House Of Commons
Tuesday, July 14, 1857.
Grand Juries (Metropolitan Police District Bill)—Committee
Order for Committee read.
House in Committee.
Question again proposed, "That Clause 1 stand part of the Bill."
said, he rose to move, as an Amendment, that the Chairman do now leave the Chair. This was a Bill which meant nothing more nor less than to abrogate a part of the British constitution. And what grounds were assigned for so important a step? A good deal had been said about the inconveniences arising from the present system; and on these grounds of inconvenience alone the institution of grand juries in the most important part of this country was to be abolished. No suggestion was made of any means by which this inconvenience might be obviated; it was proposed not to amend but to abolish and destroy. He was much surprised that such a Bill should come from the Conservative side of the House, which professed uncommon respect for, and devotion to, our antient institutions. No doubt the hon. and learned Gentleman who had charge of the Bill (Sir F. Thesiger) was actuated by the purest motives in bringing it forward, but he (Mr. Bowyer) could not help thinking that he now somewhat regretted the task he had undertaken. There were not wanting indications in the past history of this question to show that the agitation against grand juries in the metropolis arose simply from the unwillingness of persons engaged in trade and other occupations to serve on them. Attempts had been made on previous occasions to introduce a Bill of this description; and it was not long since the late Solicitor General, then Recorder of London, had proposed a measure with the same object in view, which passed that House rather rapidly, but which was rejected by the other House, being received with reprobation by all the law Lords, and being especially condemned by the Chief Justice of England, who denounced it as an attack upon the constitution of the country. He might be told that this Bill applied only to London; but if grand juries were abolished here, he did not see how it would be possible to maintain them elsewhere. It was letting in the small end of the wedge. Indeed, he was not quite sure it was not letting in the large end too. He would, with the permission of the Committee, now proceed to advert to what the law was upon this subject, and to urge upon their attention the violation which such a change must make in one of the most valued principles of our constitutional system. To put a man on his trial without the intervention of a grand jury was against the whole policy of our constitutional history and against the law of England. Certainly, the Attorney General had the power of filing an information for misdemeanours without the intervention of a grand jury, and the Court of Queen's Bench possessed a similar power, but these very exceptions showed the principle on which the rule itself was founded. For the law allowed criminal informations to be filed, only in cases of misdemeanour, and no one could therefore be put on his trial for felony except on an indictment found by a grand jury, or on the inquest of a coroner's jury. And, indeed, it was customary, even after a verdict of a coroner's jury, to prefer a Bill before the grand jury, and put the prisoner on his trial on the indictment. And in cases of misdemeanour, the law would not allow any man to be tried without indictment found by a grand jury, unless with the sanction of the highest Criminal Court in the realm next to the House of Lords, or by the act of the highest law officer of the Crown responsible to Parliament. Such is the constitutional principle of the law of England. Yet this principle was sought to be abrogated for the convenience of a few persons. Black-stone, in the fourth volume of his Commentaries, p. 349, quoted the famous passage of Magna Charta, which says—
Blackstone then proceeded to say—"Nullus liber homo capiatur vel imprisonetur aut exulet aut aliquo alio modo destruatur nisi per legale judicium partium suorum vel per legem terræ."
Could the House entertain the slightest doubt as to the course which Blackstone would take were he now a member of that body. He (Mr. Bowyer) would admit that there were inconveniences incidental to the present system, but he believed they might be all obviated without trenching upon the liberties of the subject in the way this Bill proposed to do. For instance, he was aware that cases sometimes occurred in which indictments were preferred against persons behind their backs, and in which bench warrants were issued before they knew that they were accused. No doubt that was a great inconvenience; but it might be easily avoided by providing that no indictment should be sent before a grand jury without previous notice being given to the accused person, or without proceedings having been taken publicly in the first instance before a magistrate. Another inconvenience of the present system was that sometimes witnesses were bought off and were prevented appearing before the grand jury, or that, having gone before the grand jury, they neglected to make their appearance at the trial. This might be effectually remedied, however, if proceedings in the first place were taken before a magistrate, by binding over the witnesses to appear both before the grand jury and at the trial. The real difficulty in the way of administering criminal justice in this country arose from the want of a public prosecutor, and this was a difficulty which did not arise in Scotland or Ireland, as in the former there was the Lord Advocate, and in the latter there was the Crown Solicitor. In short, all the existing evils were susceptible of an easy remedy, without resorting to the extreme remedy of abolishing grand juries. If grand juries were abolished in London the thing must go further. Grand juries in the country would be soon done away with, for the argument would be speedily urged, if grand juries have been abolished in London, why should they continue to exist in the country. The institution of grand juries brought into the administration of justice many persons who would not otherwise be brought in, which was a great feature in a free country. Though it might be an inconvenience to trades people to attend on grand juries in London, still it was most important that those classes should take a part in the administration of justice. If the present Bill passed, instead of the people having in their hands the important function of accusation by means of presentment, what duty would pass into the hands of magistrates, removable at the pleasure of the Crown—practically of the Home Secretary. The exception of cases of treason and misprision of treason made in the Bill, showed how much the hon. and learned Gentleman felt the force of this objection. But the hon. and learned Gentleman had not provided for cases which might have a political complexion, and in troubled times be no less important in a national point of view; and such cases were more likely to arise in London than in any other place. The importance of this Bill could scarcely be exaggerated, and involved the most grave constitutional considerations. It appeared to him to be fraught with so much danger and evil that he could not consent to its proceeding further. He, therefore, moved that the Chairman do now leave the chair, with a view to preventing the further progress of this measure; as he believed that if it stood over till next Session his hon. and learned Friend would in the interval apply his great ability to the task, not of abolishing grand juries, but of ascertaining how any inconveniences resulting from them might be obviated."The antiquity and excellence of this trial for the settling of civil property has elsewhere been explained at large. And it will hold much stronger in criminal cases, since in the times of difficulty and danger more is to be apprehended from the violence and partiality of Judges appointed by the Crown in suits between the king and the subject, than in disputes between one individual and another to settle the metes and boundaries of private property. Our law has, therefore, wisely placed this strong and twofold barrier of a presentment and a trial by jury between the liberties of the people and the prerogative of the Crown. It was necessary for preserving the admirable balance of our constitution to vest the executive power of the laws in the prince; and yet this power might be dangerous and destructive to that very constitution, if executed without check or control by justices of oyer and terminer occasionally named by the Crown, who might then, as in France or Turkey, imprison, despatch, or exile any man that was obnoxious to the Government by an instant declaration that such is their will and pleasure. But the founders of the English law have, with excellent forecast, contrived that no man should be called to answer to the King for any capital crime, unless upon the preparatory accusation of twelve or more of his fellow- subjects—the grand jury—and that the truth of every accusation, whether preferred in the shape of indictment, information, or appeal, should afterwards be confirmed by the unanimous suffrage of twelve of his equals and neighbours, indifferently chosen and superior to all suspicion. So that the liberties of England cannot but subsist so long as this palladium remains sacred and inviolate not only from all open attacks (which none will be so hardy as to make) but also from all secret machinations which may sap and undermine it, by introducing new and arbitrary methods of trial by justices of the peace, commissioners of the revenue, and courts of conscience. And, however convenient these may appear at first (as doubtless all arbitrary powers well executed are the most convenient), yet let it be again remembered that delays and little inconveniences in the forms of justice are the price that all free nations must pay for their liberty in more substantial matters; that these inroads upon this sacred bulwark of the nation are fundamentally opposite to the spirit of our constitution; and that, though begun in trifles, the precedent may gradually increase and spread to the utter disuse of juries in questions of the most momentous concern."
said, he thought he had some reason to complain of the course pursued by his hon. and learned Friend. When he asked leave to introduce the Bill, he heard nothing urged against its principle, except some desultory observations from the hon. and learned Member for Dundalk (Mr. Bowyer). Ample notice was given of the second reading, and the Bill passed without opposition until the night when it was appointed for Committee, on which occasion the hon. and learned Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ayrton) merely stated that he had some Amendments to move; while the hon. and learned Member for Dundalk, even at that time, gave no notice of any objection which would go to the principle of the Bill. He thought it inconvenient, and he might almost say unfair, to the House and to the introducer of a Bill of this kind, that no intimation should be given, until the present late stage, of an opposition to the principle of the measure. With regard to the observations of his hon. and learned Friend, he (Sir F. Thesiger) did not in the slightest degree regret having introduced the Bill; he should, indeed, regret it if it failed, as it was solely from a knowledge of the existing inconveniences and not through any pressure from other parties, that he had done so. He had adopted this course, too, after communication with the Government, who had kindly left the matter in his hands. His hon. and learned Friend had assailed the measure on the ground of principle, quoted Black-stone and other ancient names to raise a prejudice against it, and finally characterised it as a violation of the British constitution; but he (Sir F. Thesiger) could refer to more important institutions than this which had been broken in upon by legislation. In the County Courts, for instance, a single Judge decided on the interests of parties without the intervention of a jury. Now, he thought that Blackstone, if he were living, would be of opinion that that was a greater inroad on the constitution than the proposition now made. His hon. and learned Friend had referred to the danger of the present measure leading to an interference with grand juries in the country. Now, when he brought in the Bill, he had expressly guarded himself against the supposition that the measure had any such object, for he thought it was of importance that the country gentlemen should take a part in judicial proceedings, and be connected with the Judges in the administration of criminal jurisprudence. He thought, however, with regard to the Metropolitan police districts, that there were special reasons in favour of the adoption of his Bill. His hon. and learned Friend had not made himself master of his subject, for if he had read the evidence given by witnesses of great experience before the Commissioners for the Amendment of the Criminal Law, he would have found the highest names recommending that, within the metropolitan districts at least, grand juries should be dispensed with, and that a Committee of that House, composed of persons of great legal knowledge and experience, had also urged the adoption of that course in all cases where preliminary inquiries had taken place before police magistrates. The grand juries at the Central Criminal Court and at the Middlesex Sessions had been in the habit of presenting themselves session after session as not only unnecessary, but a positive obstruction to justice; while Recorder after Recorder, and Judge after Judge, had strongly expressed their opinions that grand juries might properly be dispensed with in the metropolitan police districts. The late Recorder of London, in 1852, declared in the strongest manner his opinion that grand juries were positively an impediment to the administration of justice; the grand jury at the same time made a presentment to a similar effect; and, as Attorney General under Lord Derby's Administration, he (Sir F. Thesiger) introduced a Bill for the abolition of grand juries within the metropolitan districts, which he believed would have been carried but for the dissolution of Parliament. He considered that grand juries might safely and properly be dispensed with in the metropolitan districts, where, by means of the stipendiary magistrates—who were carefully selected from the Members of the legal profession—preliminary investigations might be instituted which would be full and searching, at the same time that the interests of the accused were sufficiently protected. Such inquiries were conducted publicly, the parties charged being confronted with their accusers and their witnesses, whom they had an opportunity of cross-examining. After the case had been attended with all this publicity, which alone was a sufficient protection to the accused, for it brought the circumstances as much home to the knowledge of every person in the kingdom as if he had been present in court, the magistrate, if he saw sufficient reason, committed the accused for trial. But before a trial could take place a new tribunal of persons, sitting in a secret chamber, hearing witnesses in the absence of the accused, desultorily assembled for the purpose of deciding as to whether there should be an inquiry, which had already been decided under more favourable circumstances by the magistrate. The case was, therefore, a peculiar case, as applicable to the metropolitan police district, and did not affect any other portion of the country. If the grand jury sent the case for trial, they only endorsed the decision of the magistrate; but if, on the contrary, with their imperfect means, under any circumstances, they should throw out the bill of indictment, the greatest public evil would be done, for in that case the grand jury become an obstruction to justice. The grand jury in the metropolitan district was known as the "Hope of the London Thieves." But supposing the bill thrown out—the bill of indictment after the decision of the magistrates—would the accused party under all the circumstances of publicity be any better because he did not go to trial, more especially if he could clear his character? The public were acquainted with the accusation; they knew it was the opinion of a magistrate that the accused ought to be put upon his trial; but they could not be aware of the reasons which had induced the grand jury to ignore the bill. Whether, therefore, the grand jury found or ignored a bill, their action was supererogatory and frequently mischievous. Another strong objection to the continuance of grand juries in the metropolitan districts arose from the circumstances that persons were enabled to prefer bills without any notice to the accused parties, to obtain bench warrants for their apprehension, and to use this legal machinery for purposes of malice or extortion; and these instances were unfortunately not very rare. He trusted, then, that the principle of this Bill having beer already recognised by the House, hon. Members would consider that he had answered the objections of his hon. and learned Friend, and the more especially as this was not the stage when there ought to be any interposition to stop the further progress of the measure.
said, the Session was remarkable for the number of Bills passed through their earlier stages sub silentio on condition that their principles were to be discussed at a subsequent and unusual period. Therefore it was, that the hon. and learned Member had been allowed to pass his Bill to its present stage, the second reading having taken place at a late hour, and during the confusion of hon. Members leaving the House. He (Mr. Ayrton) endeavoured to prevent the hon. and learned Member pushing the Bill subsequently through another stage at the unseemly hour of 2 o'clock in the morning, and succeeded by hon. Members declining to be parties to such a proceeding, and quitting the House so as to reduce it below the proper number for carrying on business. The hon. and learned Gentleman (Sir F. Thesiger) had, therefore, rendered it incumbent on his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Bowyer) to take the course he had done. He (Mr. Ayrton) entirely objected to the proposition for abolishing grand juries within the metropolis. There was no institution in the country, which they could not show to have some defects, either in its origin, nature, or practical application, and if that was to be the ground on which destruction was to proceed, he knew no institution which could stand the test of such a scrutiny. He would beg to ask, what was the distinctive feature of the administration of justice in this country as compared with that of almost all others? In France, and indeed throughout the rest of Europe, the administration of criminal justice depended solely on the Crown; while, in this country, the administration of justice was a mixed operation between the Crown, the aristocracy, and the people. The latter were represented by petit juries, the aristocracy by grand juries, while the Crown presented itself in the person of the Judge. Some supposed that our mixed system of Government of Sovereign, Lords, and Commons, depended entirely on Parliament, but it had a broader basis in all the institutions of the country, of which the most important was the administration of justice; and it was to this system that we were indebted for the maintenance of liberty. He insisted that if we changed this system, and if in the metropolis the wealthy and intelligent classes were no longer to take part, as now, in the administration of justice, we should destroy one of its principal features. The grand-jury system, he would submit, did most essential service in guarding the liberty of the subject, and he must ridicule the idea that a stipendiary magistrate, a mere creature of the Home Office, was a sufficient barrier between the sub- ject and the Crown. He objected to uncontrolled power being placed in the hands of stipendiary magistrates; and, if this Bill passed, it would have the effect of giving the stipendiary magistrates of the metropolis, greater powers than any court of justice possessed, with the exception of the House of Lords, because they could refuse to commit, and thereby deprive a complainant of all means of seeking redress without appeal. He (Mr. Ayrton) knew of a case in which a magistrate of that class refused to commit parties for an assault, who were subsequently, by the intervention of the grand jury, tried, convicted, and sentenced to two years' imprisonment. It had been suggested that the grand jury of the Court of Queen's Bench, would afford a substitute for the local grand juries, but that was an error, for if that court were to sit out of Middlesex, as it might do by law, there would be no grand jury at all for the county of Middlesex. The hon. and learned Gentleman desired to get rid of certain evils connected with grand juries, and yet left the grand jury of the Court of Queen's Bench untouched. It was notorious that for the very purpose which the hon. and learned Member deemed most objectionable the grand jury of the Court of Queen's Bench was found more convenient, and that some persons chose rather to prefer indictments there than before grand juries of the Central Criminal Court. While the Queen's Bench grand jury was left, the alleged grievance of grand juries would be only partially remedied, and this measure, therefore, could not be said even to accomplish the ends which the hon. and learned Gentleman had in view. But there was a fatal objection to the Bill, that it proposed that every inhabitant of the metropolis should hold his liberty at the will of the Attorney General. There was no provision that in all cases there should be investigation before a magistrate, but there was a clause which gave the Attorney General the right to file an information for felony, a power which he had never possessed. By the mere fiat of the Attorney General, without inquiry, without oath, without even an affidavit, any individual might be committed to prison upon a charge of felony, and such a person having no right to a writ of habeas corpus, might have to lie in gaol until the Attorney General chose to discharge him or bring him to trial. It was most reckless legislation, and so insulting to the inhabitants of the largest metropolis in the world, that the Bill ought to be at once rejected. The object of grand juries was to secure an independent tribunal between the Crown and the people, so that the people might not be left to the mercy of the stipendiaries of the State. If the Committee should come to the conclusion, as he trusted they would, not to proceed further with this Bill, he would not shrink from entering into the whole question of the constitution of grand juries, and he would remind the Committee that the objections of the hon. and learned Gentleman applied to all grand juries, and not to the grand juries of the metropolis alone. There were stipendiary magistrates out of London. But were they to understand that the hon. and learned Gentleman thought the landed gentry, who exercised the powers of magistrates, were so unworthy of trust in the discharge of their duties, that it was necessary to have a special institution to watch over them? Such must be the doctrine of the hon. and learned Gentleman, in fact, though he might deny it in language; but he would advise the Committee to look to acts and disregard language, especially when it fell from the lips of a learned and accomplished lawyer. He warned hon. Members to beware how they trifled with an institution like this—seeking to abolish it in respect of two and a half millions of people, and to retain it in so many other places smaller than London. It was said there was a greater check upon magistrates in the metropolis by means of publicity, but he would remind them that there was hardly a country town where there was not a newspaper, and in the country there was tenfold more publicity, because the local papers, not concerning themselves so much about the affairs of the whole kingdom as The Times looked for support in publishing at length matters of local interest. He trusted he had said enough to prevent the Committee proclaiming, by their assent to this measure, that country justices were so deficient that, while grand juries were abolished in London, it was absolutely necessary to maintain them to watch over the conduct of the aristocracy in the country. He hoped the House would let it go forth to the inhabitants of the metropolis that their rights and privileges would be as much respected as if they had a representation commensurate with their numbers, wealth, and intelligence. Grand juries were no idle or useless tribunals. There had been 20,000 bills ignored in ten years, and 57,000 persons acquitted. It was very easy to tell a man that, if innocent, he would be acquitted upon trial; but was it no punishment to be compelled to submit to the disgrace of standing in a dock and being charged with an offence? The evils incident to grand juries were two in number. The first was, that a man might he indicted without a preliminary inquiry and without depositions. What could be easier than to pass a law, not for the metropolis alone, but the whole country, that no bill should be found by a grand jury unless an information had been taken down in writing, so that it might remain on record for the use of the accused when he was put upon his trial? The second abuse was that, when the witnesses had been examined before a magistrate, it was putting them and the public to unnecessary expense to have them examined again before the grand jury. Why not provide that the written statements on oath of the prosecutor and the witnesses should be laid before the grand jury, with liberty to send for the latter if required? By the adoption of these two provisions, they would get rid of every grievance affecting the institution of grand juries, make the administration of justice quicker and more simple, relieve witnesses and the public from unnecessary expense, and render grand juries more efficient. If grand juries had been in abeyance for great political purposes, so had the Habeas Corpus Act, for there was scarcely an instance on record of a subject being brought into Westminster Hall to be discharged from imprisonment merely oppressive on the part of the Crown. A Minister of State might wrongfully direct a subject to be seized or his house to be broken open, but by the law of England he could be indicted, with his agents, for this offence against the law. The very existence of such safeguards obviated the necessity for calling them into action, and it was because a Minister of State could be thus indicted by a grand jury, without the intervention of the Crown, that such proceedings were unknown. He believed that the liberty of the subject depended upon the maintenance of grand juries and other similar institutions. Without them Parliament would be of little avail, we might talk of liberty in the House of Commons, but we should he deprived of the means of possessing it, and we should be reduced to the state of the continental nations, where the word of command was obligatory, and those to whom it was directed had no option but to obey, whilst those who were aggrieved were dependant for redress upon the pleasure of the Crown. Such an outrage on public liberty as this Bill would effect was never before attempted; and it was the duty of the House, if they wished to prevent the ultimate predominance of a civil service class, to refuse to proceed with it, the more especially as all the evils incident to grand juries might be remedied by the two short and simple provisions he had suggested.
said, that if the Bill provided that when any ordinary case had been investigated by a police magistrate, there should be no further inquiry before a grand jury, nothing could be said against it; but it so completely substituted the police magistrate for the grand jury that it could not safely be passed into law. It was based on the assumption that there were stipendiary magistrates in every division of the metropolitan district, but this was a mistake; there were no stipendiary magistrates in the City of London; and did the hon. and learned Gentleman, who was the adviser in that House of the country party, mean to tell them that tradesmen in the City of London who might have attained a certain dignity had all the learning and experience of legally educated persons, and were competent to decide as magistrates, and that country gentlemen were not competent? The county of Essex formed a portion of the area over which the Central Criminal Court had jurisdiction, and at the present moment a man was lying in Newgate under sentence of death for a murder committed at Stratford. That man had been heard before, and committed by, county magistrates. It was true that the grand juries at the Central Criminal Court, and at the Middlesex Sessions, were in the habit of denouncing themselves as useless nuisances and obstructions, but the present Bill was not a proper remedy. The sheriffs ought to be required to summon the same class of gentlemen who were summoned to serve upon grand juries in the country, where no such depreciatory presentments were made. At present the persons summoned in London were small shopkeepers, and others to whom it was an honour to be placed even on a petty jury; but because they did not like the duties and the trouble it occasioned them, they were pleased to abuse the functions entrusted to them. The Bill proposed to give extraordinary power to the Crown. All cases within the jurisdiction of the Central Criminal Court must be heard before a police magistrate or the Attorney General; but it must be remembered that the police magistrates in the metropolitan districts were the creatures of the Crown, and held their offices only during the pleasure of the Crown. He could only speak in terms of praise of the manner in which those gentlemen now performed their duties, but a time of great political excitement might come—a meeting collecting within a mile of Westminster Hall might be dispersed with bloodshed and violence; if they appealed to a stipendiary magistrate, he would lay it down that he was precluded by the statute of Charles II., and the sufferers would have no redress, as his decision under the Bill would be final, and there would be no grand juries to appeal to, as at present. It was not right that the people of the metropolis, and the representatives of the country at large, should be at the mercy of the stipendiary magistrate and the Attorney General, which they would be under the Bill. The inhabitants of the metropolis appeared somewhat disposed to imitate the rioters of Wales in their opposition to toll-gates, and a Rebecca outbreak might occur, obnoxious members might be assaulted, and upon application to a police magistrate for redress, it might be refused, and they could go no further. The hon. and learned Gentleman told them that one of the evils of the grand jury system was, that parties could go secretly before a grand jury, and obtain a warrant against other persons for the sole purpose of extorting money. The remedy for that evil was to make such persons give security for costs. There would always be an opportunity of tampering with witnesses under any system; but that might be avoided by a recurrence to the ancient system of appointing an examining officer. Another reason against the abolition of grand juries in the metropolis was, the fact that the City of London Judges were appointed by the Corporation; and it was not likely that a prisoner would consider he had fair play from a Judge appointed by, perhaps, the influence of the alderman who bad sent his case for trial. He (Mr. M'Mahon) had no objection to the application of the principle of the Bill to minor and petty cases; but the result of passing it as it stood would be, to create a public prosecutor, an institution which he, for one, trusted never to see in this country, for then justice would be administered in England as it was on the Continent, and there would be an end to the liberty of the English people. The system of administering justice in England was as near perfection as it could be; and, as there was no way of mending the clause as it stood, he suggested that the hon. and learned Gentleman should withdraw it, at least until the Criminal Law Commission should have made its recommendation on the general subject. The Bill professed to exempt treason and misprision of treason; but, under the Treason Felony Act of 1848, the whole jurisdiction, in such cases, would be placed in the hands of the stipendiary magistrate, in consequence of that having made treason felony for the convenience of trial.
was of opinion that grand juries had afforded more protection to the liberties of the people than, perhaps, any one of our institutions. He did not believe that there was any general desire, on the part of the public, to put an end to the present system, and, at all events, a measure of this kind, if brought forward at all, ought to be introduced by the Government. He hoped the House would reject the Bill; and he, for one, would give it every opposition in his power as a metropolitan representative, as well as a representative for the whole country.
said, he looked upon this measure as only the small end of the wedge, which would be pushed much further. The intention must be to do away with grand juries altogether, which, he should consider a fatal change in the constitution. If this were not the intention, where was the necessity for this Bill? The objections to grand juries in the metropolitan districts applied with even greater force to those beyond the metropolis. It was said that in London the police courts formed a preliminary tribunal, and supplied all that was necessary. The stipendiary magistrate was the younger institution of the two, and he saw no reason why they should not co-exist, as they had hitherto done; certainly he could see no reason why one should absorb the other. For his own part, however, he did not see the benefit of trying a man before a police magistrate and then sending him before a petty jury. It was, in his opinion, an objection to the police court, that the proceedings which took place there, were in the nature of a trial. One of the great advantages of the grand-jury system was, that the case was discussed in private, and came before the petty jury without being in the slightest degree prejudged, whereas the proceedings in the police court appeared in all the newspapers, opinions were formed and expressed respecting the case, and it could not fail to be, to a considerable extent, prejudged. Another objection, too, arose with regard to the police magistrates—namely, that they were created by the Home Secretary, and only existed at the will of the Home Secretary; they were, in fact, dependent on the Home Secretary for their continuance in office and their very bread; and he would remind the Committee that Mr. Arnold, one of the metropolitan magistrates, had only last year published a pamphlet complaining of this, and adducing instances in which the police magistrates do not feel themselves independent of the Home Office. The substitution of police magistrates for grand juries, therefore, did not afford that security which was required before the Crown could put a man on his trial for a criminal offence. Mr. Justice Willes had objected to the present Bill in a recent charge to the grand jury at Hertford, and expressed a hope that it would not pass. With regard to another point, he did not think that his hon. and learned Friend (Sir F. Thesiger) had at all made out his case, that grand juries in the metropolis acted as an obstruction to justice. It was said that their investigation involved a great waste of time. It should be remembered, that grand juries saved a good deal of time by throwing out bills which must otherwise be heard by the petty jury. His own experience as a criminal lawyer convinced him (Mr. Cobbett) that grand juries, so far from obstructing the course of justice by wasting time, expedited it by the number of bills which they threw out. Among the advantages which arose front the grand jury system was the amount of information which was circulated among country gentlemen during their attendance at the assizes and amongst the middle class at sessions of the peace. There were fifty-two counties in England and Wales. Twice in the year, in each county, the Judges in their charges to grand juries, consisting of the gentry of the county, gave in fact useful lectures on law, on recent changes of law, and on social questions of all kinds. The gentry, in their turn, lectured farmer and tradesmen from the bench at quarterly sessions, and taking six grand juries in each county, there could not be less than six thousand persons of these two important classes of the community who were bound to come and sit quietly and listen to these lectures every year. Every man went home a better informed man than when he came. Was there no advantage in an institution like this? But, this was not all; Judges and Governments learned something from grand juries. For years great efforts had been made to mitigate the severity of the criminal code of this country, but the Legislature remained unmoved, despite the efforts of Sir Samuel Romilly and others, until a petition from the grand jury of London (the very grand jury now proposed to be abolished) was presented by Mr. Brougham in 1830, which, stating that juries would not convict in the clearest cases in which the punishment of death was inflicted for comparatively trifling crimes, led to the abolition of that punishment in numberless cases, and brought about the change that others had vainly sought to obtain from Parliament. He trusted, under the circumstances, that the hon. and learned Member would withdraw his Bill for the present, and bring it forward again with any practicable amendments of the system, but preserving the principle; if he did not, he (Mr. Cobbett) should be compelled to vote against it.
said, that, believing that the Bill was capable of being made safe and valuable by the aid of alterations which might he engrafted on it, he should not support any Motion the effect of which would be to throw it out altogether. It had been said that the Bill would subvert the whole grand jury system of England but he did not believe that such a result would follow, and the hon. and learned Member, who had introduced the Bill, had himself stated that it was his desire to maintain the system throughout the country generally. As to the objection that the measure was opposed to principle, he thought that the whole question resolved itself into this—had such a strong case of public expediency been made out with regard to the metropolitan district as would justify them in passing the Bill, although it was to a certain extent an infringement of the ancient criminal law of the country. He (Mr. Baines) would not meddle with any institution without a strong legislative necessity; but when that necessity existed he could not withhold his support from remedial measures. The House had not long since given its assent to the Bill for the increase of summary jurisdiction in cases of larceny, and that Bill had been an improvement upon the old system, although it was a great innovation on the old system of criminal law. The real question was, whether this Bill was calculated to promote the salutary and effective administration of justice? If the Bill would prevent the escape of the guilty, which in a great many instances now occurred, and if it would prevent that danger to the innocent which was also of frequent occurrence, he thought that no one could doubt that the operation of the measure would he beneficial. It was said that Mr. Justice Willes had expressed an opinion unfavourable to this Bill; but that learned Judge had had little experience in the administration of criminal justice in the metropolitan district; and when he remembered what had been said upon this subject by the Criminal Law Commissioners, and by those who had had the best opportunity of watching the administration of criminal justice within the City of London, especially by the late Recorder (Mr. Stuart Wortley), who was no wanton innovator on the rights and privileges of the people, and than whom a more upright, honourable, and able judge never sat upon the bench, he came to the conclusion that some such measure as that now proposed ought to receive the sanction of Parliament. Under the circumstances he thought that the Committee should not reject the Bill, but that they should proceed with its consideration, and should endeavour to render it as efficient as possible.
said, he felt bound to vote for the Motion of the hon. and learned Member for Dundalk. It had been said that the opinion of Recorder after Recorder and Judge after Judge who had sat at the Central Criminal Court, was in favour of the abolition of grand juries there. That opinion, no doubt, was formed from what they had seen from time to time passing in the Central Criminal Court, but he imagained that those considerations, unconnected with the ordinary business of the Court, which, in the course of the present discussion, had been presented to the notice of the House, had not been brought under their attention, and that they had not regarded the question from an enlarged point, or weighed how far the abolition of the grand jury system would affect the liberty of the subject. The right hon. and learned Gentleman who had just sat down had not given the slightest reply to the objection of his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Ayrton). The argument that the only remedy against an officer of the Crown would be removed by the abolition of the grand jury had not been answered. That was a grave consideration in connection with the Bill. He had also instanced a case where a person, accused of a crime was discharged by a police magistrate, but subsequently the grand jury found a true bill, and he was tried and sentenced to a considerable term of imprisonment. Nor did he (Mr. John Locke) think that the clause providing against the abolition of grand juries in cases of treason and misprision of treason went far enough, for the interests of the Crown might come in collision with those of the subject in the most ordinary cases. He, therefore, maintained that the subject should retain the right of claiming that protection which he had hitherto enjoyed in the intervention of the grand jury.
said, he had come to the consideration of this question perfectly unbiased, but having heard the arguments urged against the Bill, would vote in favour of the Amendment. The speech of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Stamford, and all the arguments in it, went to the abolition of grand juries generally. The hon. and learned Gentleman said the grand jury of London was unnecessary and obstructive, but then he had only proved his case by arguments which referred to grand juries generally.
stated, that he was physically unable to say much, but he was extremely anxious to say that if the Bill had for one of its consequences the abolition of grand juries all over the country, as well as at the Central Criminal Court, he should feel bound to oppose it. But no part of the statement of the hon. and learned Member for Stamford warranted such an inference. The advantages of the grand jury system in the country were very great, particularly in bringing the gentry of the country into contact with the administration of justice; but the contrary was the case in the Metropolitan districts, owing to the different class from which Metropolitan grand juries were taken. He admitted that the Bill required Amendment, but he thought there could be no second opinion that public examination before a police magistrate would be far more advantageous to the prisoner, as well as to the public, than a private examination before a grand jury. Looking, therefore, at the principle involved in the Bill, he (the Solicitor General) considered it, would be a serious evil if it was rejected in its present stage.
said, he had listened attentively to the arguments in favour of the Bill, but he had not heard any reasons assigned for making a distinction between the metropolis and the country with regard to the abolition of grand juries. Indeed, some of the arguments in favour of the measure told as strongly against the maintenance of grand juries in the country as in the metropolitan districts. For his own part, he did not think that because some abuses existed it was desirable to abolish an institution which was essentially beneficial. It had been said that grand juries might be dispensed with in a large town much more safely than in the country; but it must be remembered that the metropolis was parcelled out into districts which were under the jurisdiction of a small number of magistrates, and if grand juries were abolished, and for reasons of any kind these magistrates—to whom he did not intend to impute any corrupt or improper motives—should refuse to deal with cases submitted to them, there would be an absolute denial of justice. It was said that under such circumstances an application might be made to the Attorney General, but he did not think that in any case between the subject and the Crown it was likely recourse would be had to that official. As to the argument which had been drawn from the Summary Jurisdiction Bill, in favour of this measure, he must remind the Committee that that Act was voluntary, and not compulsory. The hon. and learned Gentleman opposite had said that grand juries in country districts were generally composed of country gentlemen, and he (Mr. Henley) was glad to find that that class—who did not usually get credit for having more wit than their neighbours—were so far at a premium; but he thought the great body of tradesmen in this metropolis were quite as fit to be trusted with the duties of grand jurors as any country gentleman. A London special jury was said to be the best tribunal before which man could be tried, and who were they but the same class which composed the London grand jury. Besides, the cases which the magistrates had to decide were different from those decided by grand juries; for in the one case the magistrate had only to decide if there was evidence enough to warrant sending the accused for trial; whereas, the grand jury went a step farther, and decided if that evidence was sufficient to procure a conviction, and therefore one inconvenience which would result from the adoption of the Bill would be that in cases where magistrates were now accustomed to take bail on committal, they would be compelled to pursue inquiry much further, and defendants would be kept under remand for a considerable time before they were committed. It was further alleged that the Bill might be amended in Committee, but he could see on the paper no notice of any Amendment which would materially alter its main features. For these reasons, therefore, he felt it his duty to support the Motion of the hon. and learned Member for Dundalk.
Motion made, and Question put, "That the Chairman do now leave the Chair."
The Committee divided:—Ayes 80; Noes187: Majority 107.
said, if the clause was allowed to stand as it was, no grand jury whatever could under any circumstances be assembled within the district of the Central Criminal Court, and he could conceive that under such an arrangement grave cases might occur in which there would be an entire failure of justice. In the case of a riot or some great public nuisance the magistrate before whom the charge was brought might refuse, on some ground or other, to commit; for instance, one alderman carrying on a similar manufactory in the City of London, might be complained of before another alderman carrying on a similar manufactory, and the result would be that there would be no satisfactory judicial inquiry into the matter at all. He thought it would be desirable that the clause should be amended so as to meet such cases by providing that a grand jury should be summoned at least once or twice a year within the district. As, however, the Committee could not then amend the clause, he should suggest that its consideration be postponed, with the view to such an Amendment being moved on the bringing up of the Report.
said, the only argument urged in favour of the application of the Bill to the metropolis exclusively was the existence of the police magistrates; but it ought to be borne in mind that the whole of the metropolitan police districts were not under the control of the police magistrates. The grand jurors of London were a most intelligent body of men, and quite capable of coming to a just and fair, and right and discrimi- nating decision upon any matters submitted to them in their capacity of grand jurors.
said, he must decline to postpone the consideration of the first clause in order to allow the hon. and learned Member for Wexford (Mr. M'Mahon), to introduce, at some future period, an Amendment which would violate the principle of the Bill. He did not think that such a retrospective proceeding would be a satisfactory manner of conducting their deliberations, and trusted that the Committee would adhere to the resolution which it had already pronounced by a large majority. The question which they were now called upon to determine was whether the first clause, which embodied the whole principle of the Bill, should stand part of the measure. He (Sir F. Thesiger) had been accused of having smuggled in the Bill; but he had no interest whatever in the measure; and in urging on the second reading at the unseemly hour to which the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets adverted, he had only availed himself of the sole opportunity afforded him, and done what any other private Member would have done. Should the Bill be passed into a law all parties would still have an opportunity of going before the grand jury of the Court of Queen's Bench—a fact which might remove many of the objections urged against the Bill. The Attorney General at the present moment, besides the power of filing ex officio informations, might enter a nolle prosequi, and prevent any prosecution. In the course of his own official existence he had occasion to enter a nolle prosequi upon an indictment under circumstances in which he thought there was an attempt to convert the criminal law into an engine of extortion, by keeping an indictment hanging over the head of the accused. It was not, therefore, such an unconstitutional course to say that, supposing a magistrate should refuse to entertain a complaint, and the parties should desire to have the matter investigated, they should have an opportunity of going before the Attorney General. In Ireland the Attorney General had the power of deciding whether accused persons should be sent to trial or not. Plausible and even unanswerable arguments could be advanced against any measure that might be proposed; but the question for the consideration of the Committee was whether the evils incident to the system of grand juries in the metropolis were greater than those which, might be produced by his Bill. He did not believe that police magistrates, exercising their power in public, would exercise it corruptly on behalf of the Government. He should like to see them made entirely independent, by appointing them to their offices during good behaviour. Practically they were independent, because no Secretary of State would remove them while they honestly and satisfactorily performed their duties. The question was whether this clause should stand part of the Bill, and that question involved the principle in favour of which the Committee had decided by a large majority.
said, he had made no imputation of smuggling the Bill through the second reading against the hon. and learned Gentleman. All he wished to show was that no debate had taken place on the principle of the Bill. He would observe, however, that it was strange that the hon. and learned Gentleman should have complained of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Wexford (Mr. M'Mahon) making retrospective observations, and yet he himself immediately made observations of the same character, and, in fact, addressed himself to the principle of the measure. The question was properly raised, to what extent were they about to carry this destructive legislation? He thought the proposal of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Wexford was a most reasonable one; and if the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Stamford did not accede to it, he would continue his opposition to the measure on every clause and every word in the Bill. He was not disposed to pay much respect to a division in which twice as many hon. Members voted as were present during the debate, and he thought such a proceeding, although constitutional, added little to the dignity and character of the House. It was perfectly true that the Committee had affirmed by its vote that grand juries were to a certain extent to be abolished, and that the preamble of the Bill stated that it was desirable to dispense with the attendance of grand juries at the Central Criminal Court and at the courts of general and quarter sessions in the metropolitan police districts, except in particular cases. It was, however, a question of degree how far that legislation should be carried. The hon. and learned Gentleman said the groundwork of the Bill was that there were stipendiary magistrates in the metro- polis who cautiously and carefully examined cases which were brought before them, and protected the interests of the people. What other inference could be drawn but that the gentlemen who acted as magistrates in the country could not be trusted to the same extent, and that they did not discharge their duties as well as the stipendiary magistrates in London? This was an indictment against the country magistrates, and those who wished to uphold the character of those gentlemen in the administration of justice were bound to vote against the Bill.
House resumed; Committee report progress; to sit again To-morrow.
Lambeth Election
The Serjeant at Arms attending this House, informed the House that, pursuant to their Order of the 13th day of this instant July, he had taken Joseph Tredre into his custody.
Ordered, That the Serjeant at Arms do take the said Joseph Tredre to the Select Committee appointed to try and determine the matter of the petition, complaining of an undue election and return for the borough of Lambeth, when and so often as he shall be required by the said Committee so to do.
Mayo Election—Report
House informed, That the Committee had determined,—
That George Henry Moore, esquire, is not duly Elected a Knight of the Shire to serve in this present Parliament for the County of Mayo.
That the last Election for the said County, so far as regards the Return of the said George Henry Moore, esquire, is a void Election.
And the said Determinations were ordered to be entered in the Journals of this House.
Bury St Edmund's Election
Report
House informed, That the Committee had determined,—
That Joseph Alfred Hardcastle, esquire, is duly Elected a Burgess to serve in this present Parliament for the Borough of Bury St. Edmund's.
And the said Determination was ordered to be entered in the Journals of this House.
The Australian Mail Company
Question
said, he wished to ask the Secretary to the Treasury what is the number of steam vessels which the post Office agreed with the European and Australian Mail Company should be placed on the line from Australia to Suez; was proper security taken by the Post Office before the line was opened that the proper number of vessels were placed on the station; did the number of vessels agreed upon provide against a contingency, or loss, or break down of one or more of the vessels?
said, the contract between the Australian Mail Company and the Government provided that they should have at least six vessels engaged in the service, but they were bound to perform the service irrespective of this, and to have therefore in reserve a sufficient number of steamers to provide for breakdowns. The full number of packets was put upon the station in October last, but the Oneida, as the House was aware, broke down. The Government had called for the enforcement of the penalty for the non-performance of that voyage, but he felt bound to say, with regard to the rest of the service, that it had been performed entirely to the satisfaction of the Post Office, and that the arrivals had been within the time limited by the contract. Immediately on its being known that the Oneida had broken down, another steamer was despatched by the Company round the Cape of Good Hope. Everything, therefore, had been done which could be done by the company; and, on the other hand, the Government, as he had stated, had enforced the penalty under the terms of the contract for the non-performance of that particular voyage.
The Indian Mutiny—Question
Sir, I wish to make several inquiries respecting the present state of affairs in India, and also to ask whether Her Majesty's Government will afford to the House a convenient opportunity to express some opinion upon this the most considerable event which has happened in India within the recollection probably of any of us. The House will bear in mind that nearly a fortnight ago, when the occurrence of these calamities was first notified, I addressed a question to the Government in the absence of the noble Lord. The main object I had in view in making this inquiry was, first of all, that we might know what measures the Government were about to take under these disastrous circumstances; and, secondly, that the House might obtain, if possible, some general idea of the Government of what they believed to be the cause of these calamities. The House upon that occasion was told that the Governor General had written home in great spirits, and we were allowed to infer that affairs were not of so serious a character as I fear it would be the greatest want of prudence on our part now to question. Since then we have had news of considerable importance, but it has been communicated to us only in outline by the electric telegraph. What I would wish to learn from the noble Lord is, first, whether the despatches which I suppose are in the possession of the Government will enable him to give more detailed and authentic information to the House as to the present position of affairs in India; and, secondly, whether he will assist the House by giving it the earliest possible opportunity of expressing its views upon the causes and probable consequences of the present state of affairs in India? The other night there were some observations made respecting the Indian Budget, which was expected shortly to be brought in, and I understood privately that there would be no objection, to introducing it to our notice without loss of time. If Her Majesty's Government took that course it would afford a legitimate opportunity for the House dispassionately to discuss the present position of affairs in India. It would of course be open to me, or to any hon. Member, on going into Committee of Supply—on Thursday, for instance—to call the attention of the House to Indian affairs, but there are very important matters connected indirectly with those affairs which are already appointed for discussion on that day. The Persian and Chinese wars will be brought under our consideration on Thursday by the Votes to be proposed by the Minister, and it appears to me that it would be highly inconvenient to discuss indirectly the condition of matters in our Indian empire. I would ask then, first, whether the noble Lord will favour the House with what he believes to be the most authentic information that can be obtained on the exact position of affairs in India at the present time? I should be glad, in the second place, to hear from the noble Lord what are the steps which the Government, under the circumstances, are prepared to adopt; and, lastly, I would ask whether the noble Lord will permit the Indian Budget to be introduced to the notice of the House on Friday next, so that there may be afforded, upon the present serious condition of affairs, at least an opportunity for the expression of the opinion of the House of Commons?
Her Majesty's Government have received despatches the substance of which has been already communicated by electric telegraph from Marseilles, and I believe there are other despatches coming which will arrive by way of Southampton, and which may or may not convey further information. I should say, generally, that the despatches which have been received from Marseilles contain, only in more amplification and detail, the same information as to events in India, of which the substance was previously communicated by electric telegraph. Further, I should say, in general terms, that the intelligence which has reached the Government is not fuller than, and does not vary from, that which has been published through private sources in the ordinary channels of daily information. Her Majesty's Government, however, will, in redemption of the assurance which I gave yesterday, lay without delay upon the table of the House such portions of the correspondence now received, together with that received before, as may be sufficient to give the House the fullest information that we can afford with regard to the course of events. With, respect to the question put by the right hon. Gentleman as to an opportunity for discussing these very important matters, it is, of course, exceedingly natural that there should be a desire on the part of leading Members of the House, like the right hon. Gentleman, to express their opinions upon the question; but I think that it would be desirable before doing so that they should first see the papers which I shall lay upon the table. When they are there, they may be considered to be either full or not full; but I think, at all events, that it would not be in accordance with the usual practice of Parliament to originate a discussion pending the production of papers which, perhaps to-morrow or the next day, may be laid upon the table of the House. With regard to bringing the subject on, therefore, upon Friday, I should think that the right hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members would find that they had not had the papers long enough in their hands to enable them to discuss the question satisfactorily on so early a day; but the Government have no wish to put off the discussion longer than is necessary to enable them to give full information on the subject, and when the papers are laid upon the table, which shall be without any loss of time, it will be for the right hon. Gentleman to fix a day for bringing the subject under the consideration of the House.
It is, I think, very important that we should have some general understanding from the noble Lord as to how far back the papers which he intends to lay upon the table will extend; because if they are to be confined to a mere narrative of events, which the noble Lord tells us we have already obtained accurately from other sources, their production will be of no great utility, and to defer the discussion on their account would only lead to an inconvenient delay at the present period of the Session. If, however, I understand from the noble Lord that we shall have despatches placed on the table which will give the House information as to the accounts which the Government received as to the state of India during the time that they were draining India of troops to send them to China or to Persia, I admit, at once, that they would be most important papers, without which we should be unable, probably, to form a fair opinion of the conduct of the Ministers; and I certainly should not wish to precipitate a discussion without those documents. But if I consent not to avail myself of the opportunity afforded by the forms of the House of bringing on the subject on the first supply night, it will be only on the understanding that we shall be put in possession of papers of a date so far back as to enable us to know what degree of information was in possession of the Ministry when they gave the counsels which led to the war with Persia, as well as to the recent revolt in India.
We shall present such papers as we think best calculated to put the House in possession of the fullest information, and it will be for the right hon. Gentleman, when they are presented, if he does not think them full enough, to point out in what respects he considers them to be deficient.
There is one point that I am more anxious about than any discussion that can take place. When my noble Friend was asked a ques- tion the other evening, he said that he would state what the Government were about to do in consequence of the intelligence which they had received. The statement which he made, however, was very general, and I am not surprised that it was so, as at that time only a telegraphic message had been received; but now that the Government are in receipt of the despatches, I confess that I am very anxious to hear a fuller and more specific statement upon that point. I hope that the reinforcements which will be sent to India will be sufficient, and I trust that the Government, when they have fully decided what they intend to do, will make a complete statement to the House of their intentions. Provided that the force to be sent out is adequate, I think that the House would not gather much more from a discussion than it would gain from such a statement as I have referred to.
The best answer, I think, that I can give to my noble Friend is this—that previous to the receipt of the despatches which arrived yesterday, Her Majesty's Government had made arrangements for sending, with the utmost promptitude, large reinforcements to India—in fact, that the reinforcements which they had determined to send were rather greater than Lord Canning stated to be essential and asked for. Of course, the House will not expect that I should enter into a detail of the regiments or their stations; but I may state generally, that, although the Government feel no apprehension or alarm as to the ultimate result of these unfortunate events, yet they feel it to be their duty to act as if there were real reason for alarm, and to leave nothing undone which is within the reach of administrative functions, in order to provide for any emergency that may happen, or might have happened, in India since the receipt of the last despatches.
There is one more question on this subject which I should wish to ask. Rumours are prevalent that for a considerable time past the late General Anson had made strong representations to the Government that danger was imminent in India, in consequence of disaffection in the Bengal army. I wish to ask whether the papers to be laid upon the table of the House will contain full extracts from the correspondence of General Anson upon that subject?
If the House will permit me, perhaps I may be allowed, as the Chairman of the Board of Directors, to answer that question. When the same rumour was referred to on a former occasion I stated that I had never seen one single line on the subject in the shape of a warning in any official document from General Anson. The rumour, however, being so strong, and apparently so generally believed I made a more strict and special search at the India-house to-day, and I can now state positively, that we have not one single word of warning, or of notice, given by General Anson on the subject of the disaffection of the Bengal army.
Perhaps the noble Lord at the head of the Government would inform us whether it is in his power to fix an early day for the renewal of the debate with respect to the productions of India, upon the Motion of my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport.
I am quite aware of the interest taken by the manufacturing districts in the question to which my hon. Friend alludes, and if I thought that in the present state of Indian affairs the debate could be confined to the production of cotton, I should be very willing to devote the morning of Tuesday next to the subject; but probably it would be better, under the circumstances, to postpone that matter for a little, until the debate to be raised by the right hon. Gentleman opposite on the general question shall have terminated.
Although the reinforcements which the Government propose to send to India may exceed the number which the Governor General thought he should require, it is obvious, that the House of Commons, as well as the Government, has a duty to perform in this matter, and I should be glad if the noble Lord at the head of the Government could give us some definite idea of the time when the debate upon the general question may be expected.
I think that it would have been more satisfactory to the House if an answer to the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Radnorshire (Sir J. Walsh) had been given by the Member of the Government who is responsible for the Indian Department in this House, instead of by the hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Mangles). The question is a very important one.
My hon. Friend answered the question of the hon. Baronet the Member for Radnorshire, not as the Member for Guildford, but as Chairman of the Court of Directors of the East India Company. General Anson has had no communication with the Government, but with the Court of Directors, and if he had wished to point out any deficiency in the army of Bengal or elsewhere his course would have been, as a military member of the Council of India, to put a Minute upon record of his opinion. That Minute would have been taken notice of by the whole Council, including the Governor General, by whom it would have been transmitted home to the Court of Directors. No such Minute, so far as I am aware, ever was made by the late General Anson, nor do I know that he ever expressed any opinion with respect to the existence of disaffection in any portion of the Bengal army.
said, that as some hon. Gentlemen near him were not satisfied that they had thoroughly understood the reply given to his question, he begged to ask whether any official communication whatever had been received by any department of Government from General Anson, calling attention to the existence of disaffection in the Bengal army?
replied, that no such communication had been received.
asked whether any communication had been received from Sir W. Gomm on the subject?
said, he believed not; but he was not at the Board of Control while that officer was Commander in Chief.
said, that while he was President of the Board of Control nothing of the kind was received.
Weights And Measures In Ireland
Question
said, he wished to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland if the Bill for the regulation of Weights and Measures in Ireland, which was promised by the late Chief Secretary for Ireland, at the commencement of the Session, in a few days to be laid on the table of the House, is now ready, and when it may be expected to be presented to the House?
said, he was not aware that it had been contemplated to introduce a Bill for the exclusive object of regulating weights and measures in Ireland; but a Bill had been prepared, which he hoped to be able to lay on the table shortly, not with the view of passing it this Session, but for the purpose of circulation in Ireland, for the regulation of fairs and markets in Ireland. That Bill would contain a clause rendering the use of the imperial standard measure in all fairs and markets imperative.
said, that that Bill had nothing to do with weights and measures.
Civil Service
Resolution Moved
then rose to move the following Resolution:—
He said, that the answer he had received a few days ago from the Chancellor of the Exchequer on this subject was so unsatisfactory that he had no alternative except to appeal from what appeared to be the present decision of the Government to the opinion of the House of Commons. He had observed with regret a material difference between the expectations raised by the Chancellor of the Exchequer at the end of last Session, and the course which appeared from the last Report of the Civil Service Commissioners to have been since followed by the Government on this subject. In July last the right hon. Gentleman, in stating his intention with regard to the system of admission to the Civil Service, divided the offices included in it into three classes. The first class contained officers in the position of tidewaiters, post-office messengers, and post-masters, and those who filled the lowest offices in the Civil Service of the Crown, to whose case, in the opinion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the system of competitive examination would be inapplicable. To save the time of the House, he did not on the present occasion intend to contest that opinion, The other classes into which the right hon. Gentleman divided the Civil Service were two in number—the one comprising those clerkships in the superior offices such as those of the Secretaries of State, who were appointed by the heads of their respective departments, and the other those in the Revenue Departments, the clerks in which were nominated by the Treasury; that was to say in theory by the First Lord, but in practice by the parliamentary secretary. With respect to the first of those two classes, the Chancellor of the Exchequer stated last July that it was the intention of the Government to extend to all those departments the system then followed in the colonial and some other offices, under which limited competition was introduced, and a certain number of persons nominated by the heads of departments competed together for the vacancies. Now, he had examined the last Report of the Civil Service Commissioners, and he found that instead of that system having been extended to all those offices, it had been adopted in only two departments of that description, which had not already adopted it in July last—namely, the Home Office and the Board of Works; and there was evidence in the Report to show that it had not been adopted in the Foreign Office, the Indian Board, the Board of Trade, the Admiralty, and the Exchequer. In the statement made the other night by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that right hon. Gentleman said that, though he individually approved of that mode of appointment, it was not the intention of the Government to lay down any general rule upon the subject, but that the matter would be left to the discretion of the heads of the different departments. With respect to the other class into which the right hon. Gentleman divided the Civil Service, his statement was still more unsatisfactory. In July the right hon. Gentleman told the House that he thought the mode of appointment to clerkships in the Revenue Departments required additional securities. Those were the right hon. Gentleman's precise words, and yet in the Report of the Civil Service Commissioners there was no evidence that any steps had been taken to afford such additional securities. He found that no change had been made in the mode of appointment to these offices, though the organ of the Government considered it capable of amendment, and when he addressed his question to the right hon. Gentleman the other night nothing was said on this point. Therefore an impression was left on his mind that, though the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman remained unchanged, it was not the intention of the Government to act in any way on that opinion. Under these circumstances he felt that, as there appeared to be no longer any hope of the promises held out last July being fulfilled, he had no alternative, if he did not wish to see this question retrograde, but to appeal from the decision of the Government to the opinion of the House of Commons. His object was to obtain from the House an expression of their approval of the competitive system as a mode of admission to the Civil Service, and he might almost be content to rest his Motion upon the facts which had been disclosed since this subject first engaged the notice of the public and of Parliament. In 1853, Sir Stafford North-cote and Sir Charles Trevelyan made a Report upon the reorganization of the Civil Service, which had since attracted very general attention. In consequence of that Report the Government of Lord Aberdeen introduced into the Speech from the Throne in 1854 a paragraph which clearly implied their intention to propose a Bill embodying the general principle which he (Lord Goderich) was now advocating; but owing to the war in which this country was then engaged, and the state of public affairs, such a measure was never laid upon the table. In 1855, however, the Order in Council was issued which at present regulated the mode of admission to the Civil Service. Reports had been presented by the very able Commissioners—Sir J. S. Lefevre and Sir E. Ryan—who were appointed to carry into effect the provisions of the Order in Council, which showed that those who objected to the previously existing system of appointment had had ample grounds for their opinions. The first of those Reports proved, upon the clearest evidence, that under the system formerly pursued a very large number of most incompetent persons had been admitted to the Civil Service, and that, although the questions put at the examinations were generally of the simplest description, one out of three of the persons nominated for appointments were rejected on account of the most ridiculous errors. He regretted that the second Report of the Commissioners, prepared when the new system had been in operation for two years, showed little improvement. The proportion between rejections and admissions remained the same, and persons nominated for appointments in the public service still spelt fingers "fingures," put only one n in the word government, and committed faults similar to those mentioned in the first Re- port. The evidence brought forward by the Commissioners went directly to sustain the proposal for an extension of the system of competition; and, indeed, the Chancellor of the Exchequer had admitted as much in the course of the speech he had delivered last July. The Civil Service Commissioners had since made a most interesting Report, which showed at once that the public were extremely ready to enter into the competitive system, and that the persons appointed under it were not less zealous in the discharge of their duties than those appointed under a different method. It used to be said that the advocates of the competitive system were mere theorists. But that argument could no longer be employed, for it was clearly proved in these blue-books that the competitive system, as far as it had been tried, had been attended with most satisfactory results. The fact was—and all experience proved it—that those who in early youth devoted themselves to study with an earnestness which ensured to them success in an intellectual competition were in the vast majority of cases persons on whose moral qualifications and zeal in the discharge of their duties reliance might safely be placed. He was prepared to rest his Motion on the facts he had already referred to, and to trespass no further on the House; but as the argument had been all on one side when the subject was formerly before them, he wished to refer to some objections which might possibly have weight in the minds of some hon. Members. He believed that he could show that the adoption of the system of competitive examination would be attended with many direct and indirect advantages. He conceived that the object of those who had the power of giving appointments in the public service ought to be to select the most fit persons to fill vacant situations. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had divided the offices in the Civil Service into two classes, and he (Lord Goderich) would apply the system of competition to both those classes. He would take first the class of clerkships in the superior offices. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said last year that the heads of departments exercised great care in making such appointments, and that it was their direct interest to select properly qualified persons; but he (Lord Goderich) doubted whether a Secretary of State, or the President of the Board of Control, or the heads of important departments, considering the duties they had to discharge, could be able to make very close inquiries with regard to the qualifications of the clerks they might appoint. Surely such an official could have no better test of the ability of a young man than a competitive examination, and it would be a great assistance to him in making his appointments. He was bound to consider, not merely the capacity of the candidate for the duties of the office he would be immediately called on to fill, but also his qualification for the higher posts to which he might afterwards be promoted. A competitive examination alone would test the latter. A pass examination, if fixed at the lowest standard, would give no proof of a candidate possessing qualification for the higher posts; if fixed at the highest standard, it would be so severe that very few young men would be able to pass it. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had admitted the whole case with regard to many of the offices in the Civil Service, when he said that with respect to them additional security was required. It appeared that at present no competition was required, and that the Secretary of the Treasury simply nominated individuals at his pleasure. In nineteen months since the present system of examination had been introduced, the Secretary to the Treasury had nominated to 240 clerkships in the Inland Revenue Board, and Customs departments, being at the rate of about thirteen each month. Now, it was impossible that any man could make sufficient inquiries as to the qualifications of thirteen individuals every month. The right hon. Gentleman was necessarily much open to political influence in making these appointments; but he (Lord Goderich) had no hesitation in saying that such influence was of a very injurious character. It had a tendency to vitiate the relations between the Government and the Members of the House on the one hand, and between those hon. Members and their constituents on the other. He did not think it befitted the dignity of that House that the votes at elections should be influenced by the expectation that the candidates would solicit a number of clerkships from the Secretary to the Treasury on behalf of the electors or their friends and relatives. Though there was no corruption in that system, so far as regarded the relation between the Government and the hon. Members who solicited those clerkships, yet it afforded ample room for corruption so far as concerned the relation between the hon. Members and their con- stituents. The Legislature had attempted to put down bribery and corruption at elections by stringent laws. Here, then, was one source of corruption which might be cut off by abolishing the nomination system, and introducing that which he advocated. The system of procuring votes by promises to solicit places from the Secretary to the Treasury was almost as bad as that of purchasing the votes of Members of Parliament in the days of Sir Robert Walpole. He challenged the Chancellor of the Exchequer to show that the security, so far as regarded the qualification of the public officers, which his (Lord Goderich's) system would afford, would be less than that afforded by the present system; and he contended that it would be greater. One of the indirect benefits which would accrue from the adoption of his system was the great support which it would give to the cause of public education. The ability and zeal of the right hon. Baronet the Member for Droitwich (Sir J. Pakington) had failed to procure the passing of a Bill for the promotion of public education, and he thought that there was little chance of a Bill of that kind passing at present. Let the House, then, at least advance the cause of education by the adoption of his system. They had the highest testimony to the efficiency of that system in so doing, for some of the ablest and most experienced men in the country had expressed their approval of it. The Society of Arts had adopted a system of examining members of Mechanics' Institutes, and of granting certificates. That system had been highly successful as an incentive to study. He admitted that its introduction was owing to an unhappy misapprehension that, in consequence of the success of his Motion of last year, the Government intended to introduce a competitive system of examination, which would afford young men an opportunity of obtaining admission into the various departments of the public service. The case of Ireland afforded an illustration of the effect which the adoption of this principle might produce. A gentleman, whose name would be received with the greatest respect by all connected with the sister country, and who had recently been appointed one of the Commissioners to inquire into the endowed schools of Ireland—he meant Dr. Graves—had told him that in his inspection of schools of that description, he had found that public attention in Ireland was greatly directed to this ques- tion of competition for entrance into the public service. He said that the competitions which had been established for admission to the Artillery and Engineers at Woolwich, and to the Civil Service of the East India Company, had commanded universal attention throughout Ireland; that he had found new classes established in various schools, and attention directed to subjects which had never before excited any interest on the part of masters or pupils; and that a great stimulus had manifestly been given to education even by the partial adoption of the competitive system. The effect in Ireland did not stop there. The hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. G. A. Hamilton) would, if he spoke, be able to bear similar testimony to that which he had just cited. According to the testimony of Professors Galbraith and Haughton, of Dublin University, special classes had been established at that university for the purpose of preparing the students to engage in these public competitions. This salutary impulse affected not one class of students merely, but the entire body; and it also reached the pupils below them. The experience of the north of England was similar in its character. He hardly ever attended a meeting at a mechanics' institute without hearing a hope expressed that the principle of competition would be applied as a mode of admission to the public service. That system was, in fact, used as an argument to incite the young men to study, and it often induced them to turn their attention to many subjects to which they would not otherwise direct their minds. It was on these grounds that he ventured to submit this Motion to the House. He had drawn it up in the most moderate terms, believing that it was not the business of the House of Commons to dictate to Her Majesty's Government the details of a measure of this description. All he asked hon. Gentlemen to do was to declare that they were favourable to extending the application of the principle of competition, and that they thought the experience, detailed in the Report of the Commissioners, showed that it had worked well as far as it had gone, while there was every reason to believe that if carried further it would work still better. It might be that, in accordance with the opinion expressed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer last year, the system of limited competition, should be applied to the higher offices, or the offices which he described as those of the first class; and that, in regard to those appointments to which the Secretary of the Treasury at present nominated, and with respect to which the right hon. Gentleman himself admitted that there was not sufficient security, the principle of open competition should be tried. All that he now asked the House to pledge itself to, however, was that it was desirable to press the Government forward in this matter, and that the system of competition ought to be more widely extended. Before sitting down, he ought, perhaps, to make some remarks in reference to a subject on which there appeared to be some misapprehension in the minds of some hon. Gentlemen. When this subject was brought before the last Parliament the erroneous notion seemed to be entertained that the advocates of competition wished that principle to be applied to promotion within the public service. That was quite a mistake. The conditions of the two cases were wholly different. In regard to first nominations, what they wanted was a system which would enable them to test the qualifications of candidates of whom they could have little or no previous knowledge. On the other hand, the clerks whom they had to promote must have been some time under the eye of their superiors, and daily engaged in that practical competition which was worth all the other competition in the world; and therefore on the heads of departments, who were the best judges of their capabilities, the responsibility for their promotion should rest. He should not have trespassed any longer on the attention of the House, were it not that he perceived from the notice paper that his noble Friend (Viscount Raynham) intended to move an Amendment to his Motion. He regretted that he could not agree to that Amendment, which it would seem, his noble Friend had not sufficiently considered. He was not enamoured of the system of limited competition—he would, personally, much prefer an open competition, but he wished to avoid the appearance of desiring to force the Government into the hasty and precipitate adoption of that principle. At the same time, he could not assent to vote for a Motion which would pledge the House to the opinion that a limited system of competition was the best. His noble Friend's Amendment was, "That it is desirable that the nomination of all persons desirous of competing for vacant appointments in the Civil Service should rest with the heads of the departments in which the vacancies occur." Take the case of the revenue departments. Did his noble Friend mean that the right to nominate should be vested, as it was now, in the Secretary of the Treasury, or did he mean to vest it in the Chairman of the Board of Customs and the Chairman of the Board of Inland Revenue? This point ought to be made clear. If the choice lay between nomination by permanent officers like the Chairman of those two boards and nomination by the Secretary of the Treasury, he (Viscount Goderich) would frankly admit that he thought it preferable that those nominations should be placed in the hands of the permanent heads of departments. But that arrangement would involve the introduction of a perfectly novel principle; and the noble Lord ought distinctly to show how he intended to carry it out. The Amendment would tie the hands of the Government more than his Motion, and in a much more objectionable manner. Having obtained a majority on this question in the last Parliament, he now appealed to the new Parliament because he could not help feeling that Her Majesty's Government had not fulfilled the hopes which they held out last year, but had retrograded, instead of going forward. Hon. Gentlemen were fresh from their constituents, by whom they must be aware that this subject was regarded with great interest; and he had the utmost confidence that he should that night receive their support. He did hope, however, that there would be no need to test the opinion of the House. Considering the moderate terms of the Motion which he was about to make, he entertained hopes that Her Majesty's Government would be induced to yield him their support; and it would give the greatest satisfaction to those who were interested in the subject if they thus showed—what, indeed, was all that any one had a right to expect—that they were anxious to extend the application of the competitive principle. He, for one, should deeply rejoice if the Government followed that course; but so much interest did he feel in the question, that if, unfortunately, they should be led to oppose the Motion, he should then feel it his duty to take the sense of the House. He should, therefore, conclude by moving—"That, in the opinion of this House, the experience acquired since the issuing of the Order in Council of the 21st day of May, 1855, is in favour of the adoption of the principle of competition as a condition of entrance to the Civil Service, and that the application of that principle ought to be extended in conformity with the Resolution of the House, agreed to on the 24th day of April, 1866."
"That, in the opinion of this House, the experience acquired since the issuing of the Order in Council of the 21st day of May, 1855, is in favour of the adoption of the principle of competition as a condition of entrance to the Civil Service, and that the application of that principle ought to be extended in conformity with the Resolution of the House, agreed to on the 24th day of April, 1856."
seconded the Motion.
said, that he could assure his noble Friend that he was fully as anxious as himself to take the competitive system as the guiding principle which should govern the admission to employments in the Civil Service. While, however, he agreed to a considerable extent with what had fallen from the noble Lord who had just sat down, still he thought that he had made an omission in his Resolution, and that it was desirable to add to it a few words expressive of their opinion that open competition was not altogether expedient. In reference to that point, he would endeavour briefly to answer the observations which the noble Lord had made with so much ability. In the first place, the noble Lord had said that it was almost impossible for the heads of any department of the Government to make very searching inquiries into the characters of the persons nominated. Now, he differed from him in that respect, because he considered that the heads of departments really were responsible for the character of persons whom they placed in official situations. It was true that it was desirable that there should be as little Parliamentary influence as possible in making these appointments, and that proposition formed one of the principal arguments in favour of competitive examinations. The House would agree with him that talent and ability, however desirable in a public servant, were not all the qualities that were required; it was necessary that the character of the person seeking to fill an office should be unimpeachable, and some guarantees ought be given that the candidate was in all respects an eligible person to be appointed to the Civil Service of the Crown. His noble Friend had inquired whether it would not be better if these examinations were placed in the hands of permanent officers of the Inland Revenue Department. He should be very sorry to see such a course adopted, because, while he admitted that the use of Parliamentary influence in the obtaining of such appointments should be discouraged as much as possible, yet there were so many serious objections in his view to unrestricted and open competition, that he thought it best to continue the power of appointment in the hands of the Secretary of the Treasury. He considered that a very important principle was involved in the Motion, and although he did not object to its general terms in favour of competitive examination, he thought it better to add that it was not desirable that all appointments should be subject to competitive examination; and he should accordingly move to add at the end of the noble Lord's Motion the words—
"And that it is desirable that the nomination of all persons desirous of competing for vacant appointments in the Civil Service should rest with the heads of the departments in which those vacancies occur."
The Amendment was put, but fell to the ground for want of a Seconder.
Any hon. Member who has listened to the perspicuous speech of the noble Lord the Member for the West Riding (Viscount Goderich), merely might have been induced to suppose that his Motion proposed to introduce some great and fundamental novelty in the mode of admission to the Civil Service. Now, I must be permitted to say, that a principle, not fundamentally new, but, nevertheless, of considerable importance, and in its extension and application novel, was introduced by the Order in Council cited by my noble Friend. Prior to that Order in Council, there was no test, except in a few cases, for ascertaining the fitness of candidates for the Civil Service; and in those cases in which a test existed, it was applied, not by any independent authority, but under the direction of Heads of Departments, who might be supposed to have some interest in finding that their nominee was qualified. By that Order in Council, a principle was established—that every candidate should undergo an examination into his fitness by an examination, not conducted by the Heads of Departments, but by independent Commissioners. This was a very important principle to adopt in regard to the Civil Service. Since that time, it has been proposed to set aside that Order in Council, to allow all persons to offer themselves as candidates, and to declare that there shall be perfectly free and open competition. Against that principle I have consistently Contended, and I still entertain the objections I have before expressed in this House to that principle of perfectly open competition. But I have also stated that, consistently with the plan introduced by the Order in Council, a fair compromise might be made with the principle of open competition, by adopting, with respect to certain portions of the Civil Service, the principle of limited competition. By this plan the Heads of Departments or the First Lord of the Treasury would name a select number of persons who should enter into competition with one another for the vacant office. I stated last year that such a plan appeared to me to be well adapted to the chief departments of the Government, to the Treasury, the Secretaries of State's offices, and the other departments of that kind. With regard to a very large number of these departments, the principle has been already acted upon. So far, therefore, my noble Friend and myself were agreed at the end of last Session. I also stated that there was a large number of officers under the Crown who discharge duties that do not require a liberal education—duties, for example, of mere watch and ward—and that for duties which were little more than mechanical, it would be altogether absurd to demand the test of a literary examination. Of this kind were such posts as those of boatmen of the Customs, messengers, and village postmasters, with regard to whom there can be nothing like a general competition; it is necessary that a postmaster should have a house conveniently situate, and the number of competitors is, therefore, limited by conditions entirely different from literary examination. I think that my noble Friend, both in an address which he made in the Session before Easter and in what he has said this evening, has assented generally to the views I expressed with regard to that class of officers. The chief difference between us was as to that intermediate class of clerks and others who were said to require a liberal education in those departments in which the Treasury has the patronage. I stated last year, and I repeat it now, that I think it peculiarly desirable that the principle of limited competition should, wherever it is possible, apply to that class, inasmuch as these appointments are not made by the person who has an interest in the selection of efficient persons, which is the case where the Heads of the Department have the nomination; and whatever my noble Friend may say about the impossibility of the Heads of Departments making an ex- amination, I think that, generally speaking, the Head of a Department will take care that the persons he appoints shall be able efficiently to discharge their duties. I think that under these circumstances the margin of practical difference between my noble Friend and myself is not very wide. I will ask my noble Friend to follow me in the statement I will now make with respect to those departments into which the plan of limited competition has been adopted as a condition for entrance. The principle has been applied to the following offices in England—namely, the Audit Office, the Board of Trade, the Civil Service Commission, the Colonial Office, the Education Department, the Home Office, and recently to the Customs and Inland Revenue Departments. I wish particularly to call the attention of my noble Friend to the circumstance, that it is the determination of my noble Friend at the head of the Government to introduce—I will not say as an invariable but as a general rule—the principle of limited competition in the case of the higher class of officers, as for example, landing waiters and gaugers in the two last-mentioned departments. Now, that I conceive to be an important statement with reference to the Resolution under our consideration, and to the speech by which it was introduced, in which my noble Friend asserted that no advance had of late been made by the Government in carrying out the principle of which he is the advocate. [Viscount GODERICH: When was the principle applied to those departments?] Recently. I may add that it has been further extended in England to the National Debt Office, the Office of Woods, the Office of Works, the Police Court, Bow Street, the Poor Law Board, the Treasury, and the War Office; while in Scotland it has been applied to the office of the Registrar General, and in Ireland to the Chief Secretary's Office, the Constabulary Office, the Loan Fund Office, the Lunatic Asylums Inspector's Office, the Public Metropolitan Police Office, the Receiver of Police Office, and to the Offices of Registrar General and Director of Prisons. To all these offices has the principle of limited competition been applied, and I may add that it will for the future be, as a general rule, extended to all those departments which are dependent upon the Treasury. I shall not speak of its extension to such a department as that of the Ecclesiastical Commission, inasmuch as, in my opinion, that cannot be regarded as a department connected with the general government of the country, and as its exemption from the operation of the principle cannot upon that account fairly be considered as a departure from the rule on which I have stated it to be, the disposition of the Government as far as possible to act. I may also state that it is the intention of my noble Friend the Secretary for Foreign Affairs to extend the system of limited competition, to the admission to clerkships in that department. I may further state that the only departments into which, so far as I am aware, the principle has not as yet been introduced, are the Admiralty, the Post Office, and the India Board. My noble Friend has called the attention of the House to a particular department,—I allude to the Exchequer Office, for the management of which I am supposed—but erroneously—to be personally responsible, and has observed that to that department the principle of competitive examination has not been applied. Now, I was not aware, until I instituted an inquiry into the matter, that a vacancy in that department was recently filled up, irrespective of all competition, upon the recommendation of the noble Lord who, as Controller, is at its head; and I can only repeat the assurance that the department is one for the management of which I am not personally responsible. Passing from that point, however, I feel confident that the House will agree with me in the opinion that the Government have not been standing still in relation to this subject, but that they have, upon the contrary, carried out, to a considerable extent, that principle of which the noble Lord is the advocate, and of which I, in the course of last Session, expressed my entire approval. But although I concur with my noble Friend as to the beneficial results which are likely to flow from the adoption of a system of competitive examination as a test of the efficiency of a candidate for the Civil Service, there are, I am bound to confess, no inconsiderable difficulties lying in the way of its general application. One of those difficulties consists in the circumstance that it is by no means easy to bring the candidates to one particular spot for the purpose of competition. If, for instance, you lay it down as a rule that all these examinations must be held in London, in Dublin; or in Edinburgh, it has been contended, and I confess with great show of reason, that you afford to persons living in one of those localities an advantage over those who reside in distant parts of the country. That such must be the case I think will be perfectly evident, if you consider for a moment that, inasmuch as the salaries attached to some of the clerkships, for which competition may take place, commence at a sum of only £80 per annum, you, by fixing upon London, for instance, as the place of examination, practically preclude a young man living 200 or 300 miles from the metropolis from undergoing the expense which travelling over that distance, as well as spending a few days here, would entail, in order to become a candidate at one of those examinations. The consequence would be that an undue advantage, amounting almost to a monopoly, would be given to those young men who happened to live in the neighbourhood of the place at which the examination might be held. I may, however, be told that it is quite possible to hold competitive examinations by sending the questions put at a particular place to different persons in different parts of the country, to be put by them to those who wish to offer themselves as candidates for the Civil Service. There would, I think, be found to be great difficulty in taking that course, and I am sure the House will concur with me in the opinion that it is no easy matter to lay down any inflexible rule upon the subject. Another obstacle to the adoption of any such rule consists in the ciruumstance that, whereas persons of different ages may compete at these examinations, they who are more advanced in years than their fellow-candidates will, ceteris paribus, possess an advantage which the latter will not enjoy, notwithstanding that the ability and general fitness for the public service of the younger candidates may be a thing beyond all doubt. At the Universities and at all our great public schools there is an equality of age among those who compete for honours, which leads to no such inconvenience as that to which I have just adverted; but in these examinations for the Civil Service no such equality would exist, and the consequence would be that the person who happened to be by three or four years the senior of another would have an advantage to which, so far as ability is concerned, he might not be at all entitled. These two difficulties, then, render it, in my opinion, inexpedient that this House should lay down any precise formula upon this subject of competitive examinations. I would, therefore, put it to my noble Friend—unless, indeed, he distrusts the assurances of the Government in this matter, and is dissatisfied with the explanation which I lave just given—whether he would not act wisely in not calling upon the House to assent to the terms of the Resolution which he has proposed. That Resolution is very general in its terms. It calls upon the House to adopt the principle of competition as a condition of entrance into the Civil Service. Now, my noble Friend himself does not contend that all candidates for the Civil Service should be admitted upon the principle of competition. I do not think that with respect to a village postmaster, in whose case the position of his residence and his personal trustworthiness must constitute material elements for consideration, my noble Friend will maintain that a competitive examination upon the principle of testing the literary qualifications of the candidate would be desirable. Being of opinion, therefore, that the terms of the Resolution are wider than any to which we should be justified in assenting, and that it may lead to inconvenient consequences if passed by a vote of this House, I trust my noble Friend will not deem it to be his duty to press it upon the House for its acceptance.
said, he begged to be allowed to address a few words to the House with respect to the influence of the principle of competition on the cause of education in Ireland. The question of education in Ireland had been for many years a most difficult and delicate subject, probably from the circumstance that the education of the lower orders in Ireland had been too much pressed forward. But however diverse might be the opinions of hon. Gentlemen upon that point, he never heard a second opinion with reference to the necessity of some stimulus to the education of the people immediately above the lower orders in Ireland, and he looked upon the establishment of this system of competition for public offices as one which was likely to be extremely beneficial. Dr. Gray, Mr. Galbraith, and Mr. Horton, the distinguished and able men to whom the noble Lord had referred in the course of his speech, the leaders of the movement in the University of Dublin, had applied themselves with extraordinary diligence, energy, and assiduity, to the encouragement of education in Ireland; and with reference to the effect of the competitive system their statements were most satisfactory. He had himself observed with gratification that in the various competitions for the public service his countrymen had occupied a distinguished place; and it was acknowledged that a large number of them had turned out successful candidates. It was a mistake to suppose that the effect of the system had been to encourage the practice of cramming, for it had been stated to him by Mr. Galbraith and Mr. Horton that in several instances gentlemen had been chosen for their general knowledge; while, on the contrary, several candidates who had got up particular subjects had failed in obtaining good places, thus showing that a really good education was the best mode of ensuring success. He considered, therefore, that considering the evident desire which existed among the youth of Ireland to compete for the public service, such a Resolution as that of the noble Lord was calculated to produce the most important effects on that country as regarded general education. The gentleman to whom he had referred also stated to him that it was most important that the examiner, whoever he might be, should have the public confidence, and that it was essential for that purpose that the examination papers should be published in order to afford the public an opportunity of inspecting them. With regard to the proposition itself, he understood by it that the Government were not to be stringently bound, but that it was, if adopted by the House, to be considered rather as an intimation of the course they considered it desirable that the Government should pursue. He felt persuaded that if the noble Lord at the head of the Government concurred in the views now advanced, the necessary steps would be taken to apply the system of competition to all cases which fairly admitted of it; and if the principle were admitted, he saw no objection to a Resolution of this kind. Indeed, he should have thought that the Government would have supported it. He, therefore, trusted that the House would, by passing the Resolution, impose upon the Government a duty which he hoped the Government would have no disinclination to observe.
said, that as far as he was concerned he had never asked, and never would ask, the Secretary of the Treasury for a single place for any one. When his constituents sent an application to him, he felt it to be his duty to send it to the Secretary of the Treasury; but he hoped that the time would arrive when no hon. Member of that House could under any pretence obtain from the Secretary of the Treasury or any one else any appointment whatever, but that all places would be filled up in consideration of qualification alone.
said, he should cordially support the Resolution of the noble Lord, and hoped he would take the sense of the House upon it because there was certainly some distinction to be drawn between the view of the noble Lord and that of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The difference was this: the noble Lord would throw open the door of competition to all who might deem themselves fit to enter into that competition, and desired that offices should be filled by the best men, without regard to politics as a qualification. The right hon. Gentleman, on the other hand, said he was in favour of a limited competition—that a certain number of candidates should be selected, and that the competition should be confined to those ten or twelve persons. But, who was to have the selection of these ten or a dozen candidates? Why, the same parties, for the most part, as at present. Suppose that a vacancy in a Government appointment in any particular borough occurred, it was quite impossible that the Secretary to the Treasury or Head of the Department should know anything of the qualification of a candidate; he therefore referred to the hon. Member for the place sitting upon that (the Government) side of the House. The hon. Member might possibly have some little knowledge of the candidate. However, a fresh delegation of the power of selection took place. Reference was made to a political agent, who finally selected the son, or brother, or cousin of one of his most active and influential political friends. Of this person the agent perhaps knew little, and the Secretary of State still less. There seemed no reason why a political leaning should not equally prevail under the system proposed by the right hon. Gentleman as under that prevailing at present. He could not see, therefore, that the principle of limited competition advocated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be any very considerable improvement upon the present practice; while he could as little see that there was anything impracticable in the Resolution of the noble Lord, which did not lay down the principle that under no circumstances should an appointment be made except upon competitive examination, but simply called upon the House to affirm the principle that the system of open competition should be employed whenever it could properly and practically be done. Only two objections had been brought against the principle of open competition. One was the distance of London from many places where vacancies occurred, and from the residence of many of the candidates. Another was, that an unfair advantage would be given to those who were of more mature age than many who might present themselves. The first he (Mr. Adams) thought was not a very strong objection in these days of locomotion and cheap travelling. Besides, considering the spread of mechanics' institutes, he would never believe that the means would be wanting to a youth of promising ability to make a journey to London to be examined. As to the question of difference of ages, he did not think the example cited by the right hon. Gentleman was a happy one. At the University all the men might be considered to be at school together; and men of two years' standing would have an advantage over those of only one. But in a general examination it would be otherwise; and young men who had just left school would be very far more fit for a competitive examination than those who had left for several years. In such a case the youngest men would probably succeed best. But it was not merely that a system of competition would give the Government the service of the best men—it would give a greater encouragement to serious study and a more urgent stimulus to the spread of sound knowledge than all the Acts of Parliament ever passed, or than all the societies, whether of arts or for other purposes, which had been established by private benevolence. Often when he (Mr. Adams) had been addressing working men at mechanics' institutes and such places, he had been met with the exclamation, "What is the good of this knowledge to me? I have quite enough already for my business of a carpenter," and so forth. More would be gained by letting these men know that real practical advantage was to be gained from study than by all the lectures in the world. It was with the utmost possible pleasure that he supported the Resolution of the noble Lord, and he hoped that, in order to test the sincerity of the Government and the sincerity of the House, he would press his Motion to a division.
said, that he would go nearly the whole length of the hon. Member who had just sat down, as an advocate for a system of open competition. That, however, was not the object of his noble Friend's Motion, and the difference between his noble Friend and the right hon. Gentleman was so slight that he confessed it had escaped his observation. His principal motive for rising, however, was because he objected to anything being painted blacker than it really was, and, consequently, to express his opinion that the present system of filling up the lower places in the Civil Service was not so bad as it had been represented to be by the hon. Member (Mr. Adams)—a fact which, he was sure, the hon. Gentleman would himself admit, when he had had a little more experience in these matters. It was true that the system of nomination by Members of Parliament was a most annoying one, and, so far from increasing, diminished the influence of hon. Members, because for every applicant who obtained an appointment, there were necessarily hundreds who were disappointed; but he did not see how it could be superseded, except by open competition. The members of the Government could know nothing of the persons who applied for appointments in different boroughs, but the hon. Members for those places were not equally ignorant of their qualifications, nor was it at all necessary that they should delegate the nomination to their political agents to be used for political purposes. He (Mr. Clay) did not profess himself to be more honest or better than his neighbours; but in the majority of cases in which he recommended persons to appointments he was acquainted with them, and considered himself responsible for them. Where he had no such knowledge he did not consult his political agent; he consulted gentlemen of the town which he represented, whom he believed would not deceive him; and this he did so impartially that he scarcely recollected making an appointment the candidate for which was not recommended by some of his political opponents as well as by his political friends. The nominations to situations in the Post Office had recently been withdrawn from Members of Parliament and given to the resident postmasters. While he rejoiced at this as relieving him from a great deal of trouble, he did not think that the new plan was at all superior to the old one. So long as the appointments in the Post Office were given through Members of Parliament, he made a point of consulting the postmaster before making a recommendation, and generally induced him to give a short trial to the person whom he intended to recommend to the Treasury. The postmaster of the borough which he represented (Hull) was one of the strongest Tories in the place, and though a personal, by no means a political friend of his. He trusted, therefore, that the hon. Member would in future look upon the House of Commons as less impure than at present he appeared to consider it.
I quite agree with my hon. Friend who spoke last, that the difference between my noble Friend who made this Motion and the Government is exceedingly small. Indeed, it is so small, that I hardly think it worth while to give the House the trouble of dividing upon the question. I accept the Motion of my noble Friend, however, according to his own interpretation of it, and not according to the interpretations which have been put upon it by other hon. Members. The hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Adams) is, in fact, though he does not say so in so many words, for the universal application of a system of general competition—that is to say, he desires that every vacant appointment under Government should be advertised, and that whoever knocks at the door and claims to be examined, should be examined for the appointment which he desires to obtain. We have often been told in this House, that Government ought to shape its course according to the example of private individuals, of merchants, of shipowners, and of railway and other great companies. Now, I have yet to learn that merchants, bankers, railway companies, or any other private associations fill up their appointments in the manner thus recommended. I may be misinformed, but I apprehend that they look out for persons who are not only qualified by their talents and attainments for the situation which they are to fill, but whom, from their position and connections, they may think trustworthy and fitted for the discharge of its duties. My hon. Friend who spoke last has clearly explained how the recommendations of Members of Parliament, to which a certain responsibility attaches, may be accepted as evidence of the respectability of the position and connections of persons who may be candidates for examination; but the House must run away with the notion, that all these appointments are invariably given upon the recommendations of Members of this House. The Government are open to applications from any other persons in respectable situations in life, who may, upon their responsibility, recommend persons as candidates for appointments. I so far concur with my noble Friend, as to think that the principle of competition is better than that of direct and single examination. All human efforts are liable to failure and to defects, and it is quite certain that the principle of competition does not always give you the man who is best fitted for the vacant situation, because there are qualities of character, of habits, and of temperament of mind, which cannot be tested by an examination as to mental attainments only. At the same time there is this to be said, that a young man, who, at the time of life at which candidates present themselves for clerkships, does not possess the knowledge required according to the prescribed plan of education, must be deficient either in natural capacity or in power of mind and application, and in neither case would he be a fit person to hold an appointment under Government. A system of competitive examination does bring out the character of young men, the presence of mind, and the power of application in a short space of time, better than the process of individual and separate examination. On that ground I have adopted in the Treasury, and I have recommended in other departments, a system by which, when an appointment is vacant, instead of nominating one individual, a number of young men are nominated, and the best out of that number is appointed to the vacancy. I think the system of examination has been attended with great advantage to the public service. In former times, for want of such a system, a great many young men were appointed, against whom there was no presumption of incapacity, nor any ground for supposing that they would be incapable of filling higher appointments when, it came to their turn, but who, nevertheless, either by deficiency of natural ability or want of power of application, did not come up to the mark, and the consequence was, that the higher appointments in the public offices were filled by persons who, if there had been any choice in the matter, would not, perhaps, have been placed in situations of such responsibility, and where so much was required from them. I, therefore, augur well for the public interest from the establishment of this system. I certainly concur with my noble Friend, in thinking that the principle of running a number of young men one against the other, and seeing who wins the race, is much better than the walk-over of a single candidate. Upon these grounds, and taking the Motion of the noble Lord upon his own showing, I am not prepared to negative it. Had it not been for the explanation of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, which showed to how great a degree this principle has been adopted by the Government, it most have been supposed that this was an attempt on the part of the House of Commons to force on the Government a system to which they were averse. But the explanation of my right hon. Friend proves that we quite go along with my noble Friend in approving the system which his Resolution lays down; and the Resolution, therefore, of my noble Friend will have the effect of strengthening the hands of the Government, and will enable us with a better face to carry out a system of which some persons might otherwise very loudly complain. I trust that it will have the effect of strengthening the hands of the Government, and that, at all events, it will satisfy those who are unsuccessful in the race that the Government are only acting on a system which is founded on a regard for the public interest, and that they are going along with the House of Commons in working out a principle which will enable the Government to obtain the best men for the public service.
said, there had been such an unanimous feeling in favour of his Motion that he only rose to express his best thanks to the Government for the course which they had taken with regard to his Motion. That course was most creditable to the Government. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had detailed to the House what the Government had already done in this matter, and he admitted readily that since he had last brought this subject before the House, a few months ago, the Government had taken several most important steps. The Revenue Department and the Foreign Office had both, to a certain extent, been thrown open to public competition, and there only remained the India Board and the Admiralty in which the principle had not been put into practice, but after the speech of the noble Lord at the head of the Government accepting his Motion, he could not doubt that the principle would soon be universally adopted. Of course he had not meant by his Motion that every appointment in the public service should be made on this principle, nor did he understand the hon. Gentleman the Member for Boston (Mr. Adams) to have maintained such an absurdity in his able and striking speech. The principle embodied in the Motion being in conformity with the ideas of the Government, he had only to say, that when he laid the Motion before the House he had no means of knowing the steps which had been taken by the Government—some of them, he believed, since he had placed his notice on the paper. The unanimity with which his Motion had been received must be a source of the greatest gratification to everybody interested in the subject.
Motion agreed to.
Resolved, That, in the opinion of this House, the experience acquired since the issuing of the Order in Council of the 21st day of May, 1855, is in favour of the adoption of the principle of competition as a condition of entrance to the Civil Service, and that the application of that principle ought to be extended, in conformity with the Resolution of the House, agreed to on the 24th day of April, 1856.
Privateering
Papers Moved For
said, he rose to move an Address for copies of Mr. Marcy's letter to the French Government, in answer to the communication of the Resolution of the Paris Conference upon the subject of privateering; and of any other papers or correspondence that may have passed between the British Government and other Powers upon the same subject. Those papers related to a subject of some importance to England as a maritime nation. Certain Resolutions had been agreed to at the Conferences of Paris relating to the question of neutral rights and privateers. When these Resolutions were brought before the American Government they had readily consented to the majority, but had refused to give in their adhesion to that proposition which dealt with the rights of privateers, as it would be a surrender on their part of a strong arm of defence and aggression. He asked for papers with the view of putting hon. Members in possession of information on this subject; for the House would sooner or later be called on to decide whether we should stand by our present declaration or adopt the American view—that private property should be as much respected at sea as it was on shore. That was the question at issue; and he hoped to be able to bring it before the House in the course of another Session. In a state of war this country could not stand by the declaration which it had made. We must go forward having done so much, for at present a neutral flag covered neutral goods, except contraband of war. We had five million tons floating in ships, our exports were 100 millions, and our imports nearly the same; and therefore the question was of far more importance to us than to any other country. What would be the consequence if we were engaged in a war with America or France? The premium to marine assurances on ships not under convoy would be increased 10 per cent. For ships under convoy there would be 5 per cent war risk on British ships; and then the British merchant, whatever might be his patriotism, would not ship in British bottoms. What would then become of our five million tons of shipping? Why, they would remain locked up in port during time of war. The House should consider the position in which they stood, and it was for that reason he asked for the papers, in order that hon. Members might become thoroughly acquainted with the subject. All that he asked was, that Government should lay the papers on the table, and if he should be successful, he would then make a substantive Motion calculated to elicit the opinion of the House.
The Motion was seconded by Mr. C. GILPIN.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, that She will be graciously pleased to give directions that there be laid before this House, copies of Mr. Marcy's Letter to the French Government, in answer to the communication of the Resolution of the Paris Conference upon the subject of Privateering:
And, of any other Papers or Correspondence that may have passed between the British Government and other Powers upon the same subject."
I am sure that my hon. Friend and the House will feel that it is not usual to ask, and that it is not competent under ordinary circumstances for the British Government to grant the production of papers which have formed the subject of correspondence between two other foreign States. We have no right to lay before Parliament communications between the Government of America and that of France, or any correspondence which may have en- sued thereupon. But, in point of fact, we are not officially in possession of that letter of Mr. Marcy's to the French Government. The document is one which does not exist in the Foreign Office in such a shape that it could be laid before Parliament, even with the consent of the French Government. But that is a mere technical objection. I apprehend what my hon. Friend means is, that we should lay before Parliament any correspondence between the British Government and the American and French Governments on this subject. Sir, what happened was, that the Resolutions of the Paris Congress were communicated by the parties to them to all the other maritime States, and amongst others to the United States. The Government of the United States gave to the French Government an answer exactly in the terms stated by my hon. Friend; that is to say, they were willing to agree to those propositions, including the cessation of privateering, provided that private property at sea should no longer be subject to capture. That communication was made by the last Government of the United States, and the matter was one which everybody will see was a subject which required the gravest and most deliberate consideration on the part of the British Government; as, whatever might be the opinions at the first blush, one way or other, no one could fail to see on reflection that the question is one deeply affecting all the great interests of the country, commercial, political, and naval; and it was clear that no answer could be given to such a communication without long and mature consideration. But in the meantime a change took place in the Government of the United States, and before any answer was sent by the British Government to America the new President came into office, and an intimation was made that the American Government did not wish that any answer should be sent to the proposition of their predecessors, and that, in point of fact, they wished to consider that communication as suspended, and the negotiation not going on. Under these circumstances, I trust that my hon. Friend and the House will feel that it is not desirable to lay before Parliament this communication. In this state of things I certainly shall not enter into any examination of the reasons for or against the proposition made by the Government of the United States; but there is one branch of the subject upon which I wish to make one qualified remark. My hon. Friend considers the question to be simply whether the practice which prevails with respect to hostilities by land should or should not be applied to hostilities at sea. If hon. Gentlemen will consider a little the historical facts as to what has been the practice pursued in war upon land, they will see that there is no very decided and absolute rule as to that matter, but that the practice has varied very much from time to time in different countries in respect to the manner in which armies have treated the property of individuals in a hostile country. It is difficult at once to apply to private property on the sea the same rule which has applied to property on land. I am sure, however, the House will feel that this is not a question which can be discussed incidentally on a Motion of this sort, when the negotiations are suspended between the two Governments at the express wish of the Government of the United States; and I trust that my hon. Friend, after the explanation I have given, will not press his Motion, part of which could not be agreed to, as there are not the materials, and the other part of which it would be inexpedient to assent to, as it relates to negotiations not only pending, but suspended, at the wish of the Government who took the initiative steps.
said, that the subject was one of paramount importance, and he regretted that the noble Lord had not adverted to the important points raised by the hon. Member for Tynemouth, and more especially as to the intentions of the Government with regard to the maintenance of the declaration if this country were involved in a war with one of the great Powers of Europe. It was impossible to advance with regard to this declaration. It was a solemn farce, and moreover dishonest on the part of this country to make a declaration which it would be impossible to carry out. We must recede at any cost, even at that of the reputation of this country for integrity, as the carrying out of the present declaration in time of war would be tantamount to the destruction, not only of our mercantile marine, but of the maritime supremacy of this country. Foreign countries would be the gainers by this declaration, as had been proved by the course taken by Russia in the last war. Under such a declaration he defied any man to point out how any war could be brought to a termination. Hitherto Eng- land's strength in war had consisted in crippling the commerce of her enemies; and he hoped the Government would afford some explanation as to their intentions with regard to their persistence in the present declaration.
I do not wonder that the Government decline to accede to the Motion, as it appears that the paper which is moved for is not in the possession of the Government, but certainly the question raised is one of the utmost importance. The hon. Gentleman says that, in the event of a war, all the goods sent in English vessels under convoy will require 5 per cent, and in ships not under convoy 10 per cent additional premium. The hon. Gentleman has naturally argued that, with such additional payments, the manufacturers of this country will send their goods in neutral ships, and thus the maritime trade of this country will, in fact, be destroyed. That is a very serious thing, and I really should like to hear some statement upon the part of the Government, of the grounds of their entering into this declaration. It appeared to me that, when we were engaged, in conjunction with France, in a war against Russia, we could hardly do otherwise than carry on the war upon the same principle as France. The principle adopted during the war was, that free ships cover free goods. But, at the end of the war, we were not under the necessity of making any concession of the opposite principle, which was certainly in conformity with the law of nations, and to which this country had hitherto adhered. There was no notice given to the people of this country, or to either House of Parliament, that any such question would be discussed. We all supposed that the Earl of Clarendon went to Paris with a view to make peace with Russia: but, with respect to a question of maritime right, there was no preparation in the public mind, and the people of this country must have been surprised that it was introduced. I hardly think the Government could consent to abrogate, as the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Bentinck) proposes, a declaration which was solemnly agreed to by their plenipotentiary. I am afraid we must be bound by the declaration. I am afraid that the consequences are so serious as to show that such a declaration was very imprudent, and I cannot but agree with the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Lindsay), that England ought to preserve her maritime superiority. The comparison between private property in ships and private property on land is not tenable. I do not think there is any real comparison between them. It is quite obvious that a farmer, cultivating a farm, and having its produce in the middle of France or the State of Virginia, has placed his property in quite a different situation from a manufacturer who has put his goods on board a large fleet in the British Channel, navigated by 7,000 or 8,000 mariners competent to man a fleet against this country. There is no comparison between the two propositions, and therefore I cannot but think that, in point of principle, the declaration of Paris ought to be altered. The whole matter is most unsatisfactory, and most grave in its bearing upon our maritime supremacy. I quite agree that the way in which we have been able to finish wars with great Powers, especially with France, has chiefly been by destroying the enemy's trade. We have brought the Powers with which we have been at war to such a state that their finances have become disordered. They have then been ready to listen to terms of peace, and thereby the wars have been terminated. But now, if we were at war with America or France, they could maintain their trade in full vigour, because manufactured produce throughout the world could be sent in neutral vessels in perfect safety. They would have no reason for making peace. They would not be distressed. We might gain naval victories, but our successes would not produce peace. We might drive all their vessels of war from the seas, but we should not thereby gain the end of all war, which is an honourable peace. The state of this question is to me very alarming, but I do not see that a breach of faith would at all mend our position.
said, the noble Lord who had last spoken had misunderstood him. He did not say they should not abide by the declaration, but that, if they did abide by it, the whole carrying trade of this country would pass under a neutral flag. The consequence of that would be that, instead of maintaining our present position, as the first maritime Power in the world, we should become a sixth-rate Power; for there would be no employment for our ships, as the whole trade of the country would pass into neutral ships. He did not wish to throw aside a solemn declaration, but he said the people of this country would not abide by it, and would appeal to the House for its abrogation, and the House would be compelled to listen to, and give effect to that appeal. Having made this explanation, it was not his intention to press the Motion.
observed, that he was very glad that the hon. Gentleman did not mean what he had supposed.
said, he had expected that some Member of the Government—the First Lord of the Admiralty—would have addressed the House after the speech of the noble Lord the Member for the City of London. He agreed with the hon. Gentleman who brought forward the Motion, that it was impossible we could remain in the position in which we were at present. The noble Lord said we could not break the engagement. He did not think we could. Diplomacy had drawn us into a very impolitic engagement, and it was for the noble Lord, or some clever diplomatist, to get us out of it. If they were determined to abide by the declaration of the Earl of Clarendon, and a war ensued, we must blockade every port which the enemy possessed. It must be not a mere paper, but an efficient blockade, and in the event of a war with France, such a blockade, with the navy we possessed, could not at the first start be established. Double or treble our navy would not be sufficient to blockade all the ports of France; and it must not be forgotten that seamen discharged from French merchant vessels would go into French ships of war, and increase their force, while our force in men would be diminished in consequence of our loss of trade.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
Slave Trade (Africa)
Address Moved
rose to move—
He said that in doing so he was anxious not to embarrass the action of the Government on this subject, but if possible to strengthen their hands in dealing with other nations upon it, by a cordial expression of opinion on the part of the House of Commons. He was sorry to say that there had been a great increase of the slave trade between Cuba and the coast of Africa. In 1847 the number of slaves imported into Cuba was only 1,000; but in the last two years they had reached 12,000 or 13,000. As an illustration of the suffering of negroes in the course of this trade he might mention the case of a vessel of 150 tons, which was taken a few weeks ago by one of our cruisers, with no fewer than 500 slaves on board. The poor creatures were crammed between decks, where they could neither stand up nor lie down, and such were their sufferings from want of air, water, and food, that 140 perished in a few weeks. As a matter of humanity alone, he thought the House ought to require that this infamous traffic should be put down. But happily in this case humanity and wise policy went hand in hand. The greater was the increase of the slave trade the less would be the opportunities afforded of legitimate trade on the coast of Africa. That commerce promised an extraordinary development. A few years ago there were scarcely any exports from the coast of Africa, but, chiefly from our having maintained a strong squadron there, legitimate traffic had taken deep root, and the exports of palm oil and other matters to all parts of the world were now valued at £3,000,000. But the resources of the country were, in fact, boundless, and promised us a vast supply of gold dust, arrow-root, ivory, timber of all kinds, and many other commodities. The most important feature connected with this trade, however, was the prospect of our getting a large supply of cotton from that coast. It was ascertained only three or four years ago that cotton was to be had there in very considerable quantity and of the same quality as that we got from America. A gentleman interested in the subject had brought to England two intelligent negro lads, who had been trained in all the processes of cotton growing and cleaning, and then sent out to Africa. Agents also had been established for the purpose of holding out inducements to the negroes to engage in this species of industry. The plan pursued was to exchange cotton gins for so much cotton brought in, and in that way one or two hundred cotton gins had been bartered with the natives in the last year, and 10,000Ibs. of cotton had been brought to Manchester and sold at the same price as that imported from America. It, therefore, became us, not only as a Christian country, but as leading the commerce of the world, to foster and encourage this trade, and the best way to do that was to act vigorously in putting an end to the slave trade. Indeed, a sense of our own dignity ought to induce us to take steps for its prevention, for we had been completely bamboozled on the question by Spain. The existing slave trade was carried on in direct violation of our treaties with Spain. In 1820 she pledged herself to abolish the slave trade, but she did nothing till 1835, when the Queen Regent Christina promised to pass a severe penal law against the traffic. Ten years elapsed before that law was enacted, and up to the present day Spain had refused to make the slave trade piracy. There was every possible connivance by Spain at this trade in Cuba, and it was notorious that from the Captain General down to the lowest official, every one of the Government officers in that island participated in the profits of the trade. Even when captured negroes were set free in Cuba they were brought back to slavery; for when they were emancipated by decrees of the Mixed Commission Court, they were handed over to slave owners on payment of certain fees, which were supposed to go to support the charities of Cuba. Spain had cheated us in every way, and done her best to foster this abominable trade. She had induced this country to give her £400,000 as a compensation for suppressing this traffic, and after taking the money she had done all she could to sneak out of her bargain. He could not use stronger language on that point than that used by the noble Lord at the head of the Government, in a despatch to Lord Howden. The noble Lord said:—"That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that She will be graciously pleased to employ all the means in Her power in order to put down the African Slave Trade, and to obtain the execution of the Treaties made for that purpose with other Powers."
We need not be embarrassed by any feeling of delicacy towards Spain, or treat her with respect in this matter, for she had shown that she had no respect for herself. He wished to inquire from the noble Lord whether it would not be possible to adopt with regard to Cuba the same course which had been pursued with regard to Brazil. He knew that there were some hon. Gentlemen in that House of such original minds as to think that Brazil had not suppressed her slave trade in consequence of our interference. But how stood the facts? Why, that when the British Government threatened to send our cruisers into the Brazilian waters, for a time the trade was stopped. Afterward it was renewed, and then our cruisers were sent into the Brazilian waters. Upon this the Brazilian Government said that if our cruisers were withdrawn they would put down the trade, and they did so. He (Mr. Buxton) had a lingering faith in cause and effect, and he believed in this case there was a notable instance of cause and effect. He could see no reason why the same course should not be pursued with regard to Cuba which had been so successful with Brazil. The proper way would be, to send our cruisers into the waters of Cuba, and say openly that we would no longer permit this trade, and there was no doubt that it would be suppressed. Except for the purpose of influencing Spain, it was doubtful whether our cruisers would be so effectual in capturing slavers on the waters of Cuba as on the coast of Africa. The number of ports on the coast of Africa in which the slave trade was carried on was much smaller than was generally supposed, while the coast of Cuba was 1,500 miles in extent, much indented with creeks and bays, and the great number of vessels engaged in legitimate trade on that coast would materially interfere with the operations of the cruisers, by rendering it difficult to distinguish, the slaver from the honest merchant ship. Perhaps the best course would be, to make our squadron on the coast of Africa as effective as possible, placing there our swiftest cruisers, and adopting the inshore system of tactics, as had been recommended by naval men, instead of cruising in the open sea. A further suggestion had been made by a high legal authority, who was anxious for the suppression of the slave trade—that, whenever a slaver was taken, instead of allowing the captains and mates to go scot-free, some punishment, either imprisonment or transportation, should be inflicted upon them. To this, no doubt, it might be objected that it might involve us in difficulties with other nations, but this might easily be settled by expressing our perfect readiness to give up these persons to such nations as liked to claim them. It would rarely happen that any nation would wish to obtain possession of such scoundrels. It had been also suggested that the best way to prevent the slave trade would be, to promote the supply of free negroes into our own colonies, so as to enable them to compete with Cuba. Every one who was interested in our West India colo- nies would be glad to see a large supply of negroes if they went there of their own accord. On parts of the coast of Africa, as at the Gold Coast and Sierra Leone, where we possessed authority, the Government might encourage the immigration of free negroes, but if any person was to be allowed to go to any part of the coast and get labourers, it would in fact be slave trade and nothing else. The negroes were extremely indisposed to quit their own country, and it was to be doubted, moreover, if their labour would be of much value unless given of their own free will. It was stated that the planters of Martinique had petitioned the Emperor of the French not to allow the importation of free negroes there. He (Mr. Buxton) was of opinion that the attempt of the French to procure free negro labourers would really end in the revival of a slave trade. The negroes would be bought from the King of Dahomey, who would make war on different tribes for the purpose of obtaining them. Indeed, it was stated that, at Abbeokuta, where the cotton-growing experiment of which he had spoken was being tried, they were expecting an invasion from the King of Dahomey, for the purpose of obtaining slaves. What he wished to enforce on the Government as proper to be done on this question by them was, in the first place, to show Spain that, if she could not or would not suppress the Cuban slave trade, we could go into her waters, and do it for her; secondly, to make our squadron on the coast of Africa a more effective one; thirdly, to induce Spain to declare the slave trade to be piracy: and, fourthly, to punish persona taken in the act of carrying on the slave trade; while, if we could also promote the immigration of free negro labourers into our colonies, so much the better; and, if these courses were taken, he believed the result would be the complete suppression of this abominable traffic. It was a common feeling, that it was no use for us to attempt to suppress the iniquities of other nations, and that our endeavours to put down the slave trade had been a failure; but, in point of fact, our success had been splendid. In the beginning of the present century, the slave trade was carried on by Turkey, Denmark, Holland, Portugal, Spain, England, France, the United States, and Central America; now it was suppressed in all of them with the exception of Spain, and there it existed only in the island of Cuba, He thought, therefore, that there had been a remarkable success in the suppression of the trade. Fifty years ago the trade was not discountenanced by public opinion, and a large capital was invested in it, while its opponents were a band of obscure men of the middle class, and yet they had not only induced our own Government to suppress the trade, but also to interfere and induce other nations to do so. Indeed, the policy of England in this question had not only been praiseworthy for the originality of its conception, but for the perseverance with which it had been carried out. No two men now alive had done so much to put an end to this iniquitous traffic as the noble Lord at the head of the Government and the noble Lord the Member for the City of London (Lord J. Russell), and he hoped the House would, by assenting to the Resolution, strengthen the efforts of the Goverement to put down the remnants of this brutal and unchristian commerce."That for fourteen or fifteen years the engagements entered into by Spain with regard to the slave trade had been violated; that slaves had been allowed to be taken into Cuba; and those violations of treaties and engagements could not and would not have happened to any Government which was determined to prevent them."
seconded the Motion.
could not refrain—while rendering his humble support to a Motion which had been so ably brought forward—from reminding the House what had been the predictions of his late lamented friend Lord George Bentinck, consequent upon the withdrawal of protection from our West India colonies. And though he should rejoice to see the noble Lord at the head of the Government adopting the measures pointed out for the suppression of this abominable traffic, still it could not but be denied that all those measures would be more than counterbalanced by the direct encouragement given by England to the production of slave-grown sugar. The consequence of the withdrawal of protection from the West India colonies had been to raise the price of sugar, and the result of that had been that the slave-owners had diverted the labour of their slaves from the production of cotton to the field of diminished produce—the cultivation of sugar. The staple manufacture of England had, therefore, been threatened to a most serious degree. Although he could tender his most cordial support to the Resolution before the House, still he hoped hon. Gentlemen would forgive one who held in mind the unwearied exertions of the late Lord George Bentinck to impress upon the country what must be the certain results of the abandonment of protection in the case of our sugar colonies—if he reminded them that it had been foretold, over and over again, that England would yet have to struggle against an increased disposition to traffic in human beings, without her reaping the advantages so fondly anticipated in the lasting prosperity of the manufacturing districts. Those were matters which it might be too late to remember; but he mentioned them in order the more strenuously to impress upon the Government the necessity of England at once making such exertions for the suppression of this abominable traffic as came within the focus of the policy of the present day.
observed that he could not help thinking that the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Buxton) had overlooked the fact that the success of the slave trade was mainly owing to the great value of slave labour to the countries where it was enforced. He believed it to be a fact, that the value of a slave had increased within the last ten years, in the southern states of America, from £100 to £300. It was, perhaps, a very mournful circumstance to mention, nevertheless it was a fact, that while the consumption of cotton had doubled within the last twelve years, the free labour employed in its production had only increased at the rate of 28½ per cent, since 1790. At present four millions of our population were employed, or at least fed, by the cotton manufactures; and of the 1,000,000,000lbs. of the raw material imported every year, 700,000,000lbs. were produced by slave labour, and only 300,000,000lbs. by free; so that there were in this country 2,800,000 persons dependent for their bread upon slave labour. The people of this country were therefore responsible more than any other in the world for the slave trade. No doubt violent means of repression might go a great way to put down the slave trade, but still the chief cause of the trade would remain—that, however, was within their own control. It seemed to him, therefore, that if England were to direct her attention more to the means of substituting free-labour cotton for slave-grown cotton, she would be doing greater things for the suppression of the slave trade than by addressing remonstrances, however just, to the Emperor of the French, or by increasing her squadron on the coast of Africa.
Sir, I cordially agree to the Address which my hon. Friend has proposed. I am sure the House will do the Government the justice to believe that that Address only embodies the feelings and wishes of the Government. No doubt, the adoption of that Address by such an assembly as this will prove to the world how anxious England is for the completion of that work which so long engaged her attention. My hon. Friend has justly remarked that there is perhaps nothing more remarkable in the history of the world than the progress that has been made with respect to the question of the slave trade and slavery, by the exertion of this country throughout, I may say, the whole of Europe. There was a time when the general prejudice of this country ran in favour not merely of the existence of slavery, but of the slave trade. It was a few noble-minded men who originally started that view of the matter which has since prevailed, and who by their persevering exertions and the goodness of their cause won their way, first of all by procuring the abolition of the British slave trade, and next by enlisting the exertions of the British Government to procure from all other countries declarations and treaties for the abolition of the slave trade generally, and ultimately crowned their efforts so far as concerned England by the abolition of slavery itself in this country. Sir, that indeed would be a noble passage in the history of any country, and it would be truly mortifying if the exertions of the country to put an end to this abominable crime were defeated by the bad faith or a want of exertion on the part of a Government which has bound itself by solemn treaties to co-operate with us to the fullest extent in the extinction of the traffic. My hon. Friend has clearly pointed out some of the many advantages which have accrued to this country from the suppression of the slave trade. He has shown the great increase of legitimate commerce that has resulted from the intercourse between this country and the coast of Africa. He has pointed out the enormous increase in the importation of palm oil and other articles, and he has touched upon the trade in that article, of which we stand so much in need, and the importation of which might be greatly increased by a little effort—I mean the article of cotton for our manufactures. When it is remembered that almost the whole population of Western Africa and the people far in the interior are clothed with articles made of cotton, it is manifest that the cotton plant must be well adapted to the soil and climate of that part of the world. It is quite evident, also, that if pains were taken by the capitalists and merchants of England to obtain a supply of cotton from thence, Africa would in a short period become quite as prolific a source of supply as any other part of the globe. Therefore, regarding the matter merely in the light of national interest, and divesting it of those higher considerations which have hitherto governed our conduct, the House will see that the suppression of the slave trade, which is a sine quâ non condition of the development of legitimate traffic in Africa, is well deserving the attention of this country, I regret that the Spanish Government have not been as alive as they ought to have been to the pledges which they gave for the suppression of the slave trade in their dominions. It is quite true they have forgotten too much the money payments we have made to secure their co-operation in that object. At the same time, we know that there are temptations in Cuba which it is very difficult for the Governor, or for any of the other officers there, to resist; and we also know that there has exsisted an apathy on the part of the mother country to fulfil the engagements he has undertaken. When the hon. Gentleman, however, says that we ought to apply the same measures to Spain as to Brazil, he must allow me to point out the difference between the two cases. Brazil had bound itself by a general agreement to put an end to the slave trade; but it refused, when the former treaty expired, to enter into any new treaty which should establish detailed arrangements for executing the general engagement. In that state of things the Government of England acted towards Brazil as it had before done towards Portugal under similar circumstances. A law was passed authorizing the capture of Brazilian slavers, and the adjudication upon those ships, not before a Brazilian Court, but before the Court of Admiralty of this country. But Spain has not refused to enter into treaty engagements. We have a treaty with her by which all Spanish slavers captured by our vessels should be taken before mixed Courts of Commission. Therefore, as long as that treaty remains, unless we can show that there has been a deliberate and positive violation of its stipulations, we have not the same ground of proceeding in regard to Spain as we have towards Brazil. I can only say that I thank my hon. Friend for having elicited from this House what I trust will be an unanimous vote in favour of the Address which he has moved; and I beg to assure him and the House that no efforts shall be wanting on the part of Her Majesty's Government to give full effect to his feelings and wishes.
Motion agreed to.
Resolved, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that She will be graciously pleased to employ all the means in Her power, in order to put down the African Slave Trade, and to obtain the execution of the Treaties made for that purpose with other Powers.
County And District Surveyors, &C Ireland Bill
Committee Moved For
said, he rose to move for a Select Committee, to "inquire into the duties, functions, and mode of remuneration of County and District Surveyors, and Assistant Surveyors in Ireland, and also as to the best mode of examination to be henceforth adopted in reference to such officers, with a view to establish a system of competition, and secure to the public the services of the best qualified candidates." As his right hon. Friend the Secretary of the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland was good enough to assent to his Motion, it would not be necessary for him to trouble the House with more than a few observations. The object which he had in view was this. He remembered it to have been stated many years ago, by Sir Robert Peel, that a Session never passed without an Irish Grand Jury Bill, and an Irish Fishery Bill. Since that statement, he believed he might say the same practice had invariably obtained, and in the present Session there was one Fishery Bill and two Grand Jury Bills for their consideration; but while these annual attempts at legislation were regularly made, they invariably failed, and the old system remained unaltered. The truth was, that the Irish Members differed amongst themselves as to the basis on which the grand-jury system should be established. While some contended that the existing system, if amended, should be maintained; others were in favour of abolishing that system altogether, and no agreement could be come to. He was glad therefore to see in the present Session a Bill introduced by the hon. Member for Westmeath, the object of which was to remedy the defects of the existing system, without touching the principle, inasmuch as that was precisely the object which he (Mr. G. A. Hamilton) himself had in view, in laying the foundation of this inquiry. The House might be aware that the establishment of county surveyors took place in 1830, under the 3 & 4 Will. IV., c. 78, and which was extended by the 6 & 7 Will. IV., c. 16. Those Acts provided for the appointment of a county surveyor in each county in Ireland, and as a condition precedent that such officer was to be subject to an examination by certain officers therein described. Now, the functions of those county surveyors were extremely numerous and important. Those duties were set forth somewhat in detail. He would give the House merely an outline of them, such as was contained in a letter addressed by a committee of the county surveyors of Ireland to the predecessor of his right hon. Friend the Secretary for Ireland, and given in the Report of a Commission appointed in Ireland in 1842, to consider the whole subject of the grand jury laws. Those county surveyors had to specify the work that was necessary, to select the parties that were to carry it out, to report upon the works when completed, to report upon the state of all bridges, &c., and to superintend generally all matters relating to the office of county surveyor. It was quite obvious, from the extent of the county works in Ireland, that no single individual could perform efficiently those various duties; and, accordingly, the law provided that it should be discretionary for the grand jury to appoint assistant surveyors with a salary of £60 a year to each. That power had been exercised in some and not in other counties. He was anxious to call attention to the results which had followed from the appointment of county surveyors. In the year 1834, the cost of the maintenance of the roads immediately after the institution of the county surveyors was, on an average, £17 10s. a mile. In 1854, the cost, notwithstanding the great increase of wages and drainage, was reduced to £8 13s. per mile—less than one-half what it was at the former period. The cost of superintendence in 1834 was also about double what it was in 1854. He would give an instance of the cost of two counties with the view of showing the effect of the system of surveyors that was in operation. He would take a county in the extreme north, Antrim, and a county in the extreme south, Kerry:—
Antrim County
1834.—One surveyor, no assistant; miles of road maintained. 240; cost of maintenance, £19,628; cost of superintendence, £1,080—5—middot;50 per cent.
1854.—One surveyor, twelve assistants; miles of road maintained, 1,020; cost of maintenance, £30,760; cost of superintendence, £905—2;middot;94 per cent.
Kerry County
1834.—One surveyor, no assistant; miles of road maintained, 608; cost of maintenance, £6,538; cost of superintendence, £350—5;middot;35 per cent.
1854.—One surveyor, four assistants; miles of road maintained, 1,420; cost of maintenance, £12,666; cost of superintendence, £550—4;middot;34 per cent.
Total In Ireland
1834.—Miles maintained, 13,191; cost of maintenance, £320,645; cost of superintendence, £16,976—5;middot;29 per cent.
1854.—Miles maintained, 36,703; cost of maintenance, £410,689; cost of superintendence, £17,895—4;middot;19 per cent.
He would submit that the remuneration of those surveyors who rendered such important services ought to be adequate. Their remuneration was, however, limited by Act of Parliament to a sum not exceeding £300 per annum. When their incidental expenses were deducted, their remuneration was little more than £200 a year. As to the assistant surveyors, the Act of Parliament provided that their salary should be only £50, although in their discretion they exercised duties of a varied and different character as would appear from the following facts:—In Antrim, 12 for 1,900 miles of road; Meath 1 for 1,700; Galway, for 957; Louth, 3 for 400. No system founded upon any one principle seemed to be adopted in reference to those assistant surveyors. In 1842 the Commission was appointed, of which his right hon. Friend Sir John Young was Chairman, and which collected a vast deal of information in reference to the grand jury system. That Commission recommended, as an improvement upon the existing system, that each county should be divided into districts; and that, instead of one surveyor, each county should have a certain number of competent surveyors, and that the assistant surveyors should be altogether abolished. He was not convinced that such a measure would be an improvement. By an inquiry of the kind for which he now moved, he thought it was possible, by an examination of a few competent witnesses, that a Committee would be enabled to arrive at such a conclusion as would form the basis of a measure for the improvement of the grand jury system, in the important matter of the supervision of the County Courts. There was another point he wished to notice; that was, the preliminary examination that was considered requisite. Although he was bound to say that the officers appointed were efficient and useful men, yet he was of opinion that the system of examination followed was not as satisfactory as could be desired. He thought the system of competitive examination peculiarly applicable to a case of this kind. He was an advocate for publicity as regards the examination papers, and the number of works which each candidate might obtain. By a system of competitive examination they would be opening the offices to an educated class above the lowest class, and they would be also giving a stimulus to an advantageous and a useful system of education.
seconded the Motion.
said, he thought that the present grand jury system was so bad it would be impossible to improve it. The mode of examination of surveyors was disgraceful, and they were miserably paid, considering that they had the superintendence of the outlay of large sums of money in Ireland, and the importance of the duties they had to perform. He should accordingly support the Motion.
said, he also must condemn the present system of surveyors, and he thought that it was worthy of consideration whether by granting them higher salaries they could not have the duties much better performed.
said, that there was great dissatisfaction felt at the mode of examination that was carried on. The Commissioners, it was stated, had in many instances appointed their own private friends. The people demanded that those examinations should take place publicly, that due notice of them should be given, and that the names of candidates, successful and otherwise, with the names of the examiners should be published. He thought also that no examiners ought to be permitted to examine their own pupils.
remarked, that he concurred in the Motion for a Committee as far as it went; but he thought that the question was surrounded with more difficulty than they imagined.
said, he readily concurred in the Motion of his hon. Friend, with whom he quite agreed that the subject was one of great importance, and that an inquiry of the nature proposed would be a useful—he might almost say an indispensable—preliminary to any attempt at reforming the grand jury system of Ireland. He also agreed with his hon. Friend (Mr. Grogan) upon the question of remuneration, and believed that it would be sound economy for each country to obtain a first-rate man, and have his undivided services. Further, he admitted that it would be a desirable thing that the parties who were examined should not be examined by those with whom they had been private pupils. He hoped, however, that his hon. Friend would take care and keep the Committee within the order of reference, because if they went beyond that it would be impossible for them to conclude the matter this Session, and the result would be, that he should not have the advantage of their Report to assist him in the recess in maturing a measure that would be satisfactory either to the country or himself.
Motion agreed to.
Select Committee appointed, "to inquire into the duties, functions, and mode of remuneration of County and District Surveyors and Assistant Surveyors, in Ireland, and also as to the best mode of examination to be henceforth adopted in reference to such Officers, with a view to establish a system of competition, and secure to the public the services of the best qualified candidates."
Railways (Ireland)
moved for leave to bring in a Bill to enable baronies or other districts in Ireland to give guarantees for the construction of railways passing through such districts. He understood there was to be no opposition to his Motion; he should, therefore, reserve an explanation of the provisions of the measure until the second reading. On the present occasion he would content himself with observing that these guarantees had already been sanctioned in several districts in Ireland by special Acts of Parliament; but he proposed that his Bill should be a general one, enabling the ratepayers in any district to judge for themselves, and decide whether such guarantee should be given or not.
said, he did not rise to oppose the Motion; but in allowing the hon. Gentleman to bring in his Bill it must be distinctly understood that Government did not thereby imply a pledge to support even the principle of the measure. The subject was one which required the greatest possible consideration, and certainly, as at present advised, he thought the principle was full of danger, and that in almost all cases where a district was sufficiently important to require a railroad, and the railroad formed a legitimate subject of speculation, the usual course of coming to Parliament for an Act was the best mode of proceeding.
agreed in every word that had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman, except where he expressed his readiness to give leave to introduce the Bill. The principle involved in the measure was a most dangerous one, and should be regarded by the House with the greatest suspicion. He disapproved entirely of the principle of mortgaging the public rates for the furtherance of private speculations. Besides, even if the Bill were brought in now, it was totally impossible that it could pass this Session.
hoped the hon. and learned Gentleman would consider well the difficulties which he would have to encounter in obtaining the consent of the ratepayers of the district. If it was meant to give the associated magistrates the power of taxing the ratepayers, he should oppose the Bill at a future stage, and he, therefore, hoped that the approval of the ratepayers would be made a necessary condition of the undertaking.
said, that at that period of the Session when the majority of Irish Members would shortly be going upon circuit, there could be no hope of so important a subject being satisfactorily settled. He would not, however, object to the introduction of the Bill, because his hon. and learned Friend, if he were content with merely bringing it in, would be able to lay before the country a plan for arriving at a settlement of a question which involved important Imperial interests.
said he would agree to this suggestion, but on the second reading, he would make a statement explaining more particularly the objects of the Bill, in order that that statement might go forth to the country with the Bill.
Leave given.
Bill to enable baronies or other districts in Ireland to give guarantees for the construction of Railways passing through such districts, ordered to be brought in by Mr. BUTT and Mr. BEAMISH.
Public Health Act (1848) Amendment
, in moving for leave to bring in a Bill to amend the Public Health Act, 1848, and to make further provisions for Town Improvement, said, that he should have brought the question before the House at an earlier period of the Session, but it was thought desirable that it should follow another Bill which was now before Parliament, for transferring the powers of the Board of Health to the Department of Education. The provisions of the Bill had been submitted to the local Boards of Health in the chief towns in the country, and he believed he might say, that those provisions had the concurrence and support of all of them. The main object of the measure was to remedy the defects which an experience of nine years had shown to exist in the Act of 1848—to give powers of cleansing and purifying towns, to renovate streets and highways, to audit accounts, and generally to improve the management. With regard to the central Board he proposed to repeal the power which, by the existing law, the General Board of Health possessed of applying the Act to towns without the consent of the inhabitants. This was a power to which considerable objection had been made, although it had rarely, if ever, been resorted to, because it was clear that, even if there were an advantage in the central authority being able to apply an Act against the consent of the inhabitants, there would be little result from it, since the execution of the Act must depend upon the voluntary use made by the inhabitants of the powers given them by the Act. He, therefore, proposed so far to alter the mode of adopting the Act, that it should no longer be applied by the action of the Board of Health, or other authority to whom those powers had been entrusted, but by a vote of the inhabitants of the town desiring to have the benefit of the Act. It also very seldom happened that a town wishing to avail itself of the Act had the proper boundaries which it was desirable it should have, and the Bill, therefore, gave the central Board power to interfere to settle the boundaries, of course with the consent of the inhabitants. Moreover, there was often a difficulty in applying the Act, in consequence of the existence of local Acts, and the Bill gave power to the central Board to make provisional orders which would be submitted to the House, There was a tendency in local bodies when they constructed works, to saddle future ratepayers with the burden of the expense, and power was given to the central Board to prevent that being done, unless the works were of a permanent character. At the same time, he might observe with regard to the powers now possessed by the General Board of Health, some of those powers were considered to be unconstitutional and arbitrary. Much ignorance seemed to prevail upon that subject, but if hon. Gentlemen would take the trouble to look carefully into the Act of 1848, they would see that there was nothing in that Act which vested in the Board of Health any power of a compulsory nature. In fact, the power of that Board was rather of a restrictive character than anything else. The object of the whole legislation upon this subject was, to enable the towns to execute necessary works, and to keep their localities in good order and sound sanitary condition. This Bill would afford the means of removing all the sources of disease which could be abolished by the action of local bodies, and which now existed to a large extent in almost every court and alley of large towns, while it was so framed that each could adopt so much of its powers as were necessary to meet its immediate wants. It would be strictly a permissive measure. He believed it was very much demanded by the towns themselves, and he therefore hoped it would not meet with any serious opposition.
Leave given.
Bill to amend the Public Health Act, 1848, and to make further provision for Town Improvement, ordered to be brought in by Mr. COWPER and Mr. MONSELL.
Clerks Of Petty Sessions (Ireland)
Leave
then moved for leave to introduce a Bill to authorise the payment of clerks of Petty Sessions in Ireland by salaries instead of fees, and to amend the Petty Sessions (Ireland) Act, 1851.
hoped that a similar Bill would be introduced with respect to England.
Leave given.
Bill to authorise the payment of Clerks of Petty Sessions, in Ireland, by Salaries instead of Fees, and to amend the Petty Sessions (Ireland) Act, 1851, ordered to be brought in by Mr. HERBERT and Mr. Attorney General for Ireland.
Railway Traffic Act Amendment Bill
Second Reading
Order for Second Reading read.
said, he rose to move the second reading of this Bill, the object of which was to facilitate the means of ob- taining justice in cases of dispute between private individuals and the railway companies, in connection with the traffic on existing railways. The measure dealt with a very large interest, and he presumed that the Ministry even could not disregard the claims of railway proprietors. He was himself a railway proprietor. He was desirous to know what authority it was the House recognized in such matters. In introducing this Bill, he was supported by the authority of the Committee—an authority which must be of the highest weight with the House. Under the former Act, a private individual who was injured by the traffic arrangements had no remedy against a railway company, except through the Court of Common Pleas, the expense of which was ruinous. He proposed to give the party injured a right of making a complaint to the Board of Trade, who would call on the company for an explanation, and if that was not satisfactory, they would then put the law in Motion, as provided by the former Act.
Motion made and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
said, that as the law now stood, any private person to whom a railway company denied proper facilities might appeal to the Court of Common Pleas to compel the company to afford him such facilities, or the Board of Trade might direct the Attorney General to commence a prosecution, against the company for the same purpose. The Bill of the hon. Gentleman sought to retain to the private individual the power which he had at present of going to the Court of Common Pleas, and it gave him, in addition, the power of going to the Board of Trade, and of compelling them to investigate the complaint. He (Mr. Lowe) objected to the Bill as unfair to the railway companies, because it exposed them to the grievance of being twice vexed on the same matter. They would be first liable to be tried by the Board of Trade, and if the Board of Trade decided against them they might be tried again before the Court of Common Pleas; or, if the Board of Trade decided in their favour and dismissed the complaint, it would be open to the person to go to the Court of Common Pleas himself. He objected to the Bill also, because it was unfair to the public, by burdening the Treasury with the expense of prosecuting every man's private grievances. He objected to it also on account of the Attorney General, who had quite enough to do at present without being compelled to prosecute all the railway companies in the kingdom; and, finally, he objected to it on behalf of the Board of Trade, which, if it were fit for anything, was fit to exercise a discretion in matters of this sort, and ought not to be forced to enter into investigations and to institute prosecutions in cases where such proceedings were not necessary, and which had no judicial power, no machinery, and no aptitude to enable it to carry out such a duty satisfactorily. For these reasons he objected to the hon. Gentleman's Bill. The hon. Gentleman had made some reflections on the conduct of the Court of Common Pleas. He (Mr. Lowe) had read the decisions of the Court of Common Pleas, and he thought that court had decided with great wisdom and fairness. Undoubtedly, that court had not very easy machinery for the purpose; but it was the machinery which Parliament had devised, and the learned Judges seemed to have got it into working order with great fairness, and he was certain it would not be improved by burdening the court with the business which would be imposed on it by the present Bill. He moved that the Bill be read a second time that day three months.
Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day three months."
MR. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSEN moved, that the House do now adjourn.
Motion made, and Question, "That this House do now adjourn," put, and agreed to.
House adjourned at a quarter before One o'clock.