Sitting of 12 May 1874

INTOXICATING LIQUORS BILL.
  POSTPONEMENT OF COMMITTEE.
  MR. ASSHETON CROSS: I wish, on behalf of my right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Treasury, to give Notice that, considering the state of Public Business altogether, and the near approach of the Whitsuntide holidays, he is of opinion that probably, on the whole, it would be more convenient to everybody concerned that we should take the Intoxicating Liquors Bill immediately after the holidays. Probably it would be inconvenient to ask the House to assemble to discuss such a measure on the first day, and therefore we will fix it for the Thursday after the Recess.

IRELAND—CASE OF ARTHUR DONNELLY.—QUESTION.
MR. VERNERasked Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, If his attention has been drawn to the fact that the prosecution of Arthur Donnelly, for firing from his shop-door on a procession of Good Templars passing through the town of Lurgan on the 16th August 1872, has twice or three times failed though removed for trial to the county of Down; whether all the witnesses of importance have been summoned by the Crown; and, whether Arthur Donnelly has been allowed to retain his licence to sell arms, notwithstanding the serious charge against him?
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Dr. BALL)in reply, said, the prosecution had not failed through the trial being removed to the county of Down, which was done by Order of the Court of Queen's Bench, but it had been postponed on account of the state of Donnelly's health. As the trial was
174
pending, and was to be held at the next assizes, it was inexpedient that he should say anything more about the case.

INDIA—RIOTS AT BOMBAY.

  QUESTION.
  MR. DUNBARasked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether he will produce the Despatches received at the India Office in reference to the recent riots at Bombay, and also the Reports of the Commissioner of Police at Bombay relating to the riots?
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTON, in reply, said, the Police Reports were received at the India Office on Monday. The Correspondence on the subject between the Secretary of State and the Indian Government was not yet concluded; when it was, he should be happy to lay the Papers on the Table of the House if they were moved for.

MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS BOROUGH FUNDS ACT, 1872—LEGISLATION.

  QUESTION.
  MR. A. MILLSasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether it is the intention of the Government to introduce any Bill to amend the Municipal Corporations Borough Funds Act passed in 1872?
  MR. ASSHETON CROSS, in reply, said, the subject had been under the consideration of the Government for some time; but he had been specially asked not to announce the determination which had been come to upon it until he had received some gentlemen from the North of England who particularly wished to see him respecting it. He should be prepared early next week to state the views of the Government relative to the question.

POST OFFICE—POSTAGE TO THE UNITED STATES.—QUESTION.
MR. SEELYasked the Postmaster General, Whether, since the last Session of Parliament, any proposal has been made by the United States Government to issue Postal Cards at 1d.; and, if so, whether he will lay upon the Table of the House any information which the Post Office has relating to this proposal?
LORD JOHN MANNERS, in reply, said, he could only give the hon. Member

175
the same answer as he had given him 10 days ago, that no such proposals had been received from the United States Government since the last Session. He was, therefore, unable to lay any Papers relative to the subject on the Table of the House.

PARLIAMENT—ASCENSION DAY— COMMITTEES.
MR. GATHORNE HARDY (for the First Lord of the Treasury)moved—
"That Committees shall not sit upon Thursday, being Ascension Day, until Two o'clock, and shall have leave to sit until Six o'clock, notwithstanding the sitting of the House."
He said that the Motion was different in form from that adopted last year, when complaint was made that Committees could not sit long enough to do any real business.
Motion agreed to.

PARLIAMENT—STATUTE OF ANNE— OFFICE OF ATTORNEY OR SOLICITOR GENERAL.—RESOLUTION.
MR. YORKE, in rising to move—
"That, in the interest of the public service" it is expedient that Members of this House who after their election may have accepted the office of Her Majesty's Attorney General or Solicitor General, should be for the future exempted from the operation of the Law under which all Members who may accept offices of profit under the Crown are compelled to vacate their seats,"
said, that at the beginning of the present Parliament it must have struck every gentleman who took an interest in public affairs that considerable waste of time was incurred by the re-election of Members who had accepted office under the Crown, pursuant to the statute of Anne. This was felt all the more, because of the time at which the Dissolution took place; and the result was that what the Prime Minister called a financial tour de force had to be executed by the House. His first intention was to move for a Committee to inquire into the whole subject, and, if necessary, to move that the law requiring the re-election of Members who accepted office under the Crown should be repealed; but, on looking into the history of the matter, he found that, at the beginning of the last Parliament, Lord Bury, then a Member of this House, was similarly struck with the waste of time involved in sending back for re-election Members who had just been elected with the perfect
176
knowledge that it was their intention to accept office under the Crown and brought the matter before the House. He should have thought that the Bill of the noble Lord would have been allowed to proceed without opposition to the second reading; but he was met with an outcry that he was attacking a cardinal principle of the Constitution and laying an unholy hand on the ark of our Constitutional liberties. The late hon. Member for Brighton (Mr. White) said it was not for a private Member to tinker and tamper with the fundamental principles of the Constitution. The right hon. Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley) said he did not like in this way to cut the connection between the House of Commons and the people; the hon. and learned Member for the City of Oxford (Sir William Harcourt) expressed what he termed a vehement dissent, and said that the choice by the Sovereign of her Ministers should be ratified by the people as represented by their constituencies; and the debate was closed by the late Prime Minister, who said that, although there was some inconvenience attending the operation of the existing law, yet it was premature to re-open the question. The result of all this was that the severe course was taken of refusing leave to bring in a Bill, and the matter there ended. After reading the opinions of these high authorities, he felt as if he had been warned off the ground and tried to find some means of mitigating the inconvenience of the existing law. The first Act which bore upon the subject was the 6 Anne, c. 7, the 26th section of which said that if any Member accepted an office of profit from the Crown during the time he continued a Member, his election should be void, and a new Writ should issue as if such person were naturally dead, but he should be capable of being re-elected. Since that time many modifications of that principle had been introduced. The Reform Act of 1867–8 provided that if any of Her Majesty's principal Secretaries of State should be transferred from one office to another, he need not vacate his seat. It also enacted exceptions in favour of the Secretary of the Treasury and the Secretary of the Board of Trade, as not formally holding office under the Crown, although he could not see any difference with respect to them so far as constitutional

177
principle was concerned. Other exceptions were made by 22 & 23 Vict. in favour of the holders of diplomatic pensions or Civil Service superannuation allowances. The law was full of eccentricities and anomalies, which had been created under an urgent sense of the inconvenience of carrying out the Act to the letter. There was, for example, the remarkable fact that persons becoming Ambassadors or foreign Ministers did not have to vacate their seats, although it must be obvious that they could not well attend to their duties in the House of Commons while residing in China or Japan. Thus Mr. Layard, although appointed Ambassador to Madrid in October, 1869, the Speaker could not issue his Writ during the Recess, and the borough of Southwark was kept in the turmoil of a contested election for four months after Mr. Layard had reached Madrid. Then there were the well-known modes by which Members were enabled to resign their seats—the acceptance of the Chiltern Hundreds, the Stewardship of the Manor of Poynings, of East Hendred and Northstead, or the Escheatorship of Munster; but surely it was a most curious anomaly that a Member might accept the office of Ambassador at Paris, with a salary of £10,000 a-year. and not vacate his seat, while a Member accepting the Escheatorship of Munster, a post of no emolument whatever, at once vacated his seat. Then there was the case of the right hon. Gentleman the late Prime Minister. They had all been much interested towards the close of the last Parliament in looking forward to the discussion which it was thought would arise, had that Parliament lasted another Session, as to the legality of the proceedings of the right hon. Gentleman in not vacating his seat after the acceptance of a second office of profit under the Crown. Unfortunately, the opportunity for discussing that question in the House never occurred, the Gordian knot having been cut by the Sword of Dissolution, and the matter remained undetermined, adding another to the numerous uncertainties and difficulties with which the whole of this subject was surrounded. With respect to the Motion, there were reasons for selecting the two Law Officers of the Crown for liberation from the necessity of re-election on their acceptance of office. There was nothing
178
so rare or valuable, either in public or private life, as a good legal opinion, and it was most important for a Minister always to have at hand the Law Officers of the Crown to consult on any difficult question. Good lawyers were not always popular with their constituencies. They were mostly regarded as travelling politicians, who wanted a seat for a short time in order to facilitate their reaching the higher walks of their profession by a short cut, and not toil along with their less ambitious brethren in Westminster Hall. But when they once secured a seat it was necessary for them on the acceptance of office to go again before their constituents. They could not improvise a good legal adviser any more than they could improvise a good theologian. He wished some one would write a novel, descriptive of the difficulties of gentlemen of the long robe in search of a seat. The Solicitor General, if he mistook not, could unfold a tale on this subject, and so also might the Attorney General and the Solicitor General in the late Government. The hon. and learned Member for Taunton (Sir Henry James) was known to be hostile to the female interests in his borough. It seemed probable that before long the ladies would be enfranchised, and then he might learn—"Furens quid fœmina posset." The hon. and learned Member for Oxford (Sir William Harcourt) might seem to be strong in the confidence of his constituents; but since the General Election he had received a Conservative Colleague, and he did not know whether he saw his way for the future. There was, perhaps, only one lawyer on the Liberal benches whose seat might be regarded as perfectly safe—the hon. and learned Member for Peterborough (Mr. Whalley). It was obvious that if that hon. and learned Member looked to the past there was nothing he could do which would shake the affection and confidence of his constituents, and next time a Liberal Government was in office, notwithstanding the slight misunderstanding between him and the late Prime Minister, the House might confidently expect to see him the Liberal Solicitor General. It was clear that a Premier in selecting his Attorney and Solicitor General was obliged to look not only to the best man, but to consider who had got the safest seats. He maintained, on the other hand, that it was merit and not accident

179
that should be rewarded, and the House ought to discourage legislation that had an opposite effect. It was not, however, from a lawyer's point of view that he had selected the Attorney and Solicitor General for illustration. His argument was that the public interests suffered from the present system. To show how desirable it was that the Government should have the best legal advice he would take such a case as that of the Alabama. If the legal advisers of the Crown were men of inferior knowledge and capacity they might advise a ship to be detained in port when there was not sufficient ground for her detention, and the result would be that the Government, or, in other words, the taxpayer, would be mulcted in damages to the shipowner. In the contrary case of a ship being allowed to go out which ought to have been detained in port, the result would be that the Government might be mulcted in £3,000,000 damages to the country upon which the ship made war after escaping from an English port. These instances might be multiplied indefinitely. The Government thought that their responsibility was covered if they stated that they were acting in accordance with the opinions of the Law Officers of the Crown. It was therefore important that they should have the best advice that money could procure, and that there should be no artificial obstacle raised by law to the Government getting the best opinion that could be obtained. It was the custom to appoint for certain posts gentlemen who had no special knowledge whatever. There was no difficulty in obtaining, for example, for appointments in the Royal Household, young gentlemen of engaging appearance and courtly manner, who would discharge their duties with satisfaction to Her Majesty and credit to themselves. To send such gentlemen back to their constituents was a very different thing from sending the Law Officers of the Crown back for re-election. What was more, the re-election of the Law Officers had a tendency to occur very often. Many of the dignitaries of the law were very old, and when the time came for them to be transferred from Westminster Hall to Westminster Abbey, or some other repository of the distinguished dead, their places were usually taken by Gentlemen who had a seat in the House of Commons. This might occur
180
again and again until the Government of the day got to the bottom of its bag and exhausted the whole stock of legal ability on one side of the House. The tendency of such a system was doubly mischievous, because it not only promoted lawyers who were themselves unworthy of the Bench, but took away from the credit and authority of the Bench itself. It should be remembered that small boroughs—that much abused, but, as he thought, somewhat useful institution—had been abolished, with only a few exceptions. He had himself had the pleasure, when formerly in the House, of representing one, which he presumed only awaited the coup de grâce of the next Reform Bill. Yet small boroughs oiled the springs of legislation and enabled the machinery to move smoothly, and the result of their abolition was to make the country more sensible of the anomalies that remained. The difficulty in the way of carrying his Motion into effect was only a formal one. He granted that, unlike the Under Secretaries of State, the Law Officers of the Crown held their office directly from the Crown; but if he had proved that a practical difficulty and evil existed in the present law he submitted that he had proved his case. He trusted he had shown that the present state of things was indefensible in theory, inconvenient in practice, and mischievous in its effects on the public service. If so, he trusted that the Government would take the subject into its candid and serious consideration, and give the House an assurance that the Government would itself deal with the subject at no distant time. The hon. Member concluded by moving his Resolution.
MR. GREGORYseconded the Motion, but not without some reservation, as he could have wished that it had gone further than it did. Reference had been made by his hon. Friend to the discussion which took place on this subject some five years ago, as creating a difficulty in doing so; but the question was raised somewhat suddenly, and was stopped in limine, there having been no opportunity for fully dealing with it at the time. That discussion, however, had anticipated to a considerable extent the objections which might be taken to the present Motion. The late Solicitor General (Sir William Harcourt) on that occasion contended that the provisions

181
of the Act of Queen Anne were part of the Act of Settlement, and the result of a compromise between the two Houses of Parliament at that time. But this was not so in point of fact. The present law originated in 1692, when Parliament was full of placemen, and a Bill was brought forward in the House of Commons excluding all placemen from seats in Parliament. The Whig party of that period had fresh in their memory the corruption of the previous reigns, and the Tory party were jealous of the reigning Sovereign. Both, therefore, participated in a desire to limit the power of the Crown in Parliament. It was under these circumstances that the Bill was passed through the House of Commons; but it was virtually rejected by the House of Lords by something like a side-wind—the insertion of the words "unless subsequently chosen"—and vetoed by the King; but the House of Commons thus baffled took the opportunity afforded by the Act of Settlement of inserting the same provision, with the Amendment of the House of Lords, which was the existing law. The reasons which rendered this advisable then, existed no longer, and it was time to do away with a law that inflicted little else but inconvenience on all parties concerned. Members of the Government, when appointed, had to appeal to their constituents, and it might happen that they had to answer questions and make speeches, embarrassing not only to themselves, but to the Government. Besides, under the present arrangement, the House might be deprived of the services of a most valuable Member simply from the caprice of the electors. The subject did not involve any political considerations. The question was one of convenience or inconvenience, and in the particular instance under consideration, it did not apply to the Government alone. It applied equally to the House itself, for the House was constantly asking the opinions of the Law Officers of the Crown on various important points, and of requiring their assistance and attendance; and the services of the best men ought to be secured with the least possible inconvenience. He trusted, therefore, that the Government would see their way to the repeal, either wholly or in part, of the statute of Queen Anne. He had much pleasure in seconding the Motion.
Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That, in the interest of the public service, it is expedient that Members of this House who after their election may have accepted the office of Her Majesty's Attorney General or Solicitor General, should he for the future exempted from the operation of the Law under which all Members who may accept offices of profit under the Crown are compelled to vacate their seats."—(Mr. Yorke.)
MR. GATHORNE HARDY: It is not unnatural that my hon. Friend, under the circumstances of the recent Election, should have his attention called to the peculiarities attending it; but I cannot help feeling that he has drawn too wide conclusions from very narrow premises, because the special circumstances by no means warrant so great a change as that which my hon. Friend proposed in his speech, though not in his Resolution. Both of my hon. Friends, indeed, have alluded more to the inconveniences to individuals than to the interests of constituencies that return them. My hon. Friend who moved this Resolution said that it was not a very easy thing for lawyers to get into Parliament, and he says that they frequently may be called travelling politicians. But" I must say that one of the first things which a travelling politician ought to do would be to travel to his constituents and see whether or not they approved the step he had taken. When my hon. Friend refers to the case of the Under Secretaries of State, he seems to forget that the responsibilities in the two cases are entirely different. The Under Secretaries of State have practically no personal responsibility. They are responsible-only to their Chiefs, who in their turn are responsible to Parliament. But a far larger responsibility rests with the Law Officers. They have to recommend State prosecutions, to advise when Writs of Error should be issued, and they have the opportunity of indulging in acts of grievous oppression if they choose to avail themselves of those opportunities. It therefore seems to me that the Law Officers of the Crown are the very last persons who should be exempted from the necessity of re-election on their acceptance of office. The argument of the hon. Member who moved the Resolution goes to this length—that good lawyers should be put into the House without any election at all if constituencies were so weak as not to return them. I have

183
no wish, however, to go beyond the terms of the Motion, which in its terms is very imperfect and illogical. I am by no means prepared to say that the time has arrived when we should get rid of the statute of Anne, and when all Members should be allowed to take office under the Crown in this country without seeking re-election. It might be that a Member had told his constituency that he was going to enter Parliament as an independent Member, and, indeed, during the course of the last General Election I saw addresses issued by Members of this House in which they declared that it was their intention to hold themselves aloof from either party and to take their stand upon independent grounds. Supposing that such Members were to yield to the blandishments of the Government of the day, and were to accept office, notwithstanding their previous declarations, it would only be right that they should return to their constituencies and obtain their sanction to the course they had pursued. It does not seem to me that we are urging a very serious matter at present, because the hon. Member is avowedly only feeling his way by his Motion. The question before the House has nothing to do with the Act of Settlement, and although there are doubtless many anomalies in our Constitution, still it is not by creating fresh anomalies that we can do away with them. I think, therefore, that we should trust to the constituencies to return good lawyers to this House, and that we should not relieve the Law Officers of the Crown from the necessity under which they, in common with the rest of the Ministers, are placed of seeking re-election at the hands of their constituents.
MR. SCOURFIELDconsidered that, in conferring office, they should, as a general rule, keep in view the fitness of an individual for the office, and not allow collateral considerations to enter into their choice, and in that way they would be likely to obtain good lawyers.
Motion put, and negatived.

SALARIES AND EMOLUMENTS OF THE OFFICERS OF THE TWO HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT.

  MOTION FOR A SELECT COMMITTEE.
  MR. DILLWYN, in moving that a Select Committee be appointed—
  184
  "To inquire into and report on the Salaries and Emoluments of the Officers of the Two Houses of Parliament, with the view, as vacancies occur, of fixing them upon an equitable basis,"
  said, he had no intention whatever of disturbing the present holders of these offices; on the contrary, if it were found that any of them were paid upon too low a scale, he should desire that their salaries should be raised to the proper amount. There was a great discrepancy between the salaries paid to the officers of the two Houses, those of the House of Lords being paid on a far higher scale than were those of the Commons. Thus the Chairman of Committees in the House of Lords received £2,500 per annum, while the Chairman of Committees in the House of Commons received only £1,500 a-year. The Clerk of the Parliaments in the House of Lords received £2,500 a-year, while in the House of Commons he only received £2,000 per annum. The Reading Clerk in the House of Lords received £1,200 per annum, while the Clerk's Assistant in the House of Commons received only £1,000 per annum. The 25 clerks in the House of Lords received among them £14,470, or an average of £579 per individual, while the 34 clerks of the House of Commons received only £15,476 or an average of £455 per individual. The junior clerks in the House of Lords received an annual increment of £20, while those in the House of Commons received an annual increment of £10. The principal door-keeper in the House of Lords received £500 per annum, while the same officer in the House of Commons received only £300 per annum. The second door-keeper in the House of Lords received £300 per annum, while the same officer in the House of Commons received only £250. The Serjeant-at-Arms in the House of Lords received £1,500 per annum, while the same officer in the House of Commons received only £1,200. The Yeoman Usher of the Black Pod in the House of Lords received £1,000 per annum, while the Assistant Serjeant of the House of Commons received only £800 per annum. Neither in that House nor in Committees could the duties of their officers be less severe and arduous than those discharged by the officers of the House of Lords. Indeed, he should have

  185
  thought the duties of the former were rather more severe. What he wanted the Committee to be appointed for, was in order that they might ascertain and report whether the officers of the House of Lords were paid too much or those of the Lower House too little. If the former, then it must be the duty of the House of Commons, as guardians of the public purse, to call their Lordships' attention to the fact, because it was most important that their own establishment should be the model on which to form the rest of the Estimates. He might be told that they ought not to interfere with the House of Lords; but he hoped that argument would not be urged, as he did not bring forward this Motion in any disrespect to them, thinking, on the contrary, that that House would rather be obliged to those who would point out where their officers were overpaid. He therefore trusted the Inquiry would be granted.
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKEseconded the Motion.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into and report upon the Salaries and Emoluments of the Officers of the Two Houses of Parliament, with the view, as vacancies occur, of fixing them upon an equitable basis."—(Mr. Dillwyn.)
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he thought the hon. Member would, on reflection, see that the question he raised by this proposal was one which was not merely confined to the differences between the salaries of certain gentlemen who might be performing services on a footing of equality, but that it entered into considerations of a different character affecting the relations between the two Houses of Parliament. In this matter there had always been a considerable delicacy as to the mode in which the House of Commons had behaved towards the other House, and as to the mode in which the salaries of the officials had been treated. Up to a comparatively recent time it was the practice of the House of Lords to pay the salaries of its own officers out of the fees received by that House, and if the fees were not sufficient, to certify through the proper channel the amount required to make good the deficiency, which, almost as a matter of course, was voted by this House. But of late years it had been felt by the Members of the House of
  186
  Lords themselves that it was desirable to change the practice, and he believed in the year 1868 or 1869 a Select Committee was appointed by the House of Lords to consider the position of the salaries of their different officers. That Committee reported, and, after referring to the arrangements which had been for many years in existence, proposed that in future the fees received in the House of Lords should be paid into the Exchequer, and that the sums which were required to pay the salaries of the officers of the House of Lords should be voted in full by the House of Commons. Therefore, they had recently had in the Estimates the sums which were required for these salaries, which were the salaries that had been given for a long time, and there was no attempt to increase them. On the contrary, an inspection of the Estimates would show that the tendency had been to diminish them. For instance, in the Estimates of the present year, in the department of the Lord Chancellor one office was abolished, saving £200 a-year in a Vote of £4,000, and a Senior clerkship at a salary of £1,150 had been abolished out of a Vote of £23,000. The salary of the Chief Clerk of the Parliament Office stood now at £1,500, and it was proposed to reduce it to £1,200 on the next vacancy. There were other Votes in the Estimates from which it would be seen that the House of Lords were themselves proceeding on every proper opportunity to keep down the expenses of their establishment. The practice was for a Committee to be appointed every year by the House of Lords which settled the salaries, and sent the amounts to the Treasury, and the Treasury submitted them to Parliament. If it were proposed by the House of Lords or by this Committee that there should be any increase in the Votes, the attention of the Government and the House would, of course, be directed to it. On the other hand, that there should be a reduction in the salaries of gentlemen who for years had been fulfilling the duties assigned to them was what the hon. Member himself did not propose. All that he asked for was that there should be some general inquiry into those salaries, not by the authority of the House of Lords as was done now, but by a proceeding on the part of the House of Commons. Whether the salaries were or were not

  187
  such as hon. Members would like to see them—and, for his own part, he did not object to them—the mode of proceeding proposed by the hon. Gentleman was one which, in his opinion, this House should be very slow to adopt lest it might raise a question between the two Houses which it would be most undesirable to provoke. If any action was to be taken, it ought to be by a Joint Committee of both Houses. It would be—he would not say "unconstitutional," because that was a word which was used on so many different occasions that it had almost ceased to have a definite meaning—but it would be a very great infringement of the practice which had always prevailed between the two Houses, and would be rather an offensive measure towards the House of Lords if they were to appoint a Committee of this House to inquire into the salaries of the officers of the other House of Parliament. He would like to know how the Committee so appointed would conduct its proceedings. It would be necessary that the Committee should obtain evidence in order to know the duties of the officers of the House of Lords, and therefore that they should invite the attendance of Members of the other House of Parliament to give evidence. But hon. Members were aware the Members of either House were not in the habit of attending before Committees of the other, unless with the sanction of the House of which they were Members, and it would be impossible for the House of Commons by its own authority to compel the Members of the other House to appear before a Select Committee of this House. He would, therefore, put it to the hon. Member and the House whether it was desirable for the comparatively small object in view—an object which might be attained in other ways—to raise questions of such delicacy and, he would say, such difficulty. There was no disposition on the part of the House of Lords unduly to keep up the salaries of its officers. The differences to which the hon. Gentleman pointed might appear to indicate some inequality in the case of persons charged with an equal amount of duty; but if the hon. Gentleman went through all the salaries in the Civil Service, if he were to compare the cases of right hon. Gentlemen on the Treasury Bench, he would find great inequalities in the salaries of men
  188
  who had to discharge duties of equal responsibility. It would not be possible for the Select Committee to go with any advantage into the salaries of all the officers throughout the service with a view to do what the hon. Gentleman proposed. It would be far better to proceed in this matter carefully and cautiously, and in the spirit in which the Committee of the House of Lords dealt with it on the occasions of new appointments, which they always brought under the notice of the Government, and through them of the House of Commons.
  SIR HENRY WOLFFsaid, he thought that an inquiry would be very desirable in regard to the salaries of the officers of the House of Commons, which in very many cases were totally inadequate to the duties which had to be performed. He therefore proposed an Amendment to restrict the inquiry of the Select Committee that had been moved for, to the officers of that House.
  Amendment proposed, to leave out from the words "Officers of the" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "House of Commons,"—(Sir Henry Wolff,)—instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  MR. NEWDEGATEobserved that, in his opinion, the Amendment got rid of the objections to which the Motion was obnoxious.
  MR. DODSONsaid, he was not prepared to vote either for the original Motion or for the Amendment. As regarded the Amendment, which proposed the appointment of a Committee to inquire into nothing more than the scale of salaries of officers of the House of Commons, he was not aware that anybody had attempted to make out a case showing that the salaries of the officials of that House were settled upon an inequitable basis. [Sir HENRY WOLFF said, he was ready to omit the words referred to.] In that ease there was really nothing to inquire into. The original Motion rested upon this—that a Committee should be appointed to inquire, whether, in comparison with the salaries paid by the House of Lords, the salaries paid by the House of Commons did not stand upon an inequitable

  189
  basis. That was a question on which much might be said; but he thought the argument of the Chancellor of the Exchequer ought to prevail. It would be no breach of the privileges of the House of Lords to inquire into the subject; but they ought, he thought, to respect the susceptibilities of the House of Lords as much as they would expect the House of Lords to respect theirs. The proper mode of proceeding would be to invite the Lords to take part in a Joint Committee of Inquiry, or to open the matter to them by means of a conference or message. No doubt the salaries of the House of Lords were now voted, and therefore admitted to be within the control of the House of Commons, still they ought not to interfere with the salaries unless there should appear on the Votes some abuse which called immediately for a remedy. Under any circumstances, he thought the present time was especially inopportune for entering into any inquiry on the subject. The House of Lords had already parted with some of its judicial functions, and was probably about to part with more, and that must lead to some modification of the salaries of the officials. They ought to wait until those measures had been completed, in order that they might be in a position to know exactly what were the functions required in the other House in the altered state of things. Under these circumstances, he hoped his hon. Friend would content himself with having called attention to the subject, and would be willing to withdraw his Motion.
  MR. ROEBUCKsaid, that the proposed inquiry was a sort of idle dealing with a very critical and dangerous question. The present was not a time to raise unnecessarily, and about a very trifling matter, a question full of all sorts of difficulties, and at a moment, too, when in a great neighbouring country the subject of the existence of a second Legislative Chamber was being discussed.
  MR. DLLLWYNsaid, he could not but believe that if they asked the House of Lords respectfully to allow their officers to be examined, a consent would be given. He was not wedded to the course he had proposed; and therefore if the Chancellor of the Exchequer would give an assurance that he would endeavour to induce the other House to have
  190
  a Joint Committee to inquire into the matter, or if the Treasury themselves would look into the subject, he would at once withdraw his Motion.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERobserved that when he had said there was another way of dealing with the matter, he might also have mentioned the way in which it was now dealt with. After the sums were certified, an estimate and statement were laid before a Committee of the House of Lords, and by them submitted to the Treasury, and then laid before Parliament in the annual Estimates; and if it should appear to the Treasury that there was reason to object to any of the proposals made by the Committee, they would feel it their duty to challenge them as they might any other Estimates. The hon. Gentleman might rest assured that the matter would be dealt with in a fair and impartial spirit on all sides. He also trusted the hon. Member (Sir Henry Wolff) would withdraw his Amendment.
  SIR HENRY WOLFEsaid, he would withdraw his Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Main Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 59; Noes 226: Majority 167.

PEACE PRESERVATION (IRELAND) ACT CASE OF PATRICK CASEY.

  MOTION FOR PAPERS.
  MR. BUTTrose to call attention to the ease of Patrick Casey, a prisoner confined in prison for three years under the warrant of the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, and to move for the following documents:—
  "Copies of all Affidavits used on a Motion in the Queen's Bench in Ireland, made during last Term, for a writ of habeas corpus, in the case of Patrick Casey; of the Ruling of the Court upon such Motion; of the Warrant of the Lord Lieutenant originally issued for his arrest; of an subsequent Warrants, if any, transferring or changing his custody; and, of all sworn Information, if any, on which the original Warrant of his arrest was issued."
  The hon. and learned Member observed that, were he not told that the circumstances to which the Papers related had arisen in Ireland, a stranger would suppose that they belonged to some tale of oppression in a despotic country. Patrick Casey was at present confined in Kilmainham Prison under a warrant

  191
  issued by the late Lord Lieutenant of Ireland under the Peace Preservation (Ireland) Act. On the 29th of April last a motion was made in the Court of Queen's Bench in Dublin to bring up Patrick Casey. The motion was made on an affidavit sworn by the father of the prisoner, and in the course of the hearing the learned Judge before whom the application was made happened to inquire for what offence Casey was imprisoned. The learned counsel who appeared for him replied—"That is precisely what we want to know." Application was made to the Governor of Kilmainham Gaol to see the warrant under which he was committed, but the application was refused and reference was made to the Castle. Casey was arrested and confined under a most arbitrary and extraordinary Act which was passed in the year 1871, and which applied to the county of Westmeath and certain adjacent districts. He was imprisoned on the 13th of December, 1871, without any accusation, and, so far as he (Mr. Butt) was aware, without any information having been afforded him as to the cause, or without any opportunity of vindicating himself against any charge that could be preferred against him. He had remained in prison ever since. He asked now for a copy of the affidavits upon which the application for a habeas corpus was recently made in the Queen's Bench. Up to the time of his arrest the young man had borne an unblemished character. It appeared by a Return made to that House that he was imprisoned originally on suspicion of being connected with the Riband conspiracy. He remained up to October, 1873, in Naas Gaol, and then by a warrant issued by the Lord Lieutenant—though he (Mr. Butt) could not understand why—he was removed to Kilmainham. His father stated in his affidavit that he himself was an old man, upwards of 70 years of age, and paralyzed; that he held a small piece of land which this son was his principal means of working, and that his son's imprisonment had reduced him to a state, almost of, destitution. He was not aware of any crime of which his son had been guilty. His son had been imprisoned for two and a half years, till his health was breaking down under the confinement. He was not confined in prison for the mere sake of safe keeping, but was suffering
  192
  a punishment more severe than some years ago was awarded to criminals convicted of grave offences. For 22 hours out of the 24 he was kept in a state of solitary confinement, and when any of his relations called to see him, which they could only do at long intervals, a warder was present at all their conversations, and whenever he attempted to ask any question relative to his confinement, or to the charges upon which he was confined, the warder stopped the conversation, and he was not allowed to open his lips. He regretted to have to say to the House that that treatment of a prisoner in Ireland was perfectly legal. The Act gave the Lord Lieutenant the power of arresting any person in the district included in the Act if he suspected him of being connected with the Riband conspiracy. The Lord Lieutenant had power to detain him in prison without bringing him to trial. He had already been imprisoned for two and a half years, and, under the Act he referred to, as he now saw for the first time, the Judges in the Queen's Bench were to a great extent prohibited from issuing a writ of habeas corpus. He had searched through all the previous Acts of a similar character, and in no one of those Acts was that right taken away. This was the first Act ever passed in which that right was taken away. The Lord Lieutenant's warrant was a sufficient answer to any motion directed against the detention of a prisoner; but the Court should have the right of inquiring whether the warrant was legally issued. This young man, therefore, was locked up without any power of his being reached, and this Act for the first time placed him beyond the reach of the law. Such was the state of facts. This was a mere formal Motion for a Return; but he was anxious to bring the case before the House as one which instanced the system of coercion which he believed was practised in Westmeath, and which he also believed was utterly indefensible and unwarrantable by anything that had occurred there. There was another part of his Motion which probably the right hon. Baronet the Chief Secretary for Ireland might not be disposed to grant, and, if so, he did not think he should wish to press it. He had asked for sworn copies of any in formations upon which Casey was arrested, and of the warrant which had been

  193
  issued for his arrest, imprisonment, and removal. If there were none, of course that could be stated, and it would be an answer to his Motion. The prisoner, and others like him, were not originally arrested on the motion of the Lord Lieutenant himself, but on some statement by some police officer or other person whose dignity he might have offended, or who had reasons for desiring his arrest. It was said that arbitrary acts like these were necessary for the peace and security of Ireland; but here was a young man charged with he knew not what, except that the Lord Lieutenant suspected him of being connected with the Riband conspiracy, and without any possibility of his friends getting him to be brought to trial. He was sure the House could not approve of such a state of things; and he begged to move for the Returns contained in the Notice he had given.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That there be laid before this House, Copies of all Affidavits used on a Motion in the Queen's Bench in Ireland, made during last Term, for a writ of habeas corpus, in the case of Patrick Casey:
  "Of the Ruling of the Court upon such Motion:
  "Of the Warrant of the Lord Lieutenant originally issued for his arrest:
  "Of all subsequent Warrants, if any, transferring or changing his custody:
  "And, of all sworn Information, if any, on which the original warrant of his arrest was issued."—(Mr. Butt.)
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, that when he saw the hon. and learned Member's Notice on the Paper he thought he was going to call attention to some irregular or illegal proceedings on the part of the Irish Government; in which case his answer would probably have been that, at any rate, these proceedings occurred three years ago, and that neither himself nor the present Government was therefore responsible for them. He did not gather from his speech, however, that he complained of any irregular or illegal proceedings. So far as he understood it, the hon. and learned Gentleman's speech was a speech against the principle of the Act for the Protection of Life and Property in Ireland, and he thought the House would be of opinion that the present was not the time for discussing the policy or provisions of that Act. That Act was applied in this
  194
  case on grounds which he had no doubt appeared to the Government of the day amply to justify the prisoner's arrest; and, as no charge was made against that Government that the Act had been improperly applied, he should make no remarks on that part of the subject. The hon. and learned Member for Limerick moved for copies of all affidavits used on the Motion for a habeas corpus, for a copy of the Ruling of the Court upon the Motion, for the original warrant of the Lord Lieutenant, and also for the subsequent ones for transferring the prisoner. With respect to that part of his Motion, he believed the hon. and learned Gentleman at the present moment had in his possession copies of all the Papers he referred to; and as they could be obtained, or copies of them by anyone who chose to take the trouble to apply for them, he thought the House would be of opinion that, being little more than mere formal documents, they were not worth the expense of printing. With respect to the last part of his Motion, as to the subsequent warrants and all sworn information, if any, on which the original warrant of arrest was issued—he had to say that any Return to that part of the Motion would be directly contrary to the principle of the Protection of Life and Property Act. The policy of that was that the Lord Lieutenant would, upon reasonable suspicion, act upon such information as might be given to him and cause the arrest by warrant of all such persons as might be suspected of being members of the Riband Society. It would be directly contrary to the policy of that Act, and to the intention with which it was passed by Parliament, if any publication should be made of any information on which the Lord Lieutenant might have acted in the matter. It would, in fact, destroy the entire object with which the Act was passed; and therefore, on the ground that, with respect to the first part of the Motion, there would be no useful purposes served by its being carried, and, with respect to the second, that it would be directly contrary to the principles of the law, he must resist the Motion. The hon. and learned Member stated further that the prisoner had been improperly treated whilst in prison. [Mr. BUTT: No.] He had gathered from his statement that the prisoner was subjected to certain restrictions which were vexatious and uncalled

  195
  for. If that were so—although no complaint of that nature had been made by the hon. and learned Member for Limerick, or, so far as he was aware, by any friend of the prisoner—he would take care that it was looked into, and that the prisoner was well treated. He thought the hon. and learned Gentleman would see, if he referred to the circumstances of the prisoner's removal from one gaol to another, that the removal was made on the ground of the prisoner's health, and on no other. That person, Patrick Casey, had now been confined, under the powers given by the Peace Preservation Act, for, he believed, a period of three years. He quite felt that that was a part of the case to which the hon. and learned Gentleman had not given sufficient consideration, and he (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) would undertake that it should be carefully looked into, and if it appeared to be consistent with the preservation of life and property in that part of the country in which the prisoner and his associates resided, and in which, he feared, he possessed no little influence, he would not continue him under the present restraints.
  MR. BUTTsaid, that the documents he asked for were important, though to some extent formal documents. The affidavit of his father would show the system of duresse to which the son was subjected. He could well understand why the right hon. Gentleman should shrink from publishing the documents he asked for, and he did not think there was an English gentleman in that House whose heart would not bleed at the story they disclosed. The Lord Lieutenant's powers were unlimited, and their exercise irresponsible; and he had a just right to complain that the Protection of Life and Property Act had been used to keep a young man a prisoner for two years and a half with no charge made against him. This was a Bastille. This was government in Ireland by Bastille. And he was to be gravely told that the right hon. Gentleman would consider whether the young man was to die in gaol. He had been removed from gaol to gaol, and he wanted to know whether he was to be kept in prison till he died? If in a time of profound peace that weak and disabled young man must be kept in a prison at the risk of his life to ensure the peace of Ireland, it was a mockery
  196
  of government. He should press his Motion to a division.
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHexplained that the removal of the prisoner took place last year. It was ordered by the late Government, and the report as to the prisoner's health which had been since made was that it was good.
  MR. ROEBUCKsaid, he could not, hear those things stated in Parliament without being carried back to the time when men's lives in Ireland were thought no more of than those of wild animals. Was that the case now? Was Ireland in a condition so dangerous that men of this sort were to be kept for three years in gaol, and no one allowed to approach them except under guard? He wanted to know whether that kind of thing was necessary? He did not wish to say that Ireland was misgoverned; but this was evidence that the country was in a dangerous state. It was damning, and the Government ought to look into the matter and try to see what the great difficulty was that made it necessary to keep a human being in prison for three years without the slightest accusation being made against him. He said it was dangerous; it was terrible. Englishmen would not bear it, and would demand to understand why this young man was kept in prison.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Dr. BALL)said, that the Act was passed in consequence of an investigation held before a Select Committee of that House, which was caused entirely by the state of the county of Westmeath and a few adjoining districts. It was not enforced in any place except that particular neighbourhood, and it was not aimed at political but at agrarian offences. It was intended to prevent any of those crimes which had caused the appointment of the Committee, and which had occurred in such numbers that the Government of the day were obliged to apply to the House for a Committee to take evidence. The result of the evidence was to satisfy the Committee and the House that they could not cope with the Riband organization without some such powers as those which the Act conferred. The Act provided that when the Lord Lieutenant had reasonable cause to suspect a member of the Riband Society, he should have power by warrant to imprison him. Parliament had confidence that this power

  197
  would be used by the Lord Lieutenant with care and caution. He (the Attorney General for Ireland) took upon himself to say, although strongly differing from the noble Earl in political opinions, that no one ever held the office of Lord Lieutenant of Ireland who more conscientiously discharged all those public duties connected with the Executive Government than Earl Spencer. The proceedings in this particular case were not left to a subordinate officer, for he had the means of satisfying himself that Earl Spencer exercised his own judgment in this case. The whole question resolved itself into this—would the House place confidence in the Lord Lieutenant or not? The last Parliament had decided this question in the affirmative, and had given the Lord Lieutenant power to apprehend and imprison in certain cases any individual who was suspected of taking part in a Riband conspiracy. To publish the Papers on which these proceedings were founded would be to hold up to terrorism and imperil the lives of those informants who had supplied the knowledge on which the Lord Lieutenant had acted. Earl Spencer had not taken this step except under the strongest and most rigid necessity, and with the belief that there were good reasons for apprehending and detaining this man. No application had been made by the prisoner or on his behalf until the matter was brought before the House of Commons. He would admit that in cases where the detention was prolonged the circumstances required to be re-investigated from time to time to see whether the prisoner might not be discharged. His detention, however, had been the act of a nobleman of singular humanity, sense of justice, and attention to the business of the Executive; and if the House passed a censure upon Earl Spencer, it would be a censure not upon the Lord Lieutenant, but really upon the Act of Parliament under which he had acted. He was willing that the present Government should be judged by anything they did; but he hoped the House would not take a course that would harass and fetter the Government by agreeing to this Motion. That would be, in effect, to say:—"We hold you answerable for the peace of Ireland, while we prevent you from using the very weapon with which you are armed to secure it."
  SIR PATRICK O'BRIENobserved that, as a Member for a portion of the county to which the Act related, he was bound to express his opinion that the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland had not made a sufficient answer to the case of the hon. and learned Member for Limerick (Mr. Butt.) It had been stated by the Attorney General for Ireland that Earl Spencer knew the circumstances connected with this incarceration, and that he gave his personal attention to them. He would be the last person to say anything in disparagement of that noble Lord. But if such an argument were to be admitted it would amount to this—that so long as the administration of Irish affairs was in such hands there would be no need for the application of legal principles in that country. In one district of the King's County, the Barony of Kilcoursy, there was, in consequence of the unnecessary imposition of this statute, such a strong feeling against British rule that not even the Catholic clergy could grapple with it. No doubt this statute removed many of the difficulties in the way of the police, and considerably lessened their duties, but it was a poor way of governing. There was such deep-seated and wide-spread discontent at its existence, that last year, when the proposal was made for its renewal, his hon. and learned Colleague (Mr. Serjeant Sherlock) found it necessary to vote against the Motion. The Attorney General for Ireland had not made out any case against the proposal of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Limerick. If the statements he had made in placing the Motion before the House were untrue, as had been suggested, then their untruth should be established, and that could only be done by the production of the several documents for which he had moved.
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONagreed with the Chief Secretary for Ireland that it was impossible, for the reasons which he had stated, to give the information which was asked for by the hon. and learned Member for Limerick (Mr. Butt), and upon which the arrest of the prisoner was originally founded. No doubt to a very great extent the information upon which the Lord Lieutenant acted was derived from sworn evidence; but a good deal, too, must-have been derived from other sources,

  199
  or the man would have been tried in the ordinary way. He trusted, however, that his right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary for Ireland would reconsider his determination, and at all events see his way to granting the first portion of this Motion. He thought it desirable that the House should know all that the prisoner's friends could say about the circumstances; and he ventured to ask the House not to accept as correct, without further information, all the particulars which had been given of the arrest and imprisonment of this man. He regretted very much that he had not noticed the Motion of his hon. and learned Friend on the Paper, because he had consequently had no opportunity of refreshing his memory as to the circumstances of the case, for which the late Government must, of course, be held solely responsible. He (the Marquess of Hartington) confirmed the statement of the Attorney General for Ireland that every case of this kind was made by the late Lord Lieutenant a subject of anxious consideration; and so far from acting, as the hon. and learned Gentleman seemed to think, upon the suspicion of a policeman or upon the ill-will or grudge of a magistrate, his noble Friend never acted in any case, not only of first committal but of re-consideration, without summoning from the neighbourhood every magistrate, police-officer, or other person who could afford any information on the subject. His hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sheffield (Mr. Roebuck) had asked whether Ireland was in so dangerous a state that a man ought to be imprisoned for years without a trial? He did not admit that Ireland was in a dangerous state at all; but there was no doubt that in certain limited districts the existence of a secret society did render life and property, to a certain extent, insecure; and when Parliament had placed in the hands of the Executive Government an engine such as this—power for the protection of life and property of individuals—he maintained the Lord Lieutenant would have been wanting in his duty if, by not exercising the great powers entrusted to him, loss of life had ensued in these districts. The mode in which his noble Friend carried the Act into effect was abundantly illustrated by the fact that when the present Government came into office they found only a few persons—if,
  200
  indeed, the number exceeded one—imprisoned under the operation of its provisions. He hoped that his right hon. Friend would upon reconsideration see his way to grant copies of the affidavits asked for, the ruling of the Queen's Bench for a writ of habeas corpus, and the warrants issued by the Lord Lieutenant for the arrest of the party implicated.
  MR. DISRAELI: I had the honour to be a Member of the Committee the evidence given before which led to the legislation in question. It revealed to us a state of ruthless anarchy, and it was the unanimous opinion of the Committee that there was a necessity for this legislation. I think myself that, whoever may be the Viceroy of Ireland, from whatever party he may be selected, the powers of that Act would be exercised by himself personally and with a sense of the deepest and most anxious responsibility; and therefore I must frankly state my conviction that if this affair were investigated there would be a general opinion that the powers of the Lord Lieutenant were exercised in a necessary manner. At the same time, after the expression of opinion on the part of the noble Lord the late Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant, I certainly should not wish to refuse the production of any documents which may be fairly asked for. Of course, the position taken by my right hon. Friend the present Chief Secretary was very much influenced by a feeling of honourable political sentiment, of maintaining a course which had been followed by his Predecessor, and the justice and policy of which he approved. I could not, of course, under any circumstances, myself authorize the production of any sworn information; but so far as the preliminary papers, copies of affidavits, rulings of the Court, and copy of the warrant of the Lord Lieutenant are concerned, after the expression of opinion of the noble Lord the late Chief Secretary I certainly cannot decline to produce them.
  MR. BUTTexpressed his satisfaction at what had fallen from the Prime Minister, and would withdraw his Motion.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Then—
  Copies ordered, "of all Affidavits used on a Motion in the Queen's Bench in Ireland, made during last Term, for a writ of habeas corpus, in the case of Patrick Casey:"

  201
  "Of the Ruling of the Court upon such Motion: "
  "Of the Warrant of the Lord Lieutenant originally issued for his arrest:"
  "And, of all subsequent Warrants, if any, transferring or changing his custody."—(Mr. Butt.)

IMPRISONMENT OF MR. WHALLEY FOR CONTEMPT OF COURT.

  MOTION FOR A SELECT COMMITTEE.
  MR. WHALLEYrose to move that a Select Committee be appointed to consider and report to this House as to—
  "The circumstances set forth in Petitions from the Electors and others of the City of Peterborough, on the 31st day of March and on the 24th day of April last, in relation to the fine and imprisonment of Mr. Whalley, a Member of this House, and others, for Contempt of Court, by the Court of Queens Bench; and whether any and what steps are requisite or expedient for defining or restraining the exercise of the powers assumed by Courts of Justice to inflict fine and imprisonment without trial by jury."
  The hon. Member said, that the Petition, which was presented on the 31st of March, was signed by 1,658 persons, all with a few exceptions being electors of Peterborough; consequently as the number of signatures exceeded by above 500 those who recorded their votes for him at the recent election, it was obvious that it was not on personal grounds that they thus approached that House—the prayer of these Petitioners being that the circumstances under which he (Mr. Whalley) was fined and imprisoned be fully inquired into, and the authority and power of the Court of Queen's Bench or other Courts of Judicature to fine or imprison without trial by jury be so defined and restricted as to protect the liberty of Her Majesty's subjects and the right of freedom of speech and writing. This Petition was presented on the same day that the Committee of Privilege which had been appointed on the Motion of the Prime Minister made their Report, and was therefore not in time to be brought under their consideration. It was possible that if a Petition so signed had been brought before that Committee they might have been induced to enter into the circumstances under which the Court of Queen's Bench had in his case inflicted fine and imprisonment; but there were many reasons why, although that Committee did not think fit to enter into those circumstances, there should now be a further inquiry. The reference
  202
  to that Committee was merely as to whether the Letter which had been addressed by the Lord Chief Justice to the Speaker, and by him read to the House, demanded further notice, and it was not incumbent on them nor, as they considered, were they called on to enter into any other circumstances than those which were set forth in that Letter. He had himself made no complaint of any Breach of Privilege, for the transaction had not in any way interfered with his attendance to his duties in that House; and having occurred in a previous Parliament, the Committee found in all these features a distinction between this case and those which were quoted in the Letter of the Lord Chief Justice—the cases of Mr. Lechmere Charlton and Mr. Long Wellesley. But because the Committee had not deemed it requisite to go into the circumstances so far as they related to the Privileges of that House, it did not follow that no inquiry thereon should take place; on the contrary, he submitted that the attention of the House was by this Committee distinctly directed to those circumstances by their publishing with their Report a written statement thereof, read to them by himself. In referring in their Report to this statement, they pointed out that notwithstanding that it was not relevant to the inquiry to which by the terms of reference they were restricted, they thought it right to publish it; and he was himself fully aware of that fact, and called their attention to it. He submitted that their having thus published his statement was in effect to call the attention of the House thereto. The House, therefore, had before it that statement, and he was prepared to accept the responsibility of every part of it. The House had also before it, as printed by the Petition Committee, the grounds on which his constituents demanded on their own behalf this further inquiry; and as to the statements contained in that Petition he also accepted the full responsibility of establishing every allegation therein. He had also to call the special attention of the House to a second Petition from his constituents, referred to in his Notice as having been presented on the 24th of April. This Petition was signed by only 12 of his constituents; but they acted in the character of a committee appointed by their fellow-citizens, and they were so

  203
  appointed unanimously at a public meeting, and their action had been approved, also unanimously at several public meetings. The prayer of this second Petition was as followed:—
  "That inasmuch as the foregoing matters were deemed irrelevant to the question of privilege, your honourahle House will be pleased to cause further inquiry to be made as to the circumstances of Mr. Whalley's fine and imprisonment, with a view to such redress and to such protection against the wrongful exercise of authority under the plea of contempt of Court as to your honourable House may seem to be called for."
  MR. DENISONrose to Order. He submitted that as on the previous day the hon. Gentleman had expressed a desire, in deference to the opinion of the hon. Member for Walsall (Sir Charles Forster), Chairman of the Committee on Petitions, to withdraw that Petition, it was not now open to him to comment upon it.
  MR. SPEAKER: The Petition was duly presented to the House, and was ordered to lie upon the Table in the usual manner. The document, having once been laid upon the Table of the House, could not be withdrawn without the formal sanction of the House. The hon. Member is, therefore, quite in Order in referring to it.
  MR. WHALLEY: This second Petition had not been printed, and he therefore gave Notice to move the House that it should be, with a view to support the present Motion. His hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, the Chairman of the Petitions Committee, was good enough to call his attention to the paragraphs in this Petition, which in the opinion of the Committee, and according to their rules, prevented them from ordering it to be printed; and he considered it to be due to the Committee and to the House not to press his Motion for the publication of this Petition by printing it until the opportunity should have been afforded of proving or justifying its statements. Those paragraphs, however, presented, as it seemed to him, some of the grounds on which the inquiry that he asked was requisite; and it was therefore necessary that he should read them to the House. And in doing so, he begged to state that he accepted the full responsibility of justifying them, and of proving them, so far as concerned the facts stated therein.
  204
  One of those paragraphs was as follows—
  "That your Petitioners humbly submit that such fine and imprisonment is totally at variance with the law and Constitution of this country, and an assumption of authority by the Court wholly in excess of any authority possessed by them under the plea of contempt of Court or otherwise, and that the conduct of the Judges in that respect does demand the attention of your honourable House as a gross and unwarrantable violation of the law, by which no man can be fined or imprisoned without trial by jury."
  Another paragraph, which appeared to the Committee to preclude publication, ran as followed—
  "That Mr. Whalley did further, in the statement so published by the Committee of your honourable House, allege as the fact was that the Lord Chief Justice had himself taken such action and exercised such influence against the defendant in the Tichborne case as had called forth declarations and public protest in open Court by the defendant that the Lord Chief Justice was thereby disqualified, according to the usages of the Bench, to preside as one of the Judges on his trial, and that such declaration by the said defendant was not noticed by the Court when it was so made, or at any other time, otherwise than that he, the said defendant, was, by Mr. Justice Blackburn, who presided on that occasion, complimented on the propriety of his defence, and your petitioners humbly submit that, as well with reference to the complaint thus publicly made of partiality and prejudice on the part of the Lord Chief Justice against the said defendant, as of the other allegations made by Mr. Whalley in the statement so published by your Committee, the verdict of the Lord Chief Justice does demand the attention of your honourable House, and especially in respect of the exercise of authority in other cases besides that of Mr. Whalley of fine and imprisonment under the plea or pretence of contempt of Court, whereby all public discussion, either by speech or writing, was completely suppressed for more than a year in relation to the said trial, and the defendant was thereby deprived of the means of obtaining money necessary for his defence, and that about 200 witnesses, who but for want of money to pay expenses would have given evidence on his behalf, did not do so; and in other respects the defendant was thereby deprived by such unauthorized exercise of the power of fine and imprisonment for contempt of Court of a fair trial."
  Such were the two paragraphs to which his attention had been drawn on reading this Petition of his constituents, not suitable for publication by the order of this House; and it might be quite right that such grave statements, and to some extent personal charges, should not be so published unless those who made them showed that they were justified, and especially until those who were affected

  205
  thereby should have the opportunity of replying to and refuting them. As to establishing those statements and charges, he should not have presented this Petition, and still less have now read it to the House, did he not believe that he was in a position, on the part of those petitioners, fully to substantiate each part of their statement; and he ventured with the utmost confidence to state that if this Committee were granted, he should be able to do so. As to the Lord Chief Justice, of whom complaint was there made, he stated on a recent occasion in open Court that he could not condescend to reply to the imputatation on his partiality made by such a man as the defendant. The question involved was whether the Lord Chief Justice did or did not exercise his influence against the defendant previous to the trial coming on—
  Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members not being present,
  House adjourned at half after Seven o'clock.

  KERRY ELECTION.
  Mr. Justice BARRY reported, That the Petition against the sitting Member? for the County of Kerry had been withdrawn.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—Committee—Boundaries of Archdeaconries and Rural Deaneries * (28); Betting * (47).
Committee—Report—Colonial Clergy * (43); Public Worship Regulation (re-comm.) * (30–62); Consolidated Fund (£13,000,000) *.

AFFAIRS OF THE GOLD COAST.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  THE EARL OF CARNARVON, on rising to call the attention of the House to the Affairs of the Gold Coast, said: My Lords, it is time, I think, that I should lay before your Lordships' House some statement, however general it may be, of the policy which Her Majesty's Government are prepared to adopt on the Gold Coast. I should have done so before had it not been necessary to make certain inquiries which could hardly before this be brought to a conclusion. But in bringing this question before your Lordships this evening, I shall refrain from entering into any of the causes of the recent war. I shall not discuss its origin. I shall not even consider the vexed question of the transfer of the Dutch Settlements—the manner in which that transfer was carried out—whether or no Holland gained or lost by the transfer, or whether the measures subsequently adopted were wise or imprudent. Neither shall I discuss the misunderstandings and bickerings between the various Governors and Administrators on the spot. I shall confine myself, as far as possible, to the present state of affairs and to our policy for the future. But I will at once state this in fairness—that whoever might have been the Colonial Minister, he must, in dealing with the Gold Coast, have found his task a dangerous and slippery one, and that whoever may hereafter be Minister, is likely to have there the same experience should a similar combination of circumstances ever arise. Now, there are two questions to be asked when entering on a consideration of this subject. First—Are we to stay on that Coast or abandon it? Secondly—If we stay, under what conditions are we to stay, and how are we to govern for the future? I could have wished, had time allowed,

  153
  to say somewhat of the past history of that part of Africa. It abounds in romantic and picturesque details; but it is enough to remind the House that towards the end of the 15th century the Portuguese established themselves there and built that Fort of Elmina, of which travellers still speak in praise. They were succeeded by the Dutch, who went there for the purposes of the slave trade; and we, in turn, succeeded the Dutch, till, after two centuries of war and intrigue, we find ourselves the sole and undisputed masters of the Coast. Yet, in looking back at the events which have occurred on the Gold Coast, we are reminded of the saying that "History repeats itself." Over and over again we come upon a recurrence of the same events. Independently of the often-repeated changes of territory between ourselves and the Dutch, three times have we acquired land by purchase; three times have we placed the Coast under the management of commercial companies; three times have we resumed it; three times has the suggestion been entertained by our Government—indeed, I might say by Parliament—to abandon our position on the Gold Coast, and as often has it been rejected. Nor need I say anything of the history of the Ashantee War, or of the causes which through more than one generation have led to it. Of the various tribes in the country beyond the Coast, the race who exercise the most important influence are the Ashantees; but it was not until the commencement of this century we first came into collision with that Power. During the whole of the last century their authority was growing under the direction of a succession of really astute and able kings, who, like the kings described by one of Homer's heroes, were stern men and did stern acts, and thus inch by inch consolidated their sovereignty until they became the dominant Power in the whole country. Their policy at home and abroad was marked in blood, and at the commencement of this century they seemed to hang like a thunder-cloud over our possessions. But it was only in 1807 that the first hostilities broke out. In 1817 Mr. Bowditch was sent on a mission to Coomassie, which his interesting and truthful sketch has made historical; but the mission bore little fruit, and in 1824 Sir Charles Macarthy
  154
  found or thought it necessary to engage in war. He was deserted by his Native allies, defeated, and his head was cut off, and was said, though I believe incorrectly, to have been carried to Coomassie. Two years after, that defeat was wiped out by a signal victory gained by our forces over the Ashantees. But it needed five years to secure any real results of this victory. It was then only that the Treaty of 1831 was agreed to, and Mr. Maclean assumed the post of Governor. He was the husband of the well-known but unfortunate "L. E. L.," and for a time his own fame was involved in the tragedy of her death; but he was also a man of very high administrative capacity, and exercised an unrivalled influence on the Gold Coast. My noble Friend on the cross-benches (Earl Grey) did him no more than justice in one of those interesting letters on the government of the Gold Coast which he published before the meeting of Parliament. For 17 years, with stinted means both in men and money, with everything against him except his own political genius, he governed with ability and determination, and peace was preserved all over the country. But with him passed away the period of successful and really capable government, and at last came the war of 1863, and finally the war of last year. And now, looking back to the events on the Gold Coast, and not directing the remark against any one Government, but applying it to a succession of Governments, I must say that I entertain considerable doubts as to the wisdom of the policy which has been pursued on the Gold Coast. I think it is certain that at one time at least the Ashantees showed that there was a disposition on their part to enter into friendly alliance with us; their interests and their national instincts all pointed in the same direction; and had advantage been taken of that disposition and of those circumstances, good relations might have been established and maintained. We have seen, my Lords, that in the recent war they proved themselves brave enemies, and I think our policy ought to be, if possible, to convert them into faithful allies. Before proceeding further, it is right that I should point out to your Lordships, first of all, what appear to be our main difficulties on the Gold Coast. I think these may be reduced

  155
  to two—the Native races, and the climate itself; and I am aware that no scheme that does not attempt to deal with these difficulties can be successful. First as to the races. I admit that there is little that is at present promising in that Fantee race which extends over a great part of the protected territory, and on behalf of whom we have incurred the risks and sacrifices of the late war. The experience of that war has not shown them to advantage. They had to be driven at the point of the lash, like slaves, to discharge the duties which were necessary for the protection of their country and their homes. That is not encouraging; but, my Lords, I am afraid that our policy towards them in past years has been in some manner the cause of that want of spirit on their part. We taught the people to lean so much on us that they seem to have lost all dependence on themselves, and we have demoralized the Chiefs by taking away from them the power of life and death. It appears to be even a question whether the population of the Protectorate has not diminished. On the other hand, the Fantees are not of a nomadic habit, but are inclined to settle down on their land and cultivate it—they are of the same race as the Ashantees—they are susceptible of the influences of money, and they are apt to learn. It has been stated to me by an engineer officer who had many of them under his command, that so ready were they to receive instruction that some of them learnt in a very short time to do within a single hour what before had taken them a whole day to perform. But the tribes in the interior are constantly pressing onwards towards the Coast, and some of them are said to be strong. Hitherto, the Ashantee power has stood as a barrier between the Natives on the Coast and those tribes in the interior; but now that the Ashantee power is broken down, the question arises, what will be the result from, and as regards these other tribes? We know that one of the tributary Kings has crossed the frontier with his people, and has asked and has received from Sir Garnet Wolseley the protection of this country. But it may be questioned whether the destruction of the Ashantee power would be politically desirable, inasmuch as the qualities of which the Ashantees are possessed are at least the qualities of an organized and disciplined
  156
  race, which has made some steps in the art of governing both themselves and others. It is impossible as yet to predict the result of the late campaign. It may be that the destruction of Coomassie in this case has been a real destruction, like that in Abyssinia—a total destruction of the capital and the dynasty, followed by chaos; or it may be that the overthrow of the kingdom which has so long oppressed and cowed the surrounding tribes may restore peace and trade and the possibilities of prosperity. But until we know how this is about to turn out, we hardly know the conditions on which we have to act. So much as regards the Native races. Next comes the question of climate, and it is a very serious one. No man will deny that the climate is bad—whether it is as bad as it has been stated to be is another question; but it is bad, and injurious to European health. Hence the rapid changes of Governors, of whom there have been reckoned as many as 26 since Mr. Maclean; hence the absence of anything like a fixed policy. Hence, too, the absurd schemes put forward for Fantee constitutions and self-government by some parties when my noble Friend opposite (the Earl of Kimberley) was in the Colonial Office: and hence, too, has arisen the belief, which comes out very clearly in the Blue Books laid on the Table by my noble Friend, that England was not prepared to fight in defence of her allies. But, my Lords, we have aggravated all the other evils with which we have had to deal by singling out as the seat of Government probably the most pestilential spot on the whole of the Coast. But this is not all. Successive Governments at home have made everything still more difficult by adopting the principle of starving the establishment on the Gold Coast. The persons employed there have been paid on a most illiberal scale. How can it be expected that men of capacity will go out under such circumstances? Still, my Lords, I think there are facts to show that the climate, bad as it is, is not so bad as it has been represented to be. Wherever the bush has been cleared, and Europeans have been able to ascend to higher levels, their health has improved. Nor in regard to the effects of the climate on Europeans, must we forget that they have too often been their own enemies,

  157
  by recourse to stimulants, which not only weaken the body but destroy all vigour and originality of mind. In India, we have had before now to contend against the same difficulties; but there, by prudence, by the observance of proper precautions, and the adoption of better sanitary arrangements, a great improvement in the general health of Europeans has been effected. I may mention—though I do not desire to draw much argument from it, because the season was favourable, and the lives, though exposed to hardships, were picked lives—that taking the whole number of deaths that occurred during the late campaign, including even the deaths which have followed the return of the troops, the mortality was not quite 23 per 1,000, which is about the same as the death-rate in the metropolis, and lower than the death-rate in some other English towns. My Lords, I do not mean to attach undue weight to that fact, but I think it one which I ought to mention while on the subject of climate. Now, my Lords, I come to the important question—Are we to retain our colony on the Gold Coast, or to abandon it? In considering it, two considerations present themselves. One is that of trade, the other that of obligation. I do not think we can resolve the question of retention or abandonment into one of a mere balance-sheet in the national ledger. It ought not to be settled on a mere consideration of profit and loss. There are many things which do not pay pecuniarily—honour, religion, morality, bring in no direct money return—but we do not treat these principles as of no account in the national consideration. A great nation like ours must be sometimes prepared to discharge disagreeable duties; she must consent to bear burdens which are inseparable from her greatness; but in this case the real question is—What are our obligations? They are of two kinds—written and unwritten. Our written obligations in respect of the Gold Coast are but few in number. They are only three. There is, first, the Treaty of 1831, to which I have already referred; secondly, a bond entered into with the Native Chiefs on the subject of human sacrifices and barbarous customs; and, thirdly, there was the poll fax imposed for a time during the period when my
  158
  noble Friend on the cross-benches (Earl Grey) held the seals of the Colonial Office. There is, doubtless, something in those written obligations, but I do not think there is sufficient to make it necessary for us to continue our occupation of the Gold Coast. But, my Lords, there are unwritten obligations—moral ones—and these appear to me to be very strong. First, we have taught these people, by a very long system of protection, to lean upon us. They have lost their manliness and independence of character, and if we abandoned them at this moment, the probability is, that the Ashantee Power would spread itself over the Protectorate. We should, in fact, hand them over to the tender mercies of exasperated enemies; and to abandon them at this moment would be an act of virtual cruelty and treachery which this country would not and ought not to sanction. Again, though our influence on that Coast has not been as great as we could have wished it to be, it has not been without considerable and humanizing results. It has been the means of inducing these people to abandon some of their most barbarous customs; it has mitigated and greatly softened the worst features of domestic slavery; life and property have been rendered comparatively secure. I am informed that when a murder is committed a couple of policemen will arrest the murderer even at a long distance from Cape Coast Castle, and bring him to justice without a fear of resistance; and, lastly, we have given the people a system of education, though, it is true, a very imperfect one. Without exaggeration, we have led them a certain distance along the road to civilization. But, my Lords, it is the opinion of the soundest authorities that if we were to retire from the Coast at this moment our work would be undone, the wheel of progress would run backward, and even human sacrifices would be seen at Cape Coast Castle within a year. Under all the circumstances I feel—and Her Majesty's Government feel—that we are acting in accordance with the instincts of Parliament and of the country when we come to the conclusion that, at such a moment as this especially, it is impossible for us to terminate our occupation of the Gold Coast. Having thus stated our decision on this important point, I will now explain what are

  159
  the conditions under which in future we propose to administer affairs there. I need not go into a geographical description of the country; but it is right to remind the House that at present the Gold Coast is administered in connection with three other Settlements, two of which are at a very great distance from it. The first of the three is Lagos, about 200 miles distant from the Gold Coast; but the second, Sierra Leone, is 800 miles distant; and the third, Gambia, 200 miles distant from Sierra Leone. Now, the distance of the Gold Coast from the two last of these Settlements is far too great; and, though probably this is not generally borne in mind, the politics, the trade, the social condition, the general interests, of those places differ. Now, we propose to consolidate Lagos and the Gold Coast into one Colony, and to consolidate them very much on the principle of the organization of the Straits Settlements. When I previously held the Seals of the Colonial Office, the organization of those Settlements was established, and I think it has worked in a satisfactory manner. I have never heard any complaints of it. We propose, then, to apply, with some slight modifications, the same principle to Lagos and the Gold Coast. We propose to have a Legislative and Executive Council of small numbers at the Gold Coast, but to require that it shall hold its Councils three times a year at Lagos. We have already at the Gold Coast a small squadron of three vessels, which will keep up the communications between the two places. But one of the greatest, if not the chief difficulty, lies in the choice of a Governor. He must be a man of great influence of character. We hope to choose the best man we can get; to give him large power, and to exact from him great responsibility. I believe more may be done in such a place by a strong Governor appointed on these terms than by any other system. I hope to effect a reduction in the number of officers, but to increase their salaries in cases in which we think they are underpaid. We propose that for the consolidated Settlements there shall be appointed one Colonial Secretary; one Treasurer for both, with a sub-Treasurer at Lagos, as it is for the present at all events necessary to have separate accounts; one Auditor; one Chief Justice; a Queen's Advocate; one commanding Officer of Armed Police,
  160
  which we propose shall be enlisted for the united Colony; one Colonial Engineer; and one Chief Surgeon. I have stated that we propose to increase salaries; and without pledging myself too closely, I think I may say that the increase of salaries, as measured by the present establishment, will not in the aggregate exceed £6,000 or £7,000 a-year. This will not be regarded as a heavy additional expenditure, seeing that the revenue of the Colony, which in 1867 was not more than £11,000, was, according to Sir Garnet Wolseley, estimated for the present at £52,000. Now, though expenditure has always a tendency to increase with the income, I think it is probable that there will be a sufficient surplus to meet the future reasonable requirements of the Colony, when the present exceptional period of difficulty is successfully past. It will be my object, as far as possible, to induce competent men to take employment in the Colony; but up to this time, I think many circumstances have operated against their doing so. I may take as an illustration the rate of pensions. For Civil Servants there are two rates of pensions—the English rate and the tropical rate. By a curious anomaly, those doing duty on the Gold Coast—as unhealthy a settlement as any under the British Crown—have been put on the English instead of on the tropical scale. I propose to reverse that, and to put them on the tropical scale. Again, whenever it has been possible to give free passages home to naval and military officers engaged on that Coast it has been done; but owing to some existing regulation, the privilege has been withheld from the Civil Servants. I think there ought to be no difficulty about that. Those engaged in civil employments will for the future be entitled, equally with military and naval officers, to free passages home whenever it is possible. The next question is, Where should the seat of Government be placed? In connection with this question there are three considerations—the military, the commercial, and the sanitary. So far as the two former are concerned, I am not aware that Cape Coast Castle has any special advantages; but as regards its sanitary qualifications, it is, perhaps, the very worst place that could have been selected. The soil is saturated with sewage; there is decaying vegetable

  161
  matter in abundance everywhere about, the houses are crowded on one another, and burials take place under the very buildings of the living. Not only will horses not live there, but even cattle cannot exist at Cape Coast Castle. It deserves more than, perhaps, any other place the appellation of "The White Man's Grave." This being the case, there must be a change; the seat of Government must be moved, but for obvious reasons it must still be kept on the sea coast. Now, there would seem to be a choice of one or other of two places—Accra on the east, and Elmina on the west. Accra appears to be the most desirable as regards health. It is surrounded by open country, it seems to offer facilities to sportsmen—from which a fair inference may be drawn; horses and cattle will live there; and, as we are proposing the consolidation of the Lagos and the Gold Coast Settlements, it has this advantage—that it is about midway between the two. As against those advantages, the landing-place is bad. On the other hand, Elmina is in the neighbourhood of hills, there is a good water supply there, and there are facilities for sanitary improvements. The port, which at present admits craft of 40 or 50 tons, may be made available for much larger vessels. At present I am not prepared to say to which place we shall be disposed to give the ultimate preference. But, my Lords, while some town on the Coast must be the nominal seat of the Government always, and its real seat in time of war, the seashore can never be a place in which health can be maintained at its highest point, and in which, therefore, public business can be done in the most effective manner. But at a distance of some 30 miles from Accra is a country of hills. In these hills missionaries have lived for a long time, and their children have been born and have grown up there. European flowers and vegetables grow, and the conditions of European life and health exist there. I think that in these hills there may be founded a station, which would be to Accra or Elmina what Simla is to Calcutta. Simple and inexpensive buildings which may be stockaded could be constructed, and a detachment of armed police may be kept there. It may be connected with the seat of government on the Coast by roads and the telegraph, and
  162
  when this is accomplished the English Governor and his officers may live there for at least a great part of the year. It would have great advantages in a sanitary point of view, and health is necessary to the efficiency of government. Of course, certain conditions must be annexed to his residence there. He may live there while there is complete peace; but in case of war he must immediately come down to his seat of government on the Coast to avoid the danger of being cut off. But a central government is not enough. In barbarous times and in uncivilized countries, roads are the first condition of improvement; and here it will be our first duty to open and secure the maintenance of roads and trade-paths. As to the expenses connected with them, I see no reason why they should not be in a great measure provided for by the Natives, very much as is the case in India. One of the complaints made by the Ashantees was, that their traders when on their way to the sea coast were constantly molested by the Fantees. To meet this, and similar not unfair complaints, I propose to have certain stations on the road and detachments of armed police to hold the country, to maintain the roads, and to punish with inflexible severity any attempt on the part of lawloss people to disturb those who are engaged in trade. In this way, then, we shall, I trust, secure health for the Government and peace for the trade of the country. At the same time, we shall keep up communications, not only effectively, but rapidly, between different parts of the country; and this is the great secret of administrative success in a wild and barbarousregion. And now I will say a few words on the question of the military force. There, as everywhere else, we must have a strong military force in the background, and to economize that military force would be the worst economy of which we could be guilty. The question, however, is, what that force shall be. My Lords, I believe English troops are wholly unsuited to that climate. There is a very remarkable despatch to be found in a recently-published volume of the Correspondence of the late Duke of Wellington, which is very characteristic of that great man. You will find there a multitude of details gathered up and

  163
  brought to a general conclusion, in which the Duke shows as great an acquaintance with the then affairs of the Gold Coast as if, instead of being Commander-in-Chief in England, he had been Governor or Administrator there. At the same time, he deprecates in the most earnest way the employment of English troops on that Coast; and although the conditions, in many respects, have since been somewhat altered, still the main argument seems to hold good. I am clearly of opinion that the English troops are misplaced on the Gold Coast. In the same way I doubt whether the West Indian troops are much more suitable, for whenever they have been tried they have been found to succumb to the influences of climate as rapidly, if not more rapidly, than English soldiers. Therefore, I come to the conclusion that, on the whole, though it is not without risk, it is the wisest policy to dispense altogether, and as soon as possible, with English troops, and to rely entirely upon Native forces. I think these Native forces will be found to be efficient and inexpensive. As regards efficiency, the experience of the late war is a sufficient proof. Russell's and Wood's regiments and Rait's Artillery would be alone evidence of what Africans, when officered and led by Englishmen, can do; and as regards expense, and speaking roughly, I may say that of late years we have not had fewer than 300 West Indian soldiers on that Coast. Now, a West Indian soldier costs £100 a-year; whereas a Houssa costs only £30 a-year. Consequently, we could maintain 1,000 Houssas, who would be more effective, for the same amount that 300 West Indian troops now cost. But I should be sorry to have the Native force selected from one single tribe. On the old principle of divide et impera, the force should be a mixed one, and the men should be taken from all the best fighting tribes. This is an experiment which I think must be tried, as it is essential to our occupation of the Gold Coast. There ought, however, to be a full proportion of English officers attached to this force—rather a larger proportion than is now attached to Indian irregular regiments—and if there should be a few more than are wanted, they can be made available for political and general service. This nearly exhausts
  164
  what I have to say on the general administration of the Gold Coast; but I should like to make a few remarks on some other and rather more domestic questions. The life-blood of a Colony must be its trade and its commercial system. A great deal of evidence is in existence on this subject, and yet I candidly own I am not satisfied in my own mind as to the results. It seems clear that changes have occurred on the Gold Coast not dissimilar to those which have happened in many other parts of the world. Formerly, I believe the system might be described as one consisting of a few influential and wealthy merchants, men of education and ability, who by their residence there greatly strengthened the hands of the Government. Such were the merchants in Mr. Maclean's day. At present, I believe, a different class exists. There are many and small traders, and this affects, no doubt, in a less satisfactory degree, the general conduct of Government. We have, too, applied the English law there in all its technicalities and subtle processes. Now, it seems to me that it is a mistake and almost an absurdity to apply to negroes the refinements and complications of the English law of bankruptcy. Yet this has been done with, I am told, a dismal result, as fraud and dishonesty are the frequent consequences. Therefore I look forward to a great simplification of this and other branches of law on the Gold Coast. It is said by some that there is very little trade to be expected from the interior. I hope, however, that this apprehension is unfounded. At all events, the revenue is a rising one, and I trust that, with proper care and management, it will continue to grow. There is one point with regard to our trade which I cannot refrain from mentioning on this occasion—namely, the importation of arms. This is a very serious question. The arms supplied to the Ashantees were for the most part transported into the interior when the Coast was closed. They were imported from the west through the port of Assinee, where the French have a claim and exercise some jurisdiction. With the greatest friendliness on their part, it was impossible to prevent the importation of those arms to the Ashantees, who were supplied largely with them. But I leave it to the House to say how different

  165
  it would have been if, instead of old flint-locks, they had been supplied with breech-loaders and arms of precision, which they might have employed in the bush with deadly effect. How the importation of arms is to becontrolled from without I am not at present prepared to say; but it is a point which deserves very grave consideration, because it is very important with reference to our military preponderance on the Coast that we should have the means of, at all events, regulating the supply. Along our own frontier it is comparatively easy to do this, and I am not indisposed to give the Government a monopoly for the sale of arms. Arms are really necessary to these people, not only for hunting and self-defence, but for the ceremonies and customs of every day life; but it is a question whether the Government could not supply weapons of such a type as they might deem to be most advantageous to the Natives, each firearm bearing a particular stamp, and each being issued to a Native only on the recommendation of his own Chief. In this way we may be quit of a danger, and we may serve a political and administrative purpose. As regards the administration of justice, changes will, of course, be necessary. At this moment there is on the Gold Coast no Court of Appeal, no Public Prosecutor, and only one Judge. Now, I propose to appoint one Chief Justice for the two Settlements, one Chief Magistrate or Judge resident at each Settlement, but applicable to either, and one Queen's Advocate or Public Prosecutor. Besides this, I hope to extend, as far as possible, the principle of circuit administration. There are many cases where it is easier to bring a tribunal to the persons interested than it is to bring the persons interested to a Court, and when in 1867 it was necessary to re-organize the internal administration of justice in Jamaica, this was the principle we adopted. Further, I am bound to say I entertain very considerable doubts as to whether the jury system ought not to undergo some material modification. Though it is the palladium of English liberty, I doubt whether it is essential to a system of well ordered freedom on the Gold Coast. It seems to be clear that the Coast juries—partly through tribal jealousies, and partly through interested motives—cannot be thoroughly trusted with the
  166
  adjudication of inland cases which are brought before them. Nor is it possible in the consideration of this branch of the question to forget that domestic slavery exists. Slavery in any form is so utterly repugnant to all our principles that it must be the object of a Minister as soon as he can to extinguish it. It is also a constant source of embarrassment; but though difficulties are brought about by native slavery, on the other hand the difficulties involved in an immediate and compulsory emancipation of slaves would be still greater. Unless Parliament is prepared in such case to do that which is fair, to look upon the slave as property, and vote a compensation—which probably would not be far short of £1,000,000 sterling—I hardly see how you can deal effectually and honestly with that subject; but if slavery were immediately abolished, the necessary results would be an increase of our obligations, our expenditure, and of the complications in these territories. I am bound to add that I believe the hardship to the slave has been largely and happily reduced. When Dr. Madden was sent out in 1841 by Lord John Russell, who was then Colonial Secretary, he reported that the slaves absolutely refused to be liberated unless the Government would undertake to provide food. This, of course, is not conclusive; but it shows at least how full of difficulties this question is. I would gladly lay down such rules as would pave the way to the ultimate and, indeed, to the early extinction of slavery; but anything sweeping in the way of compulsory emancipation seems to me at this moment more calculated to enhance the difficulties with which we have to deal, and even to worsen the lot of the slave, than a gradual and cautious way of dealing with it. My Lords, I have gone over many of the various points which I desired to bring before your Lordships. Your Lordships will see that Her Majesty's Government propose to retain, as far as territorial jurisdiction goes, the Protectorate pretty much as it stands. Committees of the House of Commons at different times have held different language as to the extent of territorial power which we exercise—and the Colonial Office, perhaps, has not been more consistent; but, on the whole, it seems to me that though some increase is inevitable

  167
  in order to carry out a more effective administration, the present limits of our territorial power should not be enlarged more than is absolutely necessary. In order that there may be no misapprehension, I will sum up the various points with which I have troubled your Lordships, I fear, at too great length. In the first place, it is the wish and the intention of Her Majesty's Government in this scheme not materially to extend our territorial jurisdiction or our obligations; secondly, it is their wish that government should be made in this matter as direct and simple as possible. That I believe to be our best chance of administering affairs in these territories. It was the personal influence of Mr. Maclean which enabled him to accomplish that wonderful task which he undertook in the midst of a large and uncivilized population. So have I seen in former years and in uncivilized countries, Englishmen with no direct authority or control, but with the reputation of an inflexible justice and impartiality, attracting men from hundreds and hundreds of miles to refer to their arbitration the disputes and quarrels which no Native authority could settle. England may well be proud to have produced such men. Thirdly, the opening up of trade will be a great advantage to these territories. From Livingstone downwards, we have the experience of the greatest travellers that trade is the handmaid of religion, and tends to produce order and security. Fourthly, we are bound in every way we can to discourage all the barbarous customs which still exist, and to make the Chiefs understand that if they desire the protection of the Crown, if they desire to be called allies of the English people, they must renounce those customs as abhorrent to Christianity and civilization. Fifthly, though I will not say that anything like an extravagant sum is required for the purpose, yet I wish to give fair warning that it is impossible, without some additional expenditure, that the government of this Coast can be properly carried on. Parliament and the Government will do wisely in abandoning the illiberal scale of expenditure which has for so many years past been applied to this Coast. It is not safe. It is not even economical. I do not believe the expense ultimately need be a large one, but some increase is inevitable. And, lastly, I wish to
  168
  say, both for myself and, indeed, for any future Colonial Minister, that whilst undertaking this new system of administration of the country, it will be open to us at any future time to reconsider our position upon this Coast. I trust that the plan we propose may be productive of good, but the difficulties, as I have endeavoured to point out, are considerable; and, therefore, I think it is well that we should be held perfectly free at any future time to reconsider our position. I sometimes hear that we ought to pave the way to an abandonment of this Coast by present preparations for such a change of policy; but I can only say that this betrays a great misapprehension of the facts of the case. The moment you begin by overt acts to pave the way to abandonment, you will provoke aggressions and render the step that you desire to take impossible. If ever the time should come to make preparations to abandon the Coast, the quicker that the execution follows on the intention the better. I have left still a good deal unsaid. Nevertheless, I have given an outline, I trust, of the scheme which we propose, and which I hope, without increasing materially our obligations, will give us a reasonable chance of maintaining more efficiently than heretofore our position upon the Gold Coast. It will always be a task full of difficulty, and possibly of danger. But difficulties are not new to us—they are the history and the heritage of the English race. Throughout the records of our career in India, there is not a single page which does not contain a story of difficulties as great as these successfully overcome, of tribes as fierce subdued, of climates as pestilential so far mitigated that English life and English government have become possible; and if, indeed, by some awful catastrophe it were to be our fate to perish and to disappear from India, we should, I do not hesitate to say, leave behind us a monument of statesmanship and power such as the world has not seen since the days of the Roman Empire. In the present instance it is certainly not a desire of selfish interests or the ambition of larger empire which bids us remain on the West Coast of Africa; it is simply and solely a sense of obligations to be redeemed and of duties to be performed. But this at least, I venture to say, that as long as we do stay there, whether our

  169
  stay be long or short, we must exercise an effective control, alike beneficial to the Natives themselves and worthy of the history and position of this country.
  EARL GREYwas of opinion that to abandon the Gold Coast altogether would be simply impossible without utter disgrace to this country. On the whole he concurred in the scheme sketched out by the noble Secretary for the Colonies. He thought that the administration of Governor Maclean was a model which should be studied and followed, for under that most able officer the British Protectorate had risen from a most deplorable condition to great prosperity, and though, since the death of Governor Maclean, there had never been another Governor of equal energy and judgment, still the system adopted by him had been in the main adhered to. The Gold Coast continued to make progress, though less rapidly than it might have done if better governed, till 1863. After that year a different system came into operation. The Protectorate continued, but the control which had formerly been exercised over the Chiefs and people was, by the orders of the Home Government, practically relinquished by the officers employed on the Coast. Not only merchants, but even officials testified that from that time the state of things steadily deteriorated; savage customs which had been suppressed began to be re-established, and trade became more and more insecure. It was to be hoped we were now about to revert to the old system of giving control as well as protection. He approved the proposal to keep up a Native force, and thought the proposal to construct roads throughout the Protectorate of the greatest importance. He thought the Native troops might be employed as sappers and miners in the construction of these roads as well as in keeping them open afterwards. In regard to arms, it would no doubt be highly desirable, if it were possible, to prevent their importation into Africa; but he was persuaded that it was quite impracticable to prevent it, and that to endeavour to do so would only lead to an interference with regular trade, and to a great deal of smuggling; and it would be found in the end, should a war break out, the Natives had obtained arms notwithstanding all the prohibitions. It would be much better to recognize that the importation
  170
  was inevitable, and to add to the revenue of the Gold Coast by subjecting the arms to a duty.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: My Lords, I do not propose to express an opinion upon the whole plan which has been laid before us by the noble Earl the Secretary of State with so much ability. Through the course of political events in this country it did not fall to Her Majesty's late Government to consider the course which ought to be taken at the conclusion of the War in Ashantee. In regard, however, to my own opinions on the subject, I may say that my leaning is towards the policy which the noble Earl has announced—that, namely, of remaining on the Coast. At the same time, I would, by no means, go so far as my noble Friend on the cross-benches (Earl Grey), who seems, from his remarks to-night, and also from letters of his which have been published in The Times, to regard the matter as one scarcely admitting of argument. It seems to me, on the contrary, that there are great doubts and difficulties surrounding the question. Although it was not my duty to bring the matter for decision before the late Government, I have considered it carefully in my own mind, and I freely confess that the arguments on both sides seem to me very weighty—so much so, indeed, that I have had great difficulty in coming to a conclusion on the subject. One reason why I should be most unwilling to criticize closely the details of the noble Earl's plan, even if I had had time to give them ample consideration, is that I am conscious of the difficulties—the extreme difficulties—which surround the adoption of any policy in regard to the Gold Coast, whatever may be its character. There is but a choice of alternatives, none of which is at all satisfactory. A policy of abandonment, which some persons have recommended, might lead to great evils on the Coast. At the same time there are numerous difficulties, as the noble Earl has justly and clearly pointed out, which have to be encountered in connection with the administration of that territory. I would remark that my noble Friend was perhaps somewhat inconsistent when, at the close of his speech, he said that our position might at some future time be reconsidered. The tenor of his statement seemed to me to point to a permanent

  171
  administration. Now, it is almost impossible to carry on an administration if you are in a state of uncertainty as to whether you are going to remain in the territory or not. There would of necessity be an unsettled state of things, which might render the best of your schemes abortive. As to an Administrator for the Gold Coast, it is exceedingly difficult to find a man in every way suited to the position, and exceedingly difficult when you have found him to keep him there. Not only may his health break down, but you cannot chain a man to such a coast. If he be an able Administrator—and he must be an able Administrator to conduct its affairs with advantage—you cannot resist his application to be promoted to some better post. This is one of the difficulties in the way of dealing with a Colony such as that of which I am speaking. With respect to the proposal of my noble Friend to combine the Gold Coast with Lagos, it is one in the wisdom of which I quite concur. The Governor of Sierra Leone is too far off to be able constantly to attend to the affairs of the Gold Coast, even though he might be as able a man as Sir Arthur Kennedy. A casual visit to the Coast is calculated merely to unsettle the administration of the Colony itself, while the Governor who pays it has not the time necessary fairly to mature his own plans. I repeat, therefore, that I think my noble Friend has done well in uniting the Gold Coast and Lagos under one Administrator. I am glad, I may add, to find that the noble Earl recognizes the great objections to the employment of West India troops on the Coast. Those troops, it is but fair to say, have, in accordance with the testimony of all, done their duty admirably in the late war; but it is not their fault that, coming from a totally different climate, and accustomed to a more easy life, they are liable, like the White man, to disease; while they are not endowed by nature with the same energy and physical capacity. There is this further difficulty—that it is by no means easy to obtain recruits for a West India India Regiment, owing to the great demand for labour in those Colonies; and I am therefore of opinion that my noble Friend has wisely determined to organize a Native force. Then, as to the importation of arms, I entirely agree with what has fallen from my noble
  172
  Friend on the cross-benches (Earl Grey). I say so after having given the subject the most anxious attention. There are several obstacles in the way of regulating that importation. You must have, in the first place, the command of the whole Coast; and even if you did possess that control of the whole Coast, you could not altogether prevent the tribes in question from obtaining arms—because there is a considerable overland trade from the north, and arms thus find their way from a central depôt in Africa to the banks of the Volta. My noble Friend touched on the administration of justice, the construction of public works, and many other improvements; but without the exercise of more direct dominion—and he very justly pointed out the objections to exercising a more direct dominion over this country—I doubt whether he will be able to carry out his scheme. But whatever we do, we must not delude ourselves by imagining that by shutting our eyes to the responsibility which we have undertaken, and we must take care we free ourselves from it, that under the name of a Protectorate we do not assume all the responsibility of managing the affairs of the Colony, without the necessary power. Although I feel as strongly as any man can, the expediency of developing the resources of the Coast, still I do not believe they can be in a flourishing condition as long as domestic slavery exists. A man cannot work energetically when he does not work for himself, but as the slave of some master. Whether my noble Friend can pave the way to a better state of things by the measures which he has indicated or not, I am extremely glad to find that he is looking forward to taking some steps to deal with the question of slavery. The only other point to which I shall now refer is the proposed change in the seat of Government. Do what we may, the principal means of communication for this country must be through the Coast, and there must, therefore, be very considerable objection to establishing the seat of Government at a distance from the Coast. It would, however, be well if the Governor were enabled to pass more of his time in a healthier climate. I will only say further that I wish the scheme of my noble Friend all the success which he anticipates. Whoever

  173
  succeeds in producing a more satisfactory state of things on the Gold Coast will deserve the best thanks of the House and of the country.
  House adjourned at a quarter past Seven o'clock, to Friday next, half-past Ten o'clock.