§ Dr. Bowringrose to move for the production of the correspondence of the British Government with the Porte on the subject of the Bishop of Jerusalem. The hon. Member proceeded to state the circumstances relative to the mission of a Protestant bishop to Jerusalem. It having been determined that it would be desirable to establish a Protestant bishop at Jerusalem, application was made to the Porte to obtain its sanction to the establishment of a Protestant bishop at Jerusalem, and a large sum of money had been obtained on the understanding that a firman had been granted by the Porte for the establishment of a Protestant bishop in Syria. But no such firman had been granted. The Porte neither could nor would recognise the new Bishopric of Jerusalem. It could not, for the superior tribunals to which such questions were necessarily referred, had again and again decided that it was not competent for the Porte to establish new churches in the countries which had been submitted to the Mussulman sway. And thus the large amount of money which had been raised in England had been raised on a statement which was without foundation. Another object, however, had been connected with this proposal. It was known that there was one monarch in Europe, the King of Prussia, who was desirous of co-operating for the purpose 843 of putting into practice a favourite theory of his, that in Palestine it was probable that an union might, be effected between the Lutheran and Anglican churches, and that an experiment might be made to establish a new Protestant authority in Syria. He (Dr. Bowring) believed that that experiment had failed. The proper authority had not been obtained from the Porte, but promises of a vague and unsatisfactory character. But before anything was decided on—without a church—without a congregation to welcome him—unless, indeed, his numerous suite and family might be deemed to constitute his congregation, the bishop appointed to this mission set out for Syria, with a wife and six children, and the Parliament of this country had been called upon to pay the expense of his conveyance to the Holy Land. But how was the bishop suited to his high mission. Of Oriental languages he was wholly ignorant. He was sent among a people with whom he could hold no converse—and though he (Dr. Bowring) had been given to understand he was an Hebrew scholar—he had received no classical education—and, with the exception of German and English, had little or no knowledge of any modern tongue, He believed that he was of Jewish origin, having been born in Poland, and he (Dr. Bowring) would ask any one who had ever visited the Levant, whether there was any circumstance more likely to prejudice an individual than that he was of Jewish origin. It was a common taunt against a person, and the strongest term of invective that could be used against an individual was the Ebn Tavudi, meaning, "you son of a Jew.'" On the arrival of the bishop, the Mussulmans received him with considerable respect—nay, it is said, the Christian bishop entered the city attended by the parade and pomp which the Mussulmans had provided for his reception, and the banner of the cross was borne in procession, accompanied by the crescent of the Mussulman. On this occasion these was great curiosity to, see the English bishop, and he excited great admiration; and there were many shouts of "Il Vescovo" (the bishop): still greater was the wonder when the bishop's lady appeared; and the cries of "La Vescova" (the she-bishop) were heard; but wonder reached its highest point, when the bishop's children made their appearance, and the people, exclaiming in an extacy of astonishment, "Santissima Maria! e sei vescovini!" ("Holy Virgin, and six 844 little bishops too!) Now, he (Dr. Bowring) thought that the circumstance of the bishop being married was not calculated to serve him in the estimation of the people amongst whom he went. Throughout the whole east it was impossible to connect the idea of sanctity with the episcopal character, unless the individual had also the reputation of celibacy. He (Dr. Bowring) had already stated that there were great difficulties in the way of obtaining the proper authority for the erection of a new Christian Church. The power of granting that authority did not reside in the Divan, nor even in the Sultan himself. There was at Constantinople a convocation called "The Court of the Mekemchi," to whose decision all questions that involved religious considerations were referred. Several divisions had been come to by this Court of Mekemchi, that no new Christian Church should be allowed to be erected unless in places where a Christian Church existed before. To show the power which the Mekemchi exercised, he might mention that a few years ago the Coptic Christians of Middle Egypt obtained from the Pacha power to build a Christian church at Keneh, and they selected a place for the erection of this church, which was exactly in the line of the route which was annually taken by the pilgrims to the holy cities, and the church was destroyed by the fanatical Mahomedans. Another firman was obtained at Cairo, and the building was again commenced, and again destroyed. It was his (Dr. Bowring's) fortune to come into contact with some of those individuals by whom the church had been erected, and they described to him the disrespect shown to the orders of the Pacha, and asked him (Dr. Bowring) to speak to Mehemet Ali on the subject. He did so, and the Pacha told him (Dr. Bowring), that a deputation of Ulemas had come to Cairo, and referred him to the decision that had been come to by the court of the Mekemchi, and which they said had been, settled since the period of the Mahomedan conquest, that no new Christian church should be erected; and he (Mehemet Ali) finding that he had no power to grant such a permission, had no other course to pursue than to reimburse to those parties the money which they had expended in the erection of this church, for that he found he had not the power to grant his authority. There could be no doubt that the same resistance had been found at Constantinople, for in the present state of Islam 845 feeling, the Sultan could no more attempt to set up a Christian Bishop under his authority, than the Archbishop of Canterbury could attempt to sanction by his countenance and support a deputation of Mahomedan Ulemas, come to this country for the purpose of endeavouring to convert the people. He believed, that the Sultan could no more attempt to give authority to build a church, than the Government could attempt the introduction of a law in that House for building a mosque, or allowing persons to preach the Koran in the public streets for the purpose of converting the people of this country. [Hon. Mèmbers: "How could you prevent them?"] He did not see how they could prevent them from preaching; but would Parliament attempt to pass a law to authorise them to build a mosque, and to allow Ulemas, under the sanction of the law, to preach the Koran and endeavour to make converts in this country? He believed, that the steps that had been taken, would early cause additional exasperation and irritation, and make the people less willing to listen to the teachings of Christianity or calculated to make more converts. Now, with respect to the connection of the Anglican and Lutheran church, he did not think that a connection with the Lutherans would make our church more popular with the Christians of the Levant, amongst whom the name of Luther was exceedingly unpopular. He believed that this country had been injured by what had been done. He did not think that the establishment of a bishop was calculated to diminish the exasperation that had already existed towards us. When the bill was asked from Parliament for the establishment of a bishop at Jerusalem, it was stated, that no expense would be incurred by the English people. What was the purpose for which the bishop was sent?—what was he to do? Was he to convert the Jews? With respect to the Jews who inhabit the Holy Land, he believed that there was no class of men whose love of their country was greater. He might say that the affection of the Jews to the soil was most touching. They arrived in hundreds from all parts of the world, satisfied to die in the land that had been formerly ruled over by their fathers. He believed, that if the bishops made converts, it would be amongst a class of men, whose conversions could be considered no great honour to any church. As to the Mussulmans the Bishop could not dream of making converts amongst them, and he did 846 not think that amongst the various sects of Christians, he was likely to gain a great number of converts. Nothing could be stronger than the attachment of the Christians of the Levant to their various modes of faith, and he did not believe that any converts would be made amongst them. In the present state of the House, he would not occupy their attention at greater length, and he hoped, therefore, that the right hon. Baronet would consent to the production of the papers for which he now begged to move.
§ Sir R. H. Inglis and Sir Robert Peelrose together; but Sir Robert Peel gave way.
§ Sir R. H. Inglissaid, that if his right hon. Friend were prepared to state the intentions of the Government, he would at once withdraw, without interposing any delay to the House receiving that gratification. It would be a compliment to the hon. and learned Gentleman who bad just sat down to say, that he was surprised at his speech. Much as be objected to its tone, spirit, and manner, it was only what he might have expected. The hon. and learned Member thought fit to speak with taunt and levity of the appointment and the person of the Bishop of the Church of England in Jerusalem. That scorn and derision were misapplied. The appointment did equal honour to the princes who concurred in it, and to the individual who was the object of their favour. For what was the fact? up to the date of that appointment, ours was the only Christian community in the old world, which had not sent one of its highest order of ecclesiastics as its representative to the Holy Land. Why should the Protestant Reformed Church of England be prevented, more than the Church of Rome, the Greek Church, the Armenian Church, the Church of the Nestorians—from having a bishop in Jerusalem? We did not presume to send any one to he the "representative of Christianity" in the East, as the hon. and learned member called the bishop. "The whole front of the offending" in the matter was neither more nor less than this—that Dr. Alexander had been sent forth as one of the highest ministers of our own Church, to reside where the bishops of other communications had long been permitted to reside. So much for the appointment itself—then, as to the person appointed. The hon. and learned Gentleman specially objected to the individual chosen: first, he was stated to be a Jew—as if this were a conclusive 847 disparagement. He (Sir R. H. Inglis,) would not trust himself to 'advert to the higher considerations which this allusion suggested; but, looking merely to the profession of liberal opinions usually entertained by the hon. Member, and those who sat near him, he might say, that from such a quarter, he hardly expected such a sneer. The fact was admitted; but that the fact was an objection, he for one did not admit; on the contrary, he regarded it as an additional recommendation of the appointment. Was Dr. Alexander the first bishop who had been a Jew? Who was the prelate of the first Christian church? Who was the first bishop in Jerusalem?—was it not a Jew, was it not St. James? We were Gentiles; and could we, as Gentiles, recollecting these foundations of the church, object to any man now a Christian, that he had formerly been a Jew? So much for the first objection to Dr. Alexander. The second was that he was born in Poland. As, however, the hon. and learned Member did not himself lay much stress upon the charge, it was not necessary for him (Sir R. H. Inglis) to dwell upon it. It was enough for him to say, that whatever was the country of Dr. Alexander's birth, he was now a subject of the Queen of England. The third objection was, that the bishop was no scholar; that he was "wholly ignorant of classical literature." Whatever other objections might have been urged to the appointment, he (Sir R. H. Inglis) did not expect to have to meet that charge. In the first place, Bishop Alexander had been Professor of Hebrew and Rabbinical Literature in King's College, London. He (Sir R. H. Inglis) did not presume to give an opinion on his fitness for that office; but he held in his hand the bishop's inaugural lecture as Professor; which he was informed by those entitled to give an opinion, sufficiently justified the choice of those who had appointed him to fill that chair. [Here an hon. Gentleman noticed that there were not forty Members present. Sir R. H. Inglis sat down, and the House was counted; but forty being present, he resumed his speech.] He said, that when in compliance with the rule of the House he had sat down, he had been stating the literary qualifications of Bishop Alexander, as exhibited at King's College, London. In the lectures which he there delivered, in the course of his connection with that institution, the bishop had also come under the cognizance of the Archbishop of Canterbury, the President of the College; and of the 848 Bishop of London, the Chairman of the Council; and he had reason to believe, that those eminent persons had a different estimate of the scholarship of Bishop Alexander from that entertained by the hon. and learned Member opposite. In fact, though the bishop might not possess all the Pangloss acquirements which were in favour with the learned Gentleman, he (Sir R. H. Inglis) believed, that he might state without hazard of contradiction from any other person, that Bishop Alexander, looking merely to his qualifications as a scholar, possessed them to an extent equal at least to those of others sent out on Missionary labours by any other communion. He had already specified his knowledge of Hebrew and rabbinical literature. The hon. Member himself admitted, that the Bishop understood German. He (Sir R. H. Inglis) would add, that the bishop underwent his examination for deacon's orders, before an archbishop most eminent himself as a scholar, and no careless judge of the scholarship of others. He referred to the late Archbishop Magee. Dr. Alexander was admitted to the order of Priest, by the late Dr. Lindsay, Bishop of Kildare; but it was almost needless to pursue this branch of the subject, because, even if the Bishop possessed all the acquirements of the Admirable Crichton, he would not satisfy the learned Member, whose fundamental objection was that any bishop at all was sent. The hon. Gentleman, indeed, had even a more serious objection to the individual than any which had yet been noticed. The bishop was, it seems, a married man !—as if this were an unanswerable objection. Now he (Sir R. H. Inglis) felt, that, if there were one point above others on which the Protestant Reformed Church of England, so far as related to what might be called her civil polity, stood superior to the Church of Rome; it was in not requiring—in not even encouraging—the celibacy of the clergy. Certainly, from a Protestant, as was the hon. and learned Member, it was not the objection which was the most consistent. So far from the fact being an objection, he (Sir R. H. Inglis) believed, that the presence of the wife and family of the bishop would be favourable, as examples of the social duties which the bishop should himself discharge and should encourage in others. But, says the hon. Gentleman, you have, after all, not secured your bishopric—and you never can: the Porte has not granted its permission; and, for the best of all reasons, because the Porte cannot grant 849 such permission. The Sultan cannot admit your bishop into Jerusalem. This is a strange allegation. He (Sir R. H. Inglis) had already stated that there were Greek and Nestorian, and Armenian and Roman Catholic Bishops in Jerusalem; and that this was some reason at least why the Church of England, also, should desire to have one of its own highest order of ecclesiastics there. It followed, also, therefore, that, if the Mussulmans did not object to the residence of the other bishops in Jerusalem, there was no reason to expect a special objection to the residence of the English bishop there. He might add, that desirable as he thought such residence was on every account, there would be a distinct and great recommendation to it, if, as he had full reason to believe would be the case, Dr. Alexander acted up to the instructions which he carried out. He was directed to endeavour to manifest a spirit of love and forbearance to all other Christian communities among whom he dwelt: not to mix, indeed, in their worship, or to fraternise in any of those peculiarities which we must regard as their errors; but to set an example of charity to all; and, instead of those disgraceful and disgusting squabbles, with which, in the sight of Mussulmans, the different Christian bodies had too often surrounded even the sepulchre of our Saviour, to keep the bond of peace with all, however much he might differ from some in Christian theology. But to revert to the hon. Member's fact, had the Porte refused to admit the bishop into Jerusalem? In the first place, he had thought that it was one of the learned Gentleman's charges against the bishop, that he had entered the Holy City,
The banner of the Cross waving below the crescent of Mahomet.And with more of the pomp of a Mussulman governor than of a Christian bishop. So far, indeed, was it from being the case, that the bishop had been treated with disrespect; the hon. Member himself appeared to admit that the bishop's entry into Jerusalem was marked with special honour; and without calculating how much of that honour was attached to the person of the Queen's Consul-general, her Majesty's chief civil functionary in Palestine, who, at the same time entered Jerusalem, it was at least clear that no disrespect attended the bishop's arrival. Then, as to his residence in Jerusalem: it had been circulated, both on the Continent and here, that the bishop had been subjected to great personal insults and hazards; 850 that he had been attacked with stones while preaching in the open air. There were many to whom the appointment of a bishop of a Protestant Reformed Church to reside in Jerusalem was specially objectionable: and they multiplied reports of this kind to depreciate such appointment. He held in his hand a letter from the bishop to himself, referring to such a report soon after his arrival. The bishop says—There is not a word of truth in the story; in the first place I have never preached in the open air; and, in the next, I have never been stoned.But he (Sir R. H. Inglis) might ask, even if it were true that stones had been thrown at Bishop Alexander as a mark of insult and hatred to his office, might not the same be said, in respect to one of our own bishops, the Bishop of Norwich, a similar outrage against whom, as he was performing an episcopal function, formed the subject of a trial a year and a half ago, in one of our own quarter sessions or assizes? As a further proof of the kind of reception which the bishop had really received, he might add that he had seen another letter from him, in which he quoted one of the exaggerated oriental expressions—a style recently made familiar to the House—in which, addressed as it was to himself, the bishop was told that "his arrival in Jerusalem was half paradise." Whether, therefore, the Porte had or had not granted, or promised to grant a firman, to allow the bishop to reside as bishop in Jerusalem, or to build a church there; this at least he could assert, that the bishop enjoyed as a British subject the protection of the Porte; and, even admitting that he could not build a church as such, which yet he (Sir R. H. Inglis) did not admit, he was at any rate at full liberty to convert two houses into a church, or to erect a building which he might use as a church; and in all this he received from the Turkish authorities the protection due to a subject of the Queen. The House would learn with pleasure that the religious duties of the bishop were not without encouragement: he did not know how lately the hon. and learned Gentleman might have been in Jerusalem, perhaps it was some years since; but he (Sir R. H. Inglis) had seen a letter stating that when the bishop had last administered the Holy Communion there were twenty-four communicants; and under God's blessing, there was every hope that the congregation of our church would increase.
§ Sir R. Peelsaid, perhaps acceding to a motion for the production of papers may depend, in a great measure, on the tone and spirit in which the application is made, and I think the hon. Member who brought forward this motion, appears to have been actuated not only by a hostile spirit with respect to the Bishop of Jerusalem, but that he has commented upon his reception in a tone of levity not at all suited to the importance of the subject. Certainly it could not be expected, that a person undertaking the discharge of episcopal functions under such circumstances should not labour under some prejudices, and not have to contend against difficulties; but I am bound to say, that the production of the correspondence moved for would not be calculated to lessen those difficulties, or relieve him from those embarrassments connected with the discharge of his duties. On these grounds, I feel bound to state that it would not be consistent with my sense of public duty to produce the correspondence. But even were I able, consistently with my sense of public duty, to produce the correspondence, 1 should have great unwillingness to risk the production of that impression on the public mind which might be created if the hon. Member's motion was agreed to. I do not see the public grounds for his motion. The hon. Member says that we assured the public at the time, that this appointment would cause no public expence. Well, it has not, beyond the Bishop's conveyance to the coast of Syria. All the assurances given at the time of his appointment will be fulfilled. No demand has ever been made on the public purse for any allowance, nor am I aware that there is any probability that any such demand will be made; therefore the hon. Member had no right to charge those by whom the nomination of this Bishop was originally promoted with any departure from the arrangements then proposed. The hon. Member says, that the greatest prejudices exist amongst the inhabitants of the coast of Syria with respect to his appointment. I apprehend that there is great exaggeration on this subject. I hold in my hand an account of the Bishop's reception on his arrival, which was. as favourable as could have been expected by the most sanguine friends to his appointment. I have here the report of Colonel Rhodes who accompanied the Bishop in his passage from Jaffa to Jeru- 852 salem, and on his arrival in the Holy City. Now, with respect to the prejudices stated to exist on the part of the Roman Catholics in Syria, he believed that there was no foundation for that statement. He knew that the Roman Catholic Bishop of Smyrna expressed satisfaction at his arrival, and that he was actuated by those feelings which would induce all Christians to rejoice at the spread of Christianity. The hon. Member said, that during his experience he saw more Christians become Mahometans than Mahometans become converts to Christianity. [Dr. Bowring: I said, I did not think conversions to Christianity likely to be sincere.] The hon. Member did not believe those conversions to be sincere; but is not that a reason why the means of attending to the pratice of their religion, according to the forms of Christian worship, should be afforded to Christians. Was not this a reason in favour of the appointment of a Protestant Bishop, in order that the great reflection might no longer rest on Christians of having acted in this way. Was it not probable that by these means you will prevent those exhibitions so disgraceful to the Christian's character. The hon. Member has asked, if Mahometans were to come here and ask leave to build a mosque, would leave be granted to them? We certainly might refuse to grant them any such privilege under legislative sanction, but we have not asked for any such provision with respect to this appointment. But, if the hon. Member, who professes such a zeal for Mahometanism, chose to erect a mosque, and preach so as to endeavour to gain converts, I am not aware of any law to prohibit him. We did not seek for any power for the Bishop, and he has no jurisdiction or authority to compel submission to any mandate he may issue or to enforce any obedience to him. I should be very sorry to offend the prejudices of the population to which the hon. Member alluded, or to run counter to that fanaticism unnecessarily, but I think it would show a disregard of our own feeling, if we allowed that prejudice or fanaticism to prevail against our religious convictions and. impressions. It might have been said, to Mr. Borrow with respect to Spain, that it would be impossible to distribute the Bible in that country in consequence of the danger of offending the prejudices which prevail there; yet he, a private individual, by showing some 853 zeal in what he believed to be right, succeeded in triumphing over many obstacles. Believing that if, on the part of the Government, 1 acquiesced in the motion, prefaced as it was by the speech of the hon. Member, I should appear to indicate an indifference with respect to the object of Bishop Alexander's labours, and believing also that there are great misapprehensions in the minds of some individuals, as to the hostility of other countries to the appointment of the Bishop, I cannot agree to the motion. It was represented amongst other things that the French court was opposed to this appointment of the Bishop, but on a communication with Monsieur Do Bourqueney at Constantinople, we received a perfect denial of the slightest intimation of any such feeling. Believing, therefore, that an erroneous impression might arise, were I to accede to the motion of the hon. Member, and being inclined to give every aid towards the success of that mission, I cannot agree to the motion.
§ Mr. Humewar glad to hear the hon. Baronet (Sir R. Inglis) say, that there was nothing in the fact of an individual being bore of Jewish parents to prevent him from obtaining a high religious office. He hoped, therefore, that when the opportunity was next afforded to him, which would perhaps be soon, the right has. Baronet would give his vote in favour of a removal of all civil disabilities from the Jews. His hon. Friend (Dr. Bowring) deserved the thanks of the House for obtaining that acknowledgement from the right hon. Baronet. With respect to the object for which the Bishop had been appointed to Jerusalem, he was of opinion that where a man was anxious to promote those religious feelings and that belief which he held to be right, he aught to be allowed to do so, when, in thus acting, he did not interfere with the law. He was of opinion, that it would have been better, if before sending out the Bishop, they had ascertained how he would be received, and secured for him that respect to which he was entitled as a British subject. It was in reference to that considerations, as to the reception and treatment of the Bishop, that he thought any inconvenience could be attached. He was sure that no man was mere in favour of the extension of religious enlightenment than his hon. Friend who brought forward the motion.
§ Viscount Palmerstonconcurred in the view taken by the right hon. Baronet the First Lord of the Treasury, with respect to the motion before the House. It did not appear to him that there were any Parliamentary grounds for the production of the papers moved for, and he could easily understand that the presentation of these papers would tend to impede, rather than advance, the objects and labours of the bishop of Jerusalem. He regretted that his hon. Friend had introduced his motion in a speech so characterised by tone and manner as that which his hon. Friend had addressed to the House. He could not compliment his hon. Friend on the good taste of that speech, or the judgment he had shown in supposing it to be well adapted to induce the House to accede to his motion, His hon. Friend had lavished some witticisms on the fact of Bishop Alexander being a married man, and being accompanied by his wife and children. Now it seemed to him rather extraordinary that a Protestant should deem that fact a subject for either surprise or merriment, or should consider that a circumstance connected with the doctrine and discipline of the faith of which he was a member, could be a matter for reproach or ridicule in any quarter of the world. He should think that any Protestant would rather deem such a fact a matter of praiseworthy distinction between Protestant churches and other churches, and a subject for pride and self-congratulation. But his hon. Friend was mistaken in the facts on which he had founded the impression he sought to excite, because, although marriage was forbidden to the clergymen of the Catholic Church, it was not so in the Greek church with which the Protestant Church would naturally come into comparison in that part of the world. It was true he believed, that the bishops of the Greek church were not married men; that was to say, that no married man was a bishop in that church. But his hon. Friend knew that in the same church no man could be a priest unless be was married, so that in the lower degrees of officers of the church marriage was an essential requisite. With respect to the assertion that demands had been made inconsistent with the Turkish law, he would observe that the British had asked no favour of the Turkish government. A British subject had merely gone to Turkey, and no Task had any 855 right to molest him, provided his employment or object was not contrary to the Turkish law—as he apprehended that of bishop Alexander was not—and, therefore, if he were molested it would be at the peril of the aggressing party, for the British Government might demand the punishment of any person so violating the treaties between the two countries. His hon. Friend bad stated that it was contrary to the Turkish law to erect a Christian place of worship, but he knew that a Greek church had lately been built in Constantinople; and if such a favour was shown to the Greek church he thought they might safely presume that it would be also extended to the English Protestant church. He believed, however, that several Christian places of worship by the tacit permission of the Turkish government, had been, from time to time, erected within the Turkish dominions. This appointment had entailed no expense on the country. He thought the measure an expedient one, He differed altogether from the opinion that the appointment of this bishop tended to increase fanaticism, and to add to the bitterness of religious hostility to the Protestants in Palestine. On the contrary, he thought it would tend to allay that bitterness, and it must inevitably in its consequences tend to good. He was persuaded that, however his hon. Friend might indulge his fancy in what he thought ridicule, he could not seriously view with dissatisfaction the spread of the Christian religion in Syria. He thought his hon. Friend's objections were founded very much on that misinformation which it was shown he had received as to the reception of the bishop, and the conduct pursued towards him, not only by the Turkish authorities, but by the dignitaries of the Christian communities. The arrangements out of which this appointment took place was not long before he left office. The representations of the Prussian government were received with alacrity by our Government; and he took on himself the full responsibility of having determined on sending out a bishop. In spite of the attempts which had been made in this country and elsewhere to throw ridicule on this arrangement, he looked back with great pleasure and with some pride, on having been the person to whom those communications were first made. Every one knew with regard to the East, that they who stood on their 856 right, and insisted on its being respected, were sure to succeed; but if language was held which tended to cry it down, others would be found soon to take the hint.
§ Dr. Bowringsaid, that the grant of money having been made in this case, he thought it a fair subject for discussion. He took in very good part everything that was said as to the impropriety of his observations; but he really had intended to treat it without exaggeration. He should withdraw his motion for the present.
§ Motion withdrawn.