct the evil.
        SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, that as the practice of other Departments had been adverted to, he felt bound to state, as the result of considerable experience, that he thought it was absolutely necessary for the interests of the public that the heads of Departments should exercise some degree of control over the Reports of Inspectors. He had had occasion at the Home Office, as had been the case with his predecessor (Sir James Graham), to call the attention of Inspectors to the nature of their Reports, in which, after stating facts, they proceeded to enter upon controversies upon disputed points. In those cases the Reports were not mutilated, but sent back to the Inspectors, exactly in the same way as he understood from his right hon. Friend the Vice President the Reports of the Inspectors of Schools had been dealt with. He considered that it was absolutely necessary that the head of a Department should exercise a power of that kind.
        Question put—
        The House divided: — Ayes 101; Noes 93: Majority 8.

        AYES.

        Annesley, hon. Col. II.

        Gallwey, Sir W. P.

        Astell, J. II.

        Gard, R. S.

        Barrow, W. H.

        George, J.

        Beecroft, G. S.

        Getty, S. G.

        Bridges, Sir B. W.

        Gilpin, Colonel

        Brooks, R

        Gore, J. R. O.

        Cargill, W. W.

        Greenall, G.

        Cartwright, Colonel

        Greene, J.

        Cochrane, A. D. R.W. B.

        Gregory, W. H.

        Collins, T.

        Grey de Wilton, Visct.

        Cubitt, G.

        Griffith, C. D.

        Disraeli, rt. hon. B.

        Grogan, Sir E.

        Du Cane, C.

        Haliburton, T. C.

        Dunne, Colonel

        Hamilton, Major

        Fane, Colonel J. W.

        Hardy, G.

        Farquhar, Sir M.

        Hardy, J.

        Fergusson, Sir. T.

        Hay, Sir J. C. D.

        FitzGerald, W. R. S.

        Henley, rt. hon. J. W.

        Forster, W. E.

        Horsfall, T. B.

        Fraser, Sir W. A.

        Hotham, Lord

        913

        Hubbard, J. G.

        Peel, J.

        Hunt, G. W.

        Powell, F. S.

        Kekewich, S. T.

        Quinn, P.

        Kennard, R. W.

        Repton, G. W. J.

        Knatchbull, W. F.

        Ridley, Sir M. W.

        Knightley, R.

        Rose, W. A,

        Lacon, Sir E.

        Scott, Lord H.

        Leader, N. P.

        Selwyn, C. J.

        Leeke, Sir H.

        Seymour, H. D.

        Lefroy, A.

        Shirley, E. P.

        Legh, W. J.

        Smith, Sir F.

        Leslie, W.

        Somes, J.

        Liddell, hon. H. G.

        Stanhope, J. B.

        Lovaine, Lord

        Stanley, Lord

        Lowther, hon. Colonel

        Stracey, Sir H.

        M'Cann, J.

        Sullivan, M.

        M'Cormick, W.

        Surtees, H. E.

        MacEvoy, E.

        Taylor, Colonel

        Maguire, J. F.

        Tomline, G.

        Malins, R.

        Torrens, R.

        Manners, right hon. Lord J.

        Turner, C.

        Vance, J.

        Mills, A.

        Vansittart, W.

        Mowbray, rt. Hon. J. R.

        Vyse, Colonel H.

        Nicol, W.

        Walpole, rt. hon. S. H.

        Noel, hon. G. J.

        Waterhouse, S.

        North, Colonel

        Whiteside, rt. hon. J.

        Northeote, Sir S. H.

        Williams, W.

        O'Couor Don, The Packe, C. W.

        Woodd, B. T.

        Pakington, rt. hn. Sir J.

        TELLERS.

        Peacocke, G. M. W.

        Cecil, Lord R.

        pease, H.

        Walter, J.

        NOES.

        Acton, Sir J. D.

        French, Colonel

        Ayrton, A, S.

        Gibson, rt, hon. T. M.

        Bagwell, J.

        Gilpin, C.

        Baring, T. G.

        Gladstone, rt. hon. W,

        Bass, M. T.

        Gower, G. W. G. L.

        Bazley, T.

        Grenfell, H. R.

        Black, A.

        Grey rt. hon. Sir G.

        Blencowe, J. G.

        Hadfield, G.

        Bouverie, hon. P. P.

        Henderson J.

        Bramston, T. W.

        Hodgkinson, G.

        Briscoe, J. I.

        Hutt, rt. hon. W.

        Bruce, Lord E.

        Ingham, R.

        Bruce, H. A.

        Knatchbull-Hugesson, E.

        Buller, Sir A. W.

        Buxton, C.

        Layard, A, H.

        Cardwell, rt. hon. E,

        Lefevre, G. J. S.

        Clay, J.

        Lindsay, W. S.

        Clifford, C. C.

        Lowe, rt. hon. R.

        Cobbett, J. M.

        Mackie, J.

        Cobden, R.

        Martin, P. W.

        Collier, Sir R. P.

        Martin, J.

        Cowper, rt. hon. W. F.

        Mills, J. R.

        Cox, W.

        Moor, H.

        Crossley, Sir F.

        Morris, D

        Dalglish, R.

        Neate, C.

        Davey, R.

        Norris, J. T.

        Denman, hon. G.

        O'Brien, Sir P.

        Dillwyn, L. L.

        Ogilvy, Sir J.

        Dodson, J. G.

        O'Hagan, rt. hon. T

        Duke, Sir J.

        O'Loghlen, Sir C. M.

        Dundas, rt. hon. Sir D.

        Osborne, R. B.

        Evans, Sir De L.

        Padmore, R.

        Ewart, W.

        Paget, Lord A.

        Ewart, J. C.

        Palmer, Sir R.

        Finlay, A, S.

        Palmerston, Viscount

        Forster, C.

        Peel, rt. hon. F.

        Fortescue, C. S.

        Pender, J.

        914

        Pinney, Colonel

        Verney, Sir H.

        Pollard-Urquhart, W.

        Villiers, rt. hon. C. P.

        Price, R. G.

        Warner, E.

        Ramsden, Sir J. W.

        Weguelin, T. M.

        Salomons, Mr. Ald.

        Whitbread, S.

        Scholefield, W.

        White, L.

        Sidney, T,

        Wood, rt. hon. Sir C.

        Smith, J. B.

        Woods, H.

        Smith, A.

        Sykes, Colonel W. H.

        TELLERS.

        Trelawny, Sir J, S.

        Brand, hon. H. B. W.

        Turner, J. A.,

        Dunbar, Sir W.

      JOINT-STOCK COMPANIES (VOTING PAPERS).—LEAVE.
      MR. DARBY GRIFFITH, in moving for leave to bring in a Bill to afford shareholders in joint-stock companies facilities for voting by means of Voting Papers, explained that under the present system the vast, majority of shareholders could vote only by anticipation. Shareholders in public companies, unless they were able to be personally present, which was often physically impossible, for no room could be found large enough to contain perhaps 18,000 or 20,000 people, were in the habit of delegating their authority and voting by proxy. The consequence was that the proxies being necessarily given in anticipation, the question was decided before it could be discussed by the meeting of shareholders. The Bill which he asked to be allowed to introduce would effect but a very slight alteration in the present state of the law. The great charter of railway companies was the well-known Clauses Consolidation Act, the 8 & 9 Vict. c. 16, and his proposal was merely subsidiary to that Act, and all the powers which directors and shareholders possessed under it would remain in full operation. What he proposed to enact was this, that when at a meeting of a company a poll should be demanded upon a question put and seconded, Voting Papers should be sent to the shareholders, who should be allowed to vole by means of them. When it was remembered that an instance had occurred in which a great company, being apprehensive of attack, thought themselves called upon to send out something like 10,500 proxies before the report was issued (and they actually received proxies representing £8,000,000 of money) and the shareholders were thus called upon to vote in the dark and by anticipation, he thought it would be admitted there were good grounds for such a measure as this. The principle of voting by papers was familiar to the House; it had been assented to in

      915
      the case of the Universities, and was sought to he enacted in the Bill for restricting the use of spirituous liquors. He begged to move for leave to bring in the Bill.
      MR. HADPIELDseconded the Motion, and said that the question was one of great importance, and the lowering of the duty on proxies proposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be a great advantage to shareholders.
      MR. INGHAMsuggested that the scope of the Bill should be extended.
      Motion agreed to.
      Bill to afford Shareholders in Joint Stock Companies facilities for Voting by means of Voting Papers, ordered to be brought in by Mr. DABBY GRIFFITH, Mr. HADFIELD, and Mr. VANCE.

      MUSEUM AND LIBRARY OF PATENTS.

        OBSERVATIONS.
        MR. DILLWYNrose to call attention to the insufficiency of the accommodation at present provided for Patents and Models of Inventions in the Museum at South Kensington. He said it was of the greatest importance that those who had invented machinery should have a ready means of seeing what had been already done in the same way. The present Museum of Patents was quite inadequate for the purpose, and, in fact, had been originally intended to be only temporary.
        Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present;—Committee counted, and 40 Members not being present,
        House adjourned at Eight o'clock.

MINUTES.
Took the Oath—The Lord Bishop of Ossory.
PUBLIC BILLS—Second Reading—Punishment of Rape (No. 52).
Committee—Charitable Assurances Enrolments * (No. 38).

PUNISHMENT OF RAPE BILL—(No. 22)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  THE MARQUESS OF WESTMEATH, in moving the second reading of the Bill, said, the frequency of the crime to which the Bill referred, particularly in the manufacturing districts, and a case which had been tried at the late spring assizes in the county of Sligo, in Ireland, had induced him to bring forward the present measure. In the case to which he had referred, a young woman had been taken off by some men, who had confederated for the purpose, and extreme violence had been offered to her with a view to get possession not only of her person, but of her money, and in order to prevent any respectable man from having anything to do with her. The punishment inflicted by the Court for that offence was only two years' imprisonment; and he now proposed by the present Bill to
  860
  give power to the Judge, where more persons than one were concerned in the crime, to order the infliction of corporal punishment, and if that punishment were inflicted publicly, so that it might be known to those who were not in the habit of reading the newspapers, so much the better.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.
  LORD RAVENSWORTHopposed the Motion on the ground that the additional punishment contemplated by the Bill would have no additional deterrent effect. The offence in question was commonly committed by persons who were in company together, upon a casual encounter with their victim, and without premeditated design.
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, that though he was very much opposed to the increase of the system of flogging, and had much doubts of its efficacy, at the same time he was not prepared, on the part of the Government, to oppose the second reading of the Bill.
  EARL GREYsaid, that there could be no doubt that some of the sentences recently inflicted for this offence were scandalously insufficient; but the fault did not lay with the law, but with the administration of the law, and an expression of the opinion of the Legislature might lead to better results. Different Judges awarded different measures of punishment, and the consequence was a great scandal on the inequality of the sentences awarded. He was afraid that it would be an insuperable difficulty to define by law the exact measure of punishment to be given to different degrees of crime; but still he thought that something might be done, under the authority of the Lord Chancellor, if the Judges were to meet together to lay down some common rule of action in order to establish greater uniformity in the administration of the law.
  LORD WENSLEYDALEsaid, that last year he had ventured to propose that the Lord Chancellor should write to the Judges and ask them to meet together in order that they might come to some common understanding in regard to the sentences which should be passed in cases of a similar kind. Objections were taken to that course; but he agreed to the want of uniformity, and the lenient sentences which were now frequently passed were a scandal and a disgrace and ought to be put an end to. He thought it highly desirable that the Judges should agree to some common principle in passing sentences.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, that the subject was one of very great difficulty. He felt unwilling to take the course suggested by his noble and learned Friend. If he called upon the Judges to define the law with a view of limiting their discretion, he should be calling upon them to do that which would be better performed by an enactment of the Legislature.
  LORD CRANWORTHsaid, that the Bill was open to many objections. The Judges were necessarily intrusted with almost unlimited discretion; but the noble Marquess proposed to add a new element of uncertainty and a new element of difference in the sentences of the Judges. Since the abolition of capital punishments in so many eases, there had been a gradual system of inflicting too lenient punishments in ordinary convictions. He remembered thirty years ago his noble and learned Friend on the cross benches (Lord Wensleydale), remarking that the effect of taking away capital punishment would lead to the diminution of punishment all down the scale. Unfortunately that prediction had turned out to he too true, and it was a great misfortune, in his opinion, that punishments were not more severe in many cases than they now were. He could not, however, concur in the proposal that the Judges should meet and lay down any general rules; because crime admitted of such an infinite variety of shades of guilt that it was impossible to say beforehand what the punishment on any given offence ought to be. The only way in which punishments would eventually be more uniformly inflicted would he through the agency of public opinion. He saw no other means of arriving at that; result.
  THE MARQUESS OF WESTMEATHtrusted that their Lordships would pass the Bill through its present stage.
  Motion agreed to: Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Thursday next.

CONVICT GEORGE HALL—THE PREROGATIVE OF MERCY.

  ADDRESS FOR CORRESPONDENCE.
  THE EARL OF CARNARVON, in moving that an humble Address be presented to! Her Majesty for Copy of Correspondence relative to George Hall, convicted of Murder at the Warwick Assizes, and respited on the 13th of March, said, he wished it to be distinctly understood that he did not attach any blame to the Home Secretary
  862
  for the decision at which he had thought fit to arrive; what he did find fault with was the mode and steps by which that decision had been arrived at. The object in making this Motion was to elicit from Her Majesty's Government some statement as, to the principle on which the prerogative of mercy was exercised; for in previous instances similar divergence between decisions first arrived at and those ultimately acted upon were observable. When Townley was removed to a lunatic asylum on the ground that insanity had supervened, a formal and distinct assurance was given by the Secretary of State to the magistrates of Derbyshire that his sentence was only respited, and not commuted. Yet, within a fortnight from that time, without any fresh circumstances having supervened to throw doubt either upon the guilt or sanity of the prisoner, the sentence of capital punishment was commuted. In Wright's case, which followed a very few; days afterwards, strong efforts to obtain a respite were made; but Sir George Grey decided, and he thought very rightly, that the law must take its course. By contrast with the course taken in the previous ease, however, a strong and painful impression was made upon the public mind. [He then alluded to the case of Jessie McLachlan, at Glasgow, and quoted an extract from Sir George Grey's speech, to the effect that the exercise of this power must be conformed to the popular feeling of the time.] This was a dangerous innovation on the Constitution, and proved the necessity that some principle of action should be laid down for future guidance. In the case of George Hall, that to which the papers he was now asking for referred, it was shown that the man had received grievous provocation, and that it was one in which the extension of the prerogative of, mercy would be perfectly defensible; but the Home Office remained immovable, and on the 11th of March the Home Secretary wrote a letter to the Mayor of Birmingham announcing his decision, and the grounds on which it was founded. Sir George Grey stated, that after most careful and anxious consideration, he felt that this could only be viewed as a deliberate and premeditated murder, and that the most dangerous consequences to society must ensue if provocation such as the prisoner had received were held sufficient to excuse the act which he had committed. That letter was received in Birmingham on the 12th ultimo, and the intimation which it

  863
  conveyed was final; but those who had to deal with Sir George Grey knew him better than he appeared to know his own mind. A very strong pressure was exerted, and in thirty-six hours after the receipt of that letter, a reprieve came down from the Home Office, and the sentence was commuted to penal servitude for life. With the reprieve itself he had no fault to find; but he asked whether the Secretary of State having, after "full and anxious" consideration, as he himself stated, arrived at a particular decision, he was not doing something which appeared to require explanation when after the lapse of a few hours he took a course diametrically opposite. In the discussions arising out of Jessie McLachlan's case, Sir George Grey had argued that, if capital punishment is to exist, public feeling in each case must be taken into account, and the prerogative of mercy exercised in accordance with that feeling. Public feeling was in many subjects a safe and most reasonable element of consideration; but he entirely denied that it was a reliable guide, or should be allotted to influence the mind of a Secretary of State in reviewing punishment, inasmuch as public opinion in ninety-nine out of every hundred such cases meant the public opinion of the particular district, or county, or town, where the murder was committed, where the history and antecedents of the prisoner were known, and where consequently a prepossession in his favour or a prejudice against him existed almost invariably. Those who took the office ought not to shrink from the performance of its duties; the only consideration which ought to weigh with them was that of the due administration of justice. If any fresh fact transpired it was the duty of the Secretary of State to consider it; but it was entirely a matter between him and his conscience, and he was not justified in shifting the burden of responsibility to the shoulders of any one else, still less to so inconvenient, so vague, and so irresponsible a body as was expressed in the words "public opinion." Before he sat down he should like to ask the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, referring to the fact that as a general rule in cases in which persons had been sentenced to penal servitude for life they received a ticket-of-leave at the expiration of twelve years, not only whether Townley would be entitled to a ticket-of-leave at the end of that period, but whether, according to the existing rule,
  864
  there would be any objection to the Secretary of State granting such a remission of his sentence. The noble Earl concluded by moving—
  "That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty for Copy of Correspondence relative to George Hall, convicted of Murder at the Warwick Assizes, and respited on the 13th of March."
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, he was sure that the noble Earl would be one of the last persons to act unfairly towards the Secretary of State for the Home Department; but, without intending it, few things could be more unfair than the course which he had pursued. The case of Townley had been twice before their Lordships. On an occasion it was made the subject of a Motion by the noble Earl; and as that Motion was withdrawn, he presumed that the noble Earl was satisfied with the explanations which were given.
  THE EARL OF CARNARVONsaid, that the reason he withdrew that Motion was that on the same evening on which he gave notice of it, the Home Secretary introduced a Bill to remedy the defects of the law, and he thought that it would be unfair to the right hon. Gentleman to enter into the discussion of the circumstances in that House when he was about to explain them in another place.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORthought that for the same reason the noble Earl should have abstained from passing that censure upon the Secretary of State which was contained in the words that he had made a promise to the magistrates of Derbyshire with respect to the convict Townley, and had afterwards departed from its terms. No such assurance was given beyond the simple statement that the transfer of the convict to the lunatic asylum did not involve the commutation of the sentence. The noble Earl complained that it was afterwards commuted. Did the noble Earl know that after the convict was once lodged in the lunatic asylum, whither he was compelled by force of law to be sent, he could not be taken out of it except upon a certificate that he had recovered his reason and was restored to sanity? The result was that it was necessary to go through a process, which, in the eye of the law, admitted that the man had once been insane before he could be removed from the asylum. His right hon. Friend came to him and asked his opinion whether, under these circumstances, it was possible to send him back to Derby to be executed. They found that no case of the kind had occurred

  865
  in which the convict was afterwards executed, and therefore he (the Lord Chancellor) gave the advice—for which he was responsible in the sense of having given it —and his right hon. Friend acted upon it, that under the circumstances it would be impossible to permit Townley to undergo the last sentence of the law. He was compelled to come to that conclusion most unwillingly by the circumstances which had occurred, and he believed that the course which was adopted was taken with the concurrence of all reasonable and well informed men. The noble Earl had contrasted Townley's case with that of Wright, In Wright's case the prisoner pleaded I guilty, and although he (the Lord Chancellor) would have been glad if the sentence had not taken effect so rapidly, that was the result of the present state of the law. He would now pass to the immediate subject of the Motion—namely, the case of the convict Hall. He was glad that the noble Earl had brought this matter before! the House, not on account of the case itself, but on account of the important subject connected with it, to which he had properly referred, and concerning which he only regretted that his observations were so concise. In Hall's case his right hon. Friend referred the papers to him, and after examining them he arrived at the conclusion that there was no reason whatever for the exercise of mercy. He persevered in that opinion, being perhaps firmer than his right hon. Friend, who adopted his language in the letter which he wrote to the Mayor of Birmingham. What afterwards occurred? Hundreds of persons whose representations were entitled to the greatest consideration, besieged the Home Office, and implored his right hon. Friend to remit the sentence. There appeared to be a combination of opinions that the execution of the sentence would be unjust and unbecoming, and that it would shock the moral sense of the community. Those opinions came to this—that there was in truth so much moral provocation that the offence ought to be regarded as having been committed under such provocation as would reduce murder to manslaughter. He begged the noble Earl to place himself in the situation of the Secretary of State for the Home Department. The Secretary of State had his own judgment and the verdict of the jury; but against that there was an array of opinions which were entitled to respect, all assuring him that if this man
  866
  were hanged the object of capital punishment would be defeated, and he would be regarded as a martyr. He lamented that that should be the state of things, but he confessed that he was most happy to hear that in his absence his right hon. Friend had arrived at the conclusion that Hall ought to be respited, and he was sure that if the noble Earl had been Secretary of State he would have acted in the same manner, and would have felt as he did, that a great weight was taken off his mind by the opinion which he entertained being overborne and overpowered by the amount of argument and the amount of conviction expressed by persons who were entitled to the highest consideration. So much with regard to the particular cases. He would now make a few remarks on that part of the subject which had long engaged his attention, and to which he desired to take the opportunity of directing that of their Lordships—namely, the state of the law on this subject; for it was of that, and not of the mode of its administration, that complaint ought to be made. To administer it otherwise was impossible. The present practice had grown up in a long series of years. The right hon. Gentleman who now with so much credit to himself filled the office of Home Secretary, and who had succeeded to it with all its traditions and practices, said that we, at no very remote period, possessed a code in all respects sanguinary. That character had in some degree been taken from it by the exercise of the prerogative of the Crown; and then succeeded a period of too much remission and gentleness in the administration of the criminal law. At present the prerogative of mercy was vested in the Crown, and administered under the advice of the Secretary of State. In the exercise of that prerogative the Secretary of State was called upon to pay regard to the moral aspect of the case, as contrasted with the legal. He had to deal with the representations made to him with respect to undue influence having been allowed to particular facts—that some particular facts had been withheld—that fresh evidence had been discovered, and that, in short, there had been a failure of justice. He had also to deal with appeals of the most unscrupulous character made by persons who seemed to be of opinion that they were, under all circumstances, bound to advocate the remission of capital punishment. Indeed, one of the most difficult points with which

  867
  any man could have to deal was to know how to administer the particular functions of a Secretary of State in that particular and he should like to see connected with the Home Office some kind of quasi tribunal which should be auxiliary to the Secretary of State in the exercise of the great powers with which he was intrusted. The prerogative of mercy must, of necessity, be left to the Crown; but when the Secretary of State was called upon to advise the Crown it was quite clear that he had not the means of making a satisfactory investigation. There ought, therefore, in his opinion to be some constituted authority for relieving the Secretary of State of the duty which thus devolved upon him, and discharging it in a satisfactory manner. As matters at present stood the Secretary of State was in the position of a court of criminal appeal, but of one at the same time constructed in the worst of all possible ways. There were no certain rules laid down for his guidance, and the decision depended in a great measure on the character of the individual. A man of sterner nature would be guided by certain views, while a man of a gentler disposition might meet with a number of modern arguments by which his mind might be influenced. There was, therefore, in our present institution with respect to the dispensation of the prerogative of mercy, nothing but a vast discretion invested in the individual, and then that individual discharging in the best possible manner the power invested in him, which, however it might he discharged, was always exposed to criticism. It was, he might add, impossible to lay before the public all the reasons which influenced the Home Secretary; but he should, at the same time, submit to the House that nothing could be more unsatisfactory than to have the decisions of courts of justice set aside on grounds of the nature of which they were ignorant, and the sufficiency of which there were no means of ascertaining. He was, therefore, obliged to the noble Earl for having drawn to the question the attention of the House, and he wished he could at once proceed to state that the remedy for the evils of which he complained was clear and easy. He had not, however, been able to solve the problem himself, nor had he been able to obtain any satisfactory solution of the question as to how the limits of the prerogative of the Crown in those cases were to be fixed on a satisfac-
  868
  tory basis. As our trials were public, so the discussions on the cases which came before our tribunals ought to be equally public, in order that there might be no mistrust entertained with respect to the due administration of the law. It was said that the definition and classification of our law with respect to the several degrees of murder were most imperfect; and if the noble Earl were to take the trouble of contrasting the definition on the subject in the English law with that in the French, or the more accurate definition of the several States of America, he would find the various degrees of murder laid down and defined in the case of the latter countries, with the punishments affixed, and that was the only mode in which at present he was able to say anything like an approximation to limiting the amount of uncertain discretion vested in the Home Secretary could be arrived at. If we could satisfactorily define beforehand what constituted murder in the first instance, and what, in the second place, was the appropriate punishment of the offence as classified, half the evil of the present state of things would be removed, and then we might have something like a public inquiry in cases in which by accident material circumstances happened not to be submitted to the jury, making it auxiliary to the functions of the Secretary of State. Had he, he might add, been aware that the noble Earl would have drawn attention to the case of Townley that evening, he would have taken care to bring down to the House more detailed information on the subject; while, with regard to the papers which more particularly related to his Motion, he could only say that, being of a private nature, their production would be attended with inconvenience.
  THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGHsaid, le thought the noble and learned Lord had not given a satisfactory answer to the question with regard to the remission of punishment. As matters at present stood, he Home Office exercised an autocratic jurisdiction almost unprecedented in the remission of sentences. It would be of little use for the Judges to meet together o agree as to some mode by which regularity of sentences could be ensured, if the Home Secretary was able to interfere by arbitrary regulations, made or unmade at his own arbitrary pleasure. He hoped when the Bill which was now before the louse of Commons, to carry out the re-

  869
  commendations of the Commission over which the noble Earl (Earl Grey) presided, came up to their Lordships' House, that care would be taken to regulate the manner in which the remissions of sentences were to be carried out.
  EARL GREYsaid, that an express distinction had been drawn between sentences for life and sentences for terms of years. Those sentenced for a term of years were considered to have a claim to remission after a given time if their conduct had been good; but with regard to convicts sentenced for life no claim was recognized, though each case had to be considered on its own merits. The noble Duke was somewhat mistaken as to the amount of discretion now exercised by the Home Secretary, as compared to what was the former practice. Instead of being greater, that was now actually much less than in former years. In the old days of transportation it was the invariable practice for the Home Secretary to remit a portion of the sentences of those sentenced to short terms who were not actually sent out of the country, and it was also the practice to remit a portion of the sentences in the colony, and this was done according to no clear and certain rule, but on vague reports from the officers in charge of criminals. Now, on the contrary, there was a regular scale laid down on certain definite rules, by which remissions of punishment were granted according to what each criminal had earned by his conduct, which was recorded from day to day; and when the Act of Parliament was passed, under which this system was adopted, a circular had been addressed by the Secretary of State to the Judges, explaining to them what proportion of the sentences they passed might be remitted for good conduct, so that they allow for this in determining what punishment to award for different crimes.
  THE EARL OF CARNARVONsaid, he expressed himself satisfied with the explanation of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, and would withdraw his Motion.
  Motion (by leave of the House) withdrawn,
  House adjourned at half past Six o'clock, to Thursday next, half past Ten o'clock.