of Government, and they were the result of a consideration of the case during the tenure of office of the noble Lord the Member for King's Lynn (Lord Stanley), than whom all would admit no one would be more candid, dispassionate, and just. It was the opinion of that noble Lord, or of those whom he consulted, that prima facie the property in dispute was public property, and that the suits should be defended on that ground. Since then there might have been delays, no doubt caused in part by the necessity of making use of papers, some of which were in India, and some in England; for the papers were of course distributed over both countries. Moreover, in the meantime the Government of India had been changed, the mutiny had broken out and been suppressed, and the judicial system of the country had been altered, and possibly delays might have arisen from those causes. A pamphlet had been published upon this subject, which had been sent to Sir John Lawrence, who, in a letter to the Indian Government, stated that he was satisfied the Government could have no object in delay; but he believed there had been greater delays than ought to have occurred, which, however, he thought were attributable to the plaintiff as well as to the defendant. It really was most unreasonable to ask the House to form an opinion of the merits of a case like this, arising in a far distant country, after the lapse of many years from the occurrence of the events, and when the litigation was still proceeding. There could be no doubt that for the first twenty years the delay was attributable to the plaintiff. Litigation, whether with a Government or between individuals, generally occupied more time than was desirable, because its prolongation necessarily led to expense, and therefore it was for the advantage of all parties concerned that it should terminate as soon as possible. He thought the House would agree with Sir John Lawrence, who said it was absurd to suppose that the Government had endeavoured to cause delay for the sake of delay, and not to search for materials which it was very difficult to get together. He hoped there would be more dispatch in the future.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL said, that the Government did not seek to withdraw the case from the judicial tribunal. The merits of the case depended upon the fact whether it was an act of the State. If so, of course the judicial tribunals had no jurisdiction.

MR. BOVILL said, if it were an act of the State the Government might say there was no remedy by the ordinary tribunals, but in some recent cases it had been shown that where, by an act of the State, injustice or wrong was done there was a tribunal to which appeal could be made the House of Commons. In the case of the Nawab of Surat such an appeal was made, and the result was the passing of an Act of Parliament. He admitted that the time had not come to consider the merits of this case, but he hoped one result of the discussion would be to prevent further delays, and to lead to some speedy and satisfactory termination of the suit.

MR. AYRTON said, that he had been counsel for the plaintiff in the appeal. He would not enter into the merits of the case, as they would probably have to be considered at a future time, when the House would be surprised to learn the remarkable conduct of the Indian Government in connection with a suit in which they were the defendants. He would only venture to hope that the suit might be allowed to proceed without further delays, and that if justice were not done in India the parties would be enabled to obtain it at the hands of that House.

TRANSPORT SERVICE BETWEEN

for Sunderland (Mr. Lindsay), was appointed some years ago to consider the question of our transport service, and the Committee came to the conclusion that it was not desirable that Her Majesty should maintain a separate transport service, but that the Government should avail itself for this purpose of our commercial marine. Her Majesty's Government, however, instead of carrying out the recommendations of the Report, set it entirely aside, and had, in fact, commenced a transport service of great magnitude and cost. It was ascertained that the transport service, when performed by the Government, was attended by nearly double the expense which was incurred when the service was performed by contract. Not only, however, had the Government proposed entirely to dispense with the use of the mercantile marine, but one Department of the Go vernment had actually entered into competition with another. The Secretary of State for India had, in fact, entered into active competition with the Postmaster General and the resources of the Treasury. This competition could not but increase the already heavy expenses incurred by the course which the Government had deter mined upon adopting. After destroying the Indian Navy, and incurring large expenditure in the shape of pensions, the right hon. Baronet the Secretary of State for India now proposed setting up a quiet little marine of his own on the other side of the world. There were many other questions in connection with this subject which deserved a full consideration at the hands of the House, and none were more worthy of attention than was that of the postal communication between this country and India and China. While, however, he did not press on the subject at the present moment, he wished it to be distinctly understood that if he had the honour of sitting in the ensuing Parliament it would be his first concern to move for the appointment of a Committee upon this subject, and he trusted that the Government would not imagine that because he now abandoned it he had not any intention of proceeding with it at a future time.

MR. T. G. BARING said, that as a Member of the Committee to which the hon. and learned Gentleman had referred, he could not but think that the hon. and learned Gentleman had not read the evidence adduced before that Committee or its Report. He assured him that the Report of the Committee did not in any way recommend

that the whole transport service should be conducted by the merchant service instead of by the Government. The evidence upon this point was very conflicting, and the Committee came to no conclusion whatever upon the subject. It was therefore clear that the proposal of the Secretary of State for India, which was now being carried out-namely, that the transport service of India should be carried on by the Government, was not in the least inconsistent with any recommendation of the Committee. On the contrary, he believed the policy of the right hon. Baronet to be a sound one. The course proposed to be adopted had been recommended by the military authorities and Government in India, and had received the approbation of the Indian Council. Their sending the troops by the overland route to India would be far more economical to the revenue, while at the same time it would give greater power of disposing of the whole force of the Empire. He could not understand the statement of the hon. and learned Gentleman that the Secretary of State for India and the Postmaster General had entered into active competition. If the hon. and learned Gentleman referred to the passengers carried in the Government transports, he might state that those passengers would be the military troops, and the Government servants, and in proposing such a course there was surely nothing unfair. He could only say that the right hon. Baronet the Secretary of State for India was perfectly ready to discuss the subject, and he felt convinced that the House would feel that the course pursued was the most economical one as well as

one which would secure the greatest efficiency to the public service.

Motion agreed to:-House at rising to adjourn till Monday next.

EAST INDIA (REVENUE) ACCOUNTS.

REPORT.

Resolutions [June 29] reported.

MR. AYRTON said, he could assure the House that he was right in stating that the Transport Committee reported in favour of the employment of the commercial marine for the transport service, instead of Government vessels.

Resolutions agreed to.

House adjourned at Eight o'clock, till Monday next.

had arrived nearly at the termination of the Session, yet they had not arrived at a period of the year when a fair attendance of Peers, both spiritual and lay, could not reasonably be expected; and, as they were not permitted to interfere in elections, and had no elections of their own to encounter, he did not think that their Lordships would permit that objection to stand in his way should he succeed in making out the case of urgency which the terms of the Resolution implied. Moreover, let it be remembered by their Lordships, that he was not proposing a Bill which would have to go through various stages, nor a new subject of which the House might be supposed not to understand all the bearings, but one which had come under discussion in their Lordships' House both this year and last year and the year before last, and, what was still more to the purpose, one in regard to which their Lordships had pronounced a decision favourable to the views which he was putting forth; and he said so for this reason, that when he made a Motion two years ago for a Commission to suggest a remedy for the evils which arose from the indiscriminate and compulsory use of the Burial Service, fifteen noble Lords took part in the debate. Of those thirteen, including both the Primates and three other Spiritual Peers, declared their opinion that he had made out his case, and that the time was come when a remedy for the evils which he detailed ought to be sought for and discovered; and of the remaining two, one objected, not to the subject-matter of the Motion, but to the propriety of this House discussing the subject; while the other, a noble and learned Lord, simply addressed himself to a point of law. Although two years had since elapsed, the House would not have forgotten either the cases-those painful scenes with which the right rev. Prelate who presided over the diocese of Llandaff illustrated his own argument and his (Lord Ebury's) by the painful case he had instanced, nor the emphatic declarations of the most rev. the Primate of all England, that he had often been consulted on the subject, and that he had always said there were circumstances under which he should be prepared to face all the penalties of the law sooner than comply with its requirements as to reading the service. He (Lord Ebury) did not press his Motion, because he was most earnestly appealed to by the most rev. Prelate, and

by nearly all who spoke, to give a little more time, that a remedy might be devised by the Prelates of our Church, whose attention it was about to occupy; and he well remembered the words used by his own right rev. Diocesan. Especially appealing to him, he said he might be sure, from the speeches made by the occupants of the right rev. Bench, that the subject would not be allowed to drop. Not to trouble the House with too many details, their Lordships knew the sequel. Nothing had been done to effect the settlement of this question. Two years had passed away, and from the return given to a question which he asked the most rev. Prelate a few days ago, there appeared to be no reasonable expectation of any proposition coming-as they all had fondly hoped it would come-from the right rev. Bench. And so this state of things, which had been pronounced by some 4,000 clergymen to impose a heavy burden upon the consciences of clergymen, and a grievous scandal to many Christian people, seemed likely to remain so to the end of time. He hoped the occupants of the right rev. Bench would not suppose for a moment that he meant to impute to them that they acquiesced in this state of affairs. Very far from it, nothing, he knew, would give them greater pleasure than to bring forward an effective remedy; but, in truth, they were in a dilemma, out of which he invited their Lordships to assist them. The most rev. Prelate had told the House fairly what that dilemma was. The majority of their clergy were opposed to the only practical remedy-namely, an alteration in the wording of the service. Now, let them study this subject by the light of a speech made not very long ago by one of the most sagacious Prelates now on the Bench, and see whether there might not be a means of overcoming the difficulty. The Bishop of London said

"The clergy necessarily from, their profession, it; and even those changes which were good were averse to change, and he was thankful for might not receive from them that amount of favour on their first proposal which, after alterations made by their superiors, they were willing to accord to them. It was doubtful whether, with regard to some very salutary reforms which had taken place in the Church, such as those relating to pluralities and non-residence, if the decision had rested with the whole body of the clergy, that

properly conservative spirit which animated them course was to let things remain as they were. He would not have led them to say that the safer thought it would be wise, on the part of the Government, to take the question into their own