Commons Sitting of 14 August 1857

MINUTES.
2° Mutiny (East India); Consolidated Fund (Appropriation); Militia; Customs and Excise; Customs; Jurisdiction in Siam; Trustees Relief; Parochial Schoolmasters (Scotland) (No. 2).
3° Joint Stock Companies Act (1856) Amendment; Militia Pay.

DIVORCE AND MATRIMONIAL CAUSES BILL.—COMMITTEE.
Order for Committee read.
House in Committee, resuming the consideration of the 25th Clause.
LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, he rose to move the insertion of certain words with the view to carry out a principle which he had endeavoured yesterday to bring before the Committee. He would assume for the sake of argument, that the deliberate
1626
opinion of that House was, that marriage ought to be dissolved on the ground of adultery; and, further, that, so far as the principle was concerned, marriage ought to be dissolved on the score of adultery both at the suit of the man and of the woman. Another principle, if he might so call it, which the Committee had decided, and which they were therefore bound to respect, was, that although as a matter of abstract right it could not be asserted that a woman ought to be placed in an inferior position to a man with respect to divorce on the ground of adultery, yet there were certain social considerations which ought to bar her claim. A third principle established by the Committee was, that the relief to be afforded to a wife was not to be left to the discretion of any Court of law, but was to be specifically laid down in the Act in connection with each particular case. The question then arose whether the causes which they had already included in the clause as justifying a claim of divorce on the part of a wife really exhausted the whole category of offences which when combined with adultery ought to be held as valid grounds of divorce. In his opinion they did not, and he wished to call attention to one case which had hitherto been entirely overlooked. He thought that the majority of the cases which the Committee had already deliberated upon and decided might be said, speaking generally, to affect more particularly the higher and wealthier classses of society. He now desired to direct the attention of the Committee downwards, and to ask them to consider the position and claims of women in the humbler ranks of life. Let them suppose that a poor woman had a husband who committed adultery, and that either previous or subsequent to the commission of that offence he rendered himself amenable to the laws of the country by the perpetration of some other grievous crime, such as burglary or forgery—the Committee had already decided that, in point of principle, the poor woman had a right to claim divorce from her offending husband, and he contended that there was no social consideration which could operate against and not in favour of her title to relief. Supposing the husband were condemned to penal servitude for life, in what position would the wife be placed? The natural protector of herself and her children was removed from her; she could not expect to receive from him a single sixpence for her and their support; she could not by law marry again,

1627
but was thrown hopeless and resourceless upon the world. He maintained that having recognized the human dissolubility of marriage, any woman so circumstanced ought to be permitted to marry again, in order that she might by that means procure the means of subsistence for herself and her children. In France, Sicily, the Canton de Vaud, Holland, Austria, and Prussia, relief was granted to a wife on the condemnation of her husband to any infamous punishment, even without the commission of adultery. What was there in the state of society or of law in England to prevent them doing the same justice to the poor woman whose case he had put before the Committee? He trusted, therefore, that the Committee would agree to the insertion of certain words which he had framed to treat the case he had supposed.
Amendment proposed, After the word "upwards" to insert the words "or of adultery preceded or followed by the commission of a crime for which the husband is sentenced to penal servitude."
Question proposed, That those words be there inserted.
SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, he was sorry that no notice had been given of this Amendment, because it involved a new and important principle, which ought to be carefully considered. He understood from the speech of the noble Lord, though the terms of his Amendment conveyed a different notion, that, if a man were convicted of any offence, and sentenced to a punishment which involved forcible separation from his wife, the latter would be entitled to ask for the dissolution of the bond of matrimony in order that she might marry again. Now, a man might commit burglary or forgery, and yet be faithful to his marriage vow. He supposed, therefore—and the Amendment of the noble Lord was plain upon the point—that there must be adultery; but, surely, the noble Lord did not mean to say that if at any period of his married life a man committed adultery, and at some future time incurred the sentence of penal servitude, his wife should be entitled to a divorce, although the previous act of adultery might have occurred nobody knew when or where, or might even have been condoned? It seemed to him that the Amendment joined things which had no natural connection whatever. Those offences which the Committee had already adopted as sufficient grounds for the dissolution of marriage when combined with adultery were offences which involved a
1628
flagrant violation of the marriage vow; but in the case put by the noble Lord, there was nothing of the kind. Again, the noble Lord assumed that the sentence of penal servitude necessarily implied the forcible separation of husband and wife for the whole period of the sentence, and he understood the proposition of the noble Lord to be, that any sentence of penal servitude passed by a Judge should, without the decree of any Court, carry with it a dissolution of marriage. Now, a man might be convicted by a jury and sentenced to a term of penal servitude, and yet the Secretary of State might afterwards see fit, at the instance of the Judge, and upon further inquiry, either to commute the sentence into a short period of imprisonment, or grant a free pardon to the prisoner. It might happen, therefore, if the mere sentence of the Judge were to carry with it actual divorce a vinculo matrimonii, that the man might be at liberty a few days or weeks after the sentence had been passed, be divorced from his wife and free to marry again. Was the noble Lord prepared, after contending against the dissolubility of marriage, to sanction such an extension of divorce as was involved in the Amendment he had proposed? He trusted the noble Lord would not persist in his proposition, or that he would at least take another opportunity of proposing it when more notice had been given, in order that the wording intended to carry into effect a principle so novel and of so much importance might be carefully considered.
MR. HENLEYsaid the Bill was so much altered from time to time that it was impossible always to give notice of Amendments. Certainly he had not understood the noble Lord in the same sense as the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for the Home Department. The principle which the noble Lord wished to establish was that absence of the husband under the sentence of a Court, coupled with adultery, should be considered a desertion under the Act; and, certainly, it did seem that the case was sufficient to warrant at least an application to the Court whether the remedy should not be granted. The words no doubt would want careful consideration—as, if the adultery was condoned by the woman, she ought not to found any claim upon it—but otherwise her position was one which at least ought to be considered.
MR. GLADSTONEsaid, that he had been rather surprised that the Committee had not perceived that in the proposition of

1629
the hon. and learned Member for Knares-borough, to include murder and manslaughter among the grounds for granting divorces, a very important principle was involved. The Amendment of the noble Lord was based upon the same principles, and were he obliged to pronounce an opinion at once it would be adverse to the proposition. He would, however, recommend the noble Lord to adopt the suggestion of the Secretary of State and withdraw the Amendment for the present, and if, after consideration, he should think it advisable to propose it, he could do so upon the Report. Although the Committee had been making most material alterations in the clauses, and extending the categories under which a wife might present a petition for a divorce, yet all those extensions had reference to one principle—that the additions to be made to adultery as a ground for divorce to the wife should be additions which in their nature and character were offences against the marriage contract. He thought it would not be wise nor safe to go beyond that principle, and he hoped the noble Lord would at least take more time to consider his Amendment.
LORD LOVAINEsaid, he was not inclined to go beyond the principles stated by the right hon. Gentleman. On the principle of the noble Lord he did not see how they could refuse to grant a right to relief where the husband was attacked by hopeless insanity. He further wished to call attention to an anonymous letter contained in the papers, which had been laid before the other House, but not before that House. The insertion of such a letter was most unusual, and might lead to very inconvenient results.
SIR GEORGE GREYexplained that the papers referred to had not been presented to that House because they were not deemed to be necessary, and the Commissioners entertaining the same opinion had not appended them to their Report.
MR. BERESFORD HOPEsaid, if the Amendment were adopted, the case of a man who had been convicted and received a ticket-of-leave, and found upon his return to this country that his wife had married again, might frequently occur. The law would then be pretty much the same as in Sweden. According to that law, if a man was for a certain number of years absent from his wife she might marry again; but if he afterwards came back the second husband must retire, unless an agreement were made to the contrary.
SIR WILLIAM HEATHCOTEsaid, he would beg to remind the hon. Member for Maidstone (Mr. Hope) that a distinctive feature of his noble Friend's Amendment was that the desertion should be accompanied with adultery, and that therefore such a case as he had referred to could not occur.
MR. MALINSsaid, he thought they should be careful to confine the right of divorce in this instance to cases where adultery was committed, and where abandonment of the wife took place in connection with that adultery. The right hon. Baronet had stated that the Report of Mr. Macqueen was not appended to the Report of the Commissioners; but it was impossible it could have been so, as Mr. Macqueen's paper was not published till nearly three years after the Report of the Commissioners. This important document, prepared by Mr. Macqueen, after careful inquiry in France, was ordered to be printed by the House of Lords, and by that means it had got into the hands of many hon. Members; but surely if it was of importance that the House of Lords should have such a paper it was equally so to the Members of that House, and he was therefore surprised that the Government had not taken steps to have it printed and laid on the table.
SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, the document to which the hon. and learned Gentleman referred was the compilation of a private individual with which the Government had nothing to do, and they were not called on to produce it to the House. It was laid on the table of the House of Lords on the Motion of a noble Member of that House, not by the Government. He must say that he did not attach the same value to Mr. Macqueen's Report—seeing it was a purely private paper—that the hon. and learned Gentleman did, nor did he think it was one which the Government should have produced to influence the decisions of Parliament.
MR. MALINSremarked, that he only wished to say, that if the document was useful to the discussion of this Bill in the House of Lords it must be equally so in the House of Commons, and he thought it was the duty of the Government to have produced it.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, he thought that seeing the hon. and learned Gentleman attached so much importance to this document he ought to have moved for its production.
MR. MALINSreminded the noble Lord that it was not till the end of July they

1631
were informed of the intention of Government to proceed with this Bill. He might besides plead professional engagements as a reason why he did not move for the production of this paper, which he still believed it was the duty of the Government to have laid on the table.
MR. DEVEREsaid, he was opposed to this Bill on principle, as he believed it not only rested on no religious sanction, but was opposed to all religious sanctions, and I would be injurious to the domestic peace and morality of this country. He could not give his assent to any Amendments calculated to extend the area within which the provisions of the Bill were to apply; nor could he be a party to Amendments which might be proposed merely to lessen the chance of the Bill passing into a law. With regard to the particular Amendment before the House, as one fact was worth a thousand arguments, he would mention the cases which had occurred within his own experience. One was the case of a man in the higher walks of life, and the other that of a man in a humbler sphere. Both had been capitally convicted, but had their sentences commuted to transportation, and, after the lapse of many years, they both returned to their wives and families, and were now living in the enjoyment of domestic peace.
LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, that his not having given notice of this Amendment was his misfortune, and not his fault. He had endeavoured, as carefully as he could, to follow the proceedings of the Bill, and he had on the last night repeatedly expressed his opinion in favour of the principle which he now proposed. After the principle adopted by the Committee, that adultery removed from the marriage tie the stamp of God, they were bound to consider the rights of the woman as well as those of the man. Surely a penal sentence was equivalent to desertion for two years. It was argued on the other side that it might be the intention of the man to return. But they could not enter into intentions; all they could do was to take facts. The law of Sweden, which had been quoted, had no reference at all to adultery. It referred to a man who had been absent without any fault of his own. At the same time he was willing to withdraw the Amendment, reserving the power of proposing it on the Report.
MR. STEUARTsaid, he hoped that a penal sentence coupled with adultery would be considered a sufficient ground for divorce.
MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, that from the previous decisions of the Committee they were now reduced to argue the question as a mere social contract, and it was for this reason that they were driven into the course they had adopted, and to do the best they could to make the Bill harmless. The Bill professed to be founded upon the Report of the Commission, and yet the documents upon which that Report was founded were not placed in their hands. They were not to be taunted because, after the total abnegation of the principles they advocated, they endeavoured to introduce as much justice as they could. He could not but complain of the dictatorial tone which the noble Lord at the Head of the Government had gradually assumed towards the Committee. It had been deeply felt by many hon. Members last night, but it would not prevent those who took an interest in the subject giving the provisions of the Bill their most careful attention, and even studied opposition when it was necessary. But a few days ago the noble Lord called upon the House to pass the Bill for the consolidation of the criminal law without examination, although it had been shown that it contained very important alterations and variations from the existing criminal law, and now he wanted them to pass this Bill, which was drawn up in a manner unworthy of the learning of those who were responsible for it, merely because it had come down late in the Session.
MR. COLLINSsaid, he hoped that the Bill would not pass into law without some provision being introduced giving divorce in cases of aggravated felony, coupled with the commission of adultery.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
MR. STAPLETONthought that these Amendments, extending relief to the wife, required one addition to make them as nearly perfect as possible. What he referred to was, that when the wife should obtain a decree for the restitution of conjugal rights, and the husband should afterwards commit adultery, the wife should be enabled to demand a divorce. He should move the insertion of words to that effect.
Amendment proposed after the word "upwards" to insert the words "or of adultery committed after she had obtained a decree for restitution of conjugal rights"
Question proposed, That those words be there inserted.
SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, that he did not see any necessity for this Amendment.

1633
The wife had two courses open to her, either to sue for a divorce or for restitution of conjugal rights. If she adopted the latter course, and obtained restitution of conjugal rights, he did not see how she could afterwards ask for a divorce on the ground of adultery.
MR. BUTTsuggested that, although she had obtained a decree, the husband might never have conformed to it.
MR. GLADSTONEsaid, that on the previous evening they had experienced great difficulty in finding words which would meet cases in which there might be all the animus and substance of desertion, but in which the husband by certain occasional proceedings of his own might prevent his wife proving the offence according to the legal and technical meaning of the word. He thought that this Amendment would, to a considerable extent, although perhaps not altogether, supply that defect in the clause. According to it, the substance of the desertion would be ascertained by the suit for restitution of conjugal rights, and adultery following this would entitle the wife to a divorce.
SIR GEORGE GREYurged, that as the Amendment stood, although a man might live with his wife for twenty years after the decree had been pronounced, yet a single act of adultery committed at the expiration of that period would render him liable to be divorced.
MR. STAPLETONsaid, that he thought that there would be no injustice in such a provision. The distance of time had nothing to do with the matter. The husband would be guilty of two offences, and it was but right she should have a remedy for the second as well as for the first. It was only a similar case to that of punishing a felon on a previous conviction a number of years before.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, that he thought the Amendment an entire departure from the principle on which the Committee had hitherto proceeded. The word "desertion" in the clause implied that the desertion should subsist on the part of the husband, whereas the Amendment was based upon the assumption that the desertion had ceased. Now, whether the desertion had ceased voluntarily upon the part of the husband, or in consequence of a decree of the Court did not the least signify, and as soon as the parties came together again the desertion and all the incidents connected with it ceased: so that
1634
the practical effect of the Amendment would be to allow a divorce on the ground of adultery alone.
MR. AYRTONsaid, that the words in the clause were "desertion without reasonable excuse." Now, it appeared to him that it would be better to leave the word "desertion" to stand alone, and at the end of the clause to introduce some definition of the meaning of the word desertion. As the word at present stood, it would apply only to leaving a wife without the means of support; whereas he believed it was intended to apply to the more general sense of a man's deserting his marital duties.
MR. HENLEYsaid, he quite agreed with the noble Lord that when the parties had come together again, whether voluntarily or whether in accordance with a judicial decree, the desertion and the incidents connected with it were at an end.
Amendment by leave withdrawn.
MR. GLADSTONEasked whether the definition of "incestuous adultery" at the end of the clause was necessary? Had not the words a definite legal meaning?
SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, it was considered better to retain the definition.
SIR WILLIAM HEATHCOTEsaid, he proposed to add, as an explanation of the term "bigamy," the words, "that bigamy shall be taken to mean the marriage of any person being already married to any other person during the lifetime of the former husband or wife."
SIR GEORGE GREYobserved, he would be glad if the hon. Baronet would not at present press the Amendment, as he should like to take the opinion of his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General with regard to it.
SIR WILLIAM HEATHCOTEassented, and withdrew the Amendment.
MR. BUTTsaid, he now wished to propose an Amendment, the effect of which was that if any of the felonies mentioned in the Act as a ground for divorce were alleged against a husband, in the case where such felony should have been committed in England it should be necessary to prove a conviction, or that the man had been outlawed upon an indictment charging him with such offence.
THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, he was sorry he could not congratulate the Committee on the progress they had made with the Bill during his absence. Not only had they not been progressing, but they had in reality made a retrograde movement,

1635
as the Amendment was exactly the same as one which had been discussed the evening before.
THE CHAIRMANdecided that the Amendment was substantially similar to one which had already been discussed and disposed of by the Committee, and therefore could not be put.
Question "That Clause 25, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
MR. GLADSTONE: I do not intend to take the sense of the Committee on this clause, though I should join with any hon. Member who might think it his duty to do so. I am contented with the decision which was originally taken on the Motion of my hon. Friend the Member for West Surrey (Mr. Drummond), although I entertain the strongest conviction that if we were now to proceed to a division again, which should fairly raise the question of the wife's equality, though the Committee would not in that respect reverse its former decision, the proportion of the numbers on the division would be most materially altered by the course which our discussions have taken on this clause. At present the matter stands thus,—my noble Friend at the head of the Government thought fit to make a charge of obstruction against those who had been engaged in discussing the details of this clause, and the few words which I shall now say will be said with the intention, not of making an accusation against anybody, but of removing, if possible, from the minds of those, who think that charge was justified, the impression they entertain, and also the sentiment that we are greatly aggrieved by that accusation. My noble Friend made that charge when at midnight he found that we had been engaged for ten hours in dicussing the details of this clause. The exact foundation of the charge was that we had come to the end of the clause, that nothing remained to be done but to take the sense of the Committee on the question that it do pass, and that therefore it was an unwarrantable proceeding to move that you should report progress. That Motion, however, was not made by an opponent of the Bill, but by a friend of the Bill, who is not now in his place. My noble Friend was entirely mistaken as to the immediate grounds of the charge, for so far from having then disposed of all the points which had arisen on the consideration of the clause, we have nearly spent other two hours this morning in amending it, and chiefly on the invitation
1636
of hon. Gentlemen who are friendly to the Bill. Now, what I want to bring to your minds is this:—The real question between us is whether the Bill that we are now discussing is or is not a Bill which from its nature requires minute and detailed scrutiny and strict investigation. That is really the question between us; and, for myself, I say frankly that I may have said foolish things during these discussions, but I have not said one word purposely except what I believed was called for by the Bill on its own merits. Well, is it true that yesterday was spent by the Committee without profit? We have here been discussing the most difficult and complicated parts of a most difficult and complicated subject. If you had admitted the principle of divorce in the case of the woman as well as in that of the man this part of the operation would have been simple. I hold in my hand a communication from a gentleman who is acknowledged to be one of the highest authorities on the subject—namely, Mr. Macqueen, who, after disposing of the principle of the Bill, on coming to the question of the right of divorce to be given to the woman, says here the real difficulties of the Bill commence; and then he enters into a minute examination of the question of these cases. This is a clause which contains important and difficult matters sufficient to occupy this House for days and weeks. It embraces the whole principle of the Bill as regards at least one-half of the human race—namely, women, and forms a code of itself as respects the rights of women under the law of divorce. What are the signs of obstructed proceedings? The repetition of the same proposals is instanced, but I am not aware that the same proposals have been repeated by persons opposed to the Bill. There has been, a few minutes ago, an accidental case of that kind certainly, but it was only accidental. Have the proposals which have been made one after another been condemned by the general sense of the Committee? I have rarely known a harder day's work done in the House of Commons than was done by the Committee yesterday. We disposed of no less than eight or ten most difficult and important questions of law, and so far from those being proposals condemned by the Committee, compare the clause as it now stands with the clause as it originally came into our hands. The clause, as it first came before us, contained four categories under which the wife might present a petition; three

1637
of them remain nearly altogether as they were; one relating to bigamy has been fundamentally altered; and three new categories, making seven in all, were one after another introduced into the clause and with the unanimous assent of the Committee. Now, in the discussion in Committee on the Oxford University Bill, which was about the same length as this, but certainly not of greater importance or difficulty, I believe we were occupied not less than from twenty-five to thirty nights, and there were occasions during the discussions on that Bill on which we found, after spending six or eight hours, that we had not advanced above a line and a-half; but we never presumed to say to my right hon. Friend opposite (Mr. Disraeli), and to those who acted with him on that side of the House, that they were abusing their privilege as Members of Parliament, and offering obstructions to an important measure under the consideration of the House. This is a matter in which the difficulties are inherent in the case under the circumstances in which we are called on to discuss this Bill. My noble Friend at the head of the Government said at one period of the discussion on the Bill, "We shall sit here until September if you like." But let me assure my noble Friend that we have not endeavoured to delay the Bill by any factious opposition. We complained, on the contrary, of the Bill being put off, because we saw the difficulty of discussing it under the circumstances become greater and greater. If the Committee think the Bill should pass without minute examination of its details, let them say so, for that would relieve and discharge a considerable number of hon. Members altogether. I know at least that it would be an immense relief to me. Looking to the advanced period of the Session, I dare say the practice as regards divorce among the Members of this House has begun already; for many of us are detained here under circumstances which I fear bring us under the category of being for the present divorced a mensâ et thoro. Unless, therefore, my noble Friend can procure us some absolution that we should allow this Bill to pass without a minute examination of its details, we have really no choice but to attempt to bring his Bill into the best possible shape. The hon. and learned Attorney General has expressed an opinion that there will probably be some further legislation on this subject, and that this Bill is not to be "the be-all and end-all"
1638
of the question. There are many of us—not only of those who voted against the second reading of the Bill, but likewise of those who, like my noble Friend the Member for London, give a most earnest support to the Bill on its principle—who think and feel most strongly that it is our duty not to aim at what is called finality, of which human laws do not admit, but to give something like body, clearness, sense, consistency, and intelligibility to the code of which we are going to lay the foundation. It has been our absolute duty in considering all these most difficult questions with regard to the woman, to give as complete and consistent effect to the principle embodied in the clause, and which we thought most inadequately carried out, as we could possibly give to it. For that reason we have deliberated ten or twelve hours, and still, although we understand the principle of the clause, I feel doubtful whether there are not cases—gross and painful cases—cases too painful to be named—offences over and above the mere act of adultery characterized in the strongest terms in the Report of the Commissioners, and striking directly at the marriage contract and the peace and comfort of the wife—for which in the clause we have made no provision whatever. If I have been desirous that this Bill should not pass in the present Session, it has been upon the ground that I do not believe it can be made a work worthy of this House in the short time which remains to us; but I have not on account of that opinion descended to the wretched art of spinning speeches about nothing in order to waste the time of the House. On the contrary, I have declined to enter into personal questions, and have forborne to accept challenges of that nature. In that spirit I shall continue to act. I hope I have said nothing upon the present occasion to give offence to my noble Friend at the head of the Government or to anybody else. My desire is that a sense of wrong should be removed from one side or the other, and that we should now ascertain whether we are to continue to discharge our duties as Members of Parliament by a minute examination of this Bill or not. I think we have passed the most difficult part of the Bill. The next five or six clauses may undoubtedly give rise to points of importance, but after these clauses are over I should hope that we may proceed rapidly to that clause, the 53rd, upon which questions of great moment will be

1639
raised, which it must be the desire of us all to have settled without unnecessary delay.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: I can assure my right hon. Friend that there is nobody in this House who would regret more than I should do the having expressed in regard to other persons any opinion as to the course which they may think proper to pursue in discharge of their duty as Members of Parliament. It is quite true that things which I have heard out of this House, and some things which I have observed in this House, did lead me to think that there was on the part of the opponents of the Bill an intention, if they could not defeat it by divisions, so far to protract the discussions as to render it impossible for the Bill to pass this year. That was the impression created upon my mind. It very likely was an erroneous impression, and, after what the right hon. Gentleman had stated, I am bound to say that, in regard to him especially, that impression must have been erroneous. With, respect to the Bill itself, I can only say that we are quite conscious of its importance. We have no desire to hurry the House improperly through the measure, or to prevent ample and full consideration of all matters to which it relates. So far from complaining of full discussions, or of Amendments proposed in a spirit of improvement, we should be sincerely thankful to those who may afford us the means of improving a measure which we think of importance, and which we desire to pass in as perfect a form as possible. We felt that this Bill having originated in the other House of Parliament, having been discussed at great length by all those learned men belonging to the law who are members of that House, there was at least primâ facie evidence that the Bill was properly framed and not liable to serious objections. But, subject to that, I can assure my right hon. Friend that I would be the last man to complain of any Amendments which may be proposed in a spirit of improvement, and not for the mere purpose of producing delay. I trust, therefore, that hon. Gentlemen will acquit me of any wish to obstruct the full and free deliberation of the House upon a measure which, so far from desiring to pass hastily, we hope may receive the amplest consideration and amendment.
MR. GLADSTONE: I thank my noble Friend for what he has said, and shall take the liberty of adding only one word. I am afraid that a remark which fell from myself
1640
afforded some ground for the impression he entertained, and I should like to explain the circumstances, though I am rather reluctant to do so in the absence of the right hon. Baronet the Member for Droitwich (Sir J. Pakington). When the right hon. Baronet was conversing with the noble Lord across the table as to the day when his Motion for a Commission on the subject of education might be brought before the House, I cried out in an idle jest, "Fix it for the Greek Ka-lends." I can assure my noble Friend that when I used that expression I mainly referred to my sense of the objections which I thought would lie against calling upon this House at this period of the Session to discuss the question whether we should address the Crown to issue a Commission upon education.
MR. HENLEY: I think the Committee is perfectly satisfied with what the noble Lord has said, and, notwithstanding what we were told in the first instance, that he who ran might read, I imagine the noble Lord must now see that this Bill requires to be sifted and discussed in every clause and line. Numerous important Amendments have already been introduced into it, in a great majority of cases with the consent of those who have charge of the Bill, and I hope, therefore, that we shall hear no more of the charge that we are not taking a fair and honest course.
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: In justice to the noble Lord at the head of the Government, I beg the Committee to recollect that nobody ever used the expression that "he who runs might read the Bill." The words that unfortunately fell from me were something very different, and have been greatly misrepresented. What I said was,—"The intentions of the Government are in the Bill, and he who reads may understand them." I hope that we shall now let bygones be bygones. If I were to recollect all the hard taunts I received yesterday I should regard them, when combined with the various Amendments which were proposed, as very "aggravating circumstances" indeed. Let us now, however, in that spirit of improvement which I believe exists on both sides of the House, proceed with the Bill as expeditiously as possible.
LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, he wished to inquire whether it was the intention of the Government, under the new system to be established by this Bill, to prohibit women from having recourse to the House

1641
of Lords; and also, if it was not their intention to do so, but to carry out the recommendation of the Commissioners, in what way it was proposed that application to the Legislature should be made?
THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, he could assure the noble Lord that there was nothing in the Bill to affect the future authority of Parliament. The right of a wife, under aggravated circumstances, not provided for in the Bill, to apply to the Legislature for a divorce, would remain wholly unaffected.
MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he had fully intended to have raised that question at some stage of the discussion. Much alarm had been created by certain words which fell from the hon. and learned Attorney General, to the effect that the Bill was not "the be-all and the end-all" of legislation. He (Mr. Gladstone) hoped he was justified in putting a limited construction upon that expression, and that the hon. and learned Gentleman meant to say that he contemplated as possible new remedies for the woman might, from time to time, be entertained to fill up the void space left by the House of Lords. If that were the intention of the hon. and learned Gentleman no objection could be taken, as those new remedies would be natural and inevitable from the imperfect manner in which they were at present legislating. He did hope it was not intended to hold out a prospect that new causes of divorce, opening new principles, were likely to be introduced by the House of Lords. It was important that they should know what advice would be tendered by Her Majesty's Government to the House of Lords on the subject.
THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, he would remind the Committee that when he made the observation which was supposed to bear the interpretation that the right hon. Gentleman had mentioned, he was suggesting the propriety of confining these discussions to the limited field covered by the Bill, without attempting to define the existing law. It was in answer to the argument that the existing law did not do full justice to the woman that he used the expression that the Bill, if passed, need not be the end-all of legislation upon the subject. He said that, not as indicating any intention on the part of the Government to make the marriage law a subject for further legislation, but as pointing out the fact that if the condition of woman should afterwards be found to require further legislative interference, there would be nothing to prevent
1642
that further interference. As to what the House of Lords would do, the Government, of course, would not presume to dictate to that body; but if the House of Lords was true to itself, and should abide by the rules by which it had hitherto been governed, there would be no room for application to them for divorce on the part of wives, because all the existing causes of interference hitherto recognized by the House of Lords were embodied in the Bill, and even more than those grounds. At the same time, he could not presume to say what the House of Lords in its wisdom might think fit to do upon future occasions.
LORD JOHN RUSSELL: I have heard with much satisfaction the declaration which has just been made by the Attorney General. Of course it was never pretended there was to be finality in legislation, and I do not say that the House of Commons may not at some future time think fit to adopt the Scotch law of divorce or any other principle which may seem to them at that time to be most conducive to the benefit of the country. But what did alarm me was that the hon. and learned Attorney General seemed to imply that the Government which has brought forward this Bill, and asked us, if not to change the legislation, at least very much to vary the principles of law which have hitherto governed us in respect to divorces—the Government of which he was the organ, declared this was not to be the end-all, but that they intended in some future Session to propose some further measure upon this highly important subject. I thought that was alarming, as tending not only to introduce instability into our legislation, but to instil false ideas into the minds of all who have entered or were about to enter into the holy state of matrimony. I am glad to find that no such meaning was intended to be conveyed. [The ATTORNEY GENERAL: "Hear!"] Admitting as we must do, that the statement of the Lord Advocate is one of the greatest importance, and that it may be possible that Parliament will adopt the principle which he tells us experience has shown to be so good in Scotland, it is not intended by the Government to carry in a future Session any measure going beyond the present Bill. I think the Committee are very much indebted to the noble Lord (Lord J. Manners) for the Amendment which he proposed yesterday, and which seems to me to change the whole complexion of the clause, and to make the law to resemble more the Code Napoleon—a

1643
code which had been framed by the Council of State presided over by Napoleon, and which comprised some of the greatest French lawyers. That I conceive to be a great improvement in the law. As to any cases which may hereafter come before the house of Lords upon the petition of the husband or the wife for divorce in particular instances, I think we may safely leave them to the discretion of that tribunal. That House comprises the Lord Chancellor, the Lord Chief Justice, and other eminent and learned personages, as well as the Archbishop and Bishops, who would represent the opinion of the Church, and I do not think they are likely to undertake a case of divorce without some very good grounds, or that they believe it to be a case separate from the ordinary principles of legislation requiring their interference. Such cases might not occur more than once or twice in a century, but when they do the House of Lords can deal with them as they may think proper. I am glad to find that the heat which prevailed at one time has passed away, and that the Government have discovered that those who entered upon minute criticism of the clauses of this Bill were only pursuing a legitimate course of action. I think there were two courses to be adopted,—one was to say, "It is too late in the Session to bring in this Bill;" and the other, "That this is a Bill of such great importance that we must discuss minutely every clause in the Bill." There might have been, indeed, another course, and it might have been said by the Government. "We are determined to have this Bill, but as it is so late we cannot discuss it;" but such a course would not have been defensible. I trust that in the further progress of this Bill we shall have no captious objections taken (and I do not think there have been any), and, on the other hand, I hope the Government will be disposed to discuss any Amendments in the same spirit of candour in which those Amendments will be proposed.
MR. NAPIERsaid, that for certain cases a remedy would be given through the House of Lords, but others would be found of equal hardship which would not come within those cases. They could not arrive at finality until they admitted the principle of perfect equality as to divorce between the two sexes, leaving the social danger to be counterbalanced by the hesitation which the wife would feel in applying for divorce. He thought that disturbing the minds of the lower orders by repeated
1644
legislation on this matter would be of great injury, and that their best plan would be to adopt the simplicity of the Scotch law.
Clause agreed to.
Clause 26 (Adulterer to be a co-respondent: Cause may be tried by a jury).
MR. PULLERsaid, he rose to move an Amendment which would apply to this and the 31st clause, his object being to raise the question whether the offence of adultery should be punishable only with fine, as now proposed in the Bill, or whether it was not expedient to impose the heavier punishment of imprisonment. The Committee would perceive that the Bill took a chronological view of what was to be done in carrying out its main provisions. Clause 25 laid down what were to be regarded as grounds of divorce. Clause 26 stated who were to be the parties to a suit. The next two clauses pointed out what the Court was to have proved or disproved, and then proceeded to show what relief could be given to the parties. Clause 31 armed the Court with the power of punishing the adulterer with fine. Now, what he proposed was, that every party brought before the Court who should be proved, to the satisfaction of a jury, to have been guilty of adultery should be liable to be punished by fine or imprisonment, or by fine and imprisonment; and this punishment he would make applicable both in cases of dissolution of marriage and in those of judicial separation. As the Bill stood it was inconsistent with itself. It provided that on the petition of a husband the alleged adulterer should be punishable by fine and accordingly made him a co-respondent; and it gave each of the respondents a right to claim the protection of a jury. But there were no corresponding provisions for the case of a petition presented by a wife. He proposed to remodel Clauses 26 and 31, so that whether the petition were presented by a husband or a wife, all persons accused of adultery should be made respondents and be punishable on proof of the fact. If the Committee made the alleged adultress punishable she must be made a co-respondent to the petition, and in many cases it would be greatly for the advantage of her character that she should be placed in that position. This might be said to be an innovation, but it was an innovation which naturally followed from the changes which were made by this Bill in the legal procedure in these matters. Adultery was now, for the first time during the last 500 hundred years—with the exception

1645
of the short reign of the Puritans;—made a crime punishable by the State. But how was that principle to be carried out? On the wife who had disgraced her husband's home, who had abandoned her children, and deprived them of a mother's care; on the husband who had added to adultery incest, cruelty, and felony, the Bill inflicted no punishment at all. It gave the injured petitioner the remedy of divorce, but in many cases that would be a boon rather than a punishment to the respondent. The only person who was punished under the Bill was the adulterer who committed adultery with a married woman, and he was only punished by a pecuniary fine, the lightest and the least disgraceful of all punishments known to our law. And yet the crime of adultery stood in the Decalogue between murder and theft, and by the majority of the people was regarded with far greater abhorrence than the lighter class of thefts. Property was protected by the law in every way, but the institution of marriage was entirely unprotected. He trusted the Committee would adopt a more intelligible policy, and do that which was done by every civilized nation in the world. The punishment imposed by the Bill on the person committing adultery with a married woman was a fine, but the effect of this would be fine for the rich and imprisonment for the poor—a circumstance which would not tend to make the Bill acceptable to the people. It was objected that if adultery in the wife were made punishable by imprisonment, the husband would be unwilling to sue for a divorce; but it was not likely that when a husband had made up his mind to expose his wife to the infamy of having her sin published to the world he would draw back from the fear of seeing her imprisoned. The real difficulty which he (Mr. Puller) had to encounter was the reluctance which honourable Members felt to pass a clause which might have the effect of sending to prison, to live upon prison fare, to wear prison dress, and to associate with common criminals women of high birth, courtly manners, and luxurious habits. If punishment were regarded merely as retribution, the loss of home, of children, and of position might be quite sufficient, but as a means of prevention something more was required. The House was now legislating, not only for ladies and gentlemen, but for the middle and, it might be, the labouring classes of England. He believed that if in
1646
times past the law had made adultery punishable us a crime, many a poor woman whose life had gone down in misery and shame, might have been saved; and on behalf of every English girl who had been virtuously brought up, he asked, not license to sin with impunity, but that in her hour of trial the law might be to her, what it ought to be to every one, a shield and a defence against her strong temptation to do wrong. The imposition of a punishment would act not only to deter women from committing adultery, but also to deter men from soliciting them, because society would cry shame with a voice much louder than that with which it now spoke against a man who, to gratify his own passions, persuaded a woman to place herself in peril of imprisonment. The responsibility was thrown upon the Committee to decide whether they would leave husbands and wives wholly unrestrained by law, or whether they would do what they could to prevent the crime. Extending, as they did by this Bill, the facilities of divorce, they ought at the same time to take additional precautions against collusion; and what better defence against that could there be than bringing every person implicated in the offence before the court, making each of them liable to punishment, and thus giving to all of them a direct interest in bringing the truth and the whole truth before the Court? In conclusion he must remind the Committee that although the Amendment was proposed chiefly with a view to such an alteration of the 31st clause as would make all persons convicted of adultery, punishable by imprisonment, yet it had also two other objects, that of enabling a husband against whom his wife presented a petition to claim a jury, and that of enabling the woman with whom he was alleged to have committed adultery, to defend her character by making her a co-respondent. It had been repeatedly pressed upon them, that amongst the disgraceful circumstances which belonged to the civil action of crim. con., which they now proposed to abolish, one of the most cruel was, that an action might be brought by a suspicious husband against a man for adultery with his wife without any real grounds at all, and that the unfortunate wife would be obliged to stand by and hear her character discussed, and perhaps blasted for ever, without the possibility of cross examining one single witness. Well, if the Bill passed in its present shape precisely the same injury

1647
would be inflicted on the woman whom a wife petitioning for a divorce accused of adultery with her husband. She might be herself a married woman, the respected mother of a family, she might even be living abroad, and in her absence she might be convicted of adultery upon a collusive suit, without either herself or her husband having any knowledge of the proceedings, and might have no resource but writing a letter to The Times to protest her innocence.
Amendment proposed; To leave out the words "presented by a husband" in order to insert the words "for the dissolution of a marriage, or any petition for a decree of judicial separation on the ground of adultery being presented."
Question proposed—That the words "presented by a husband" stand part of the clause.
MR. HENLEYsaid, he should not follow the hon. and learned Gentleman into his rather irregular discussion of the 31st clause, which would come hereafter. Setting aside that section, there were other reasons why this clause required Amendment. The clause, as it stood, was entirely one sided. The Bill provided that a husband should have a remedy against the wife for simple adultery, and the adulterer, by the present clause, was to be made a co-respondent to the petition, and the guilt of the wife and her alleged paramour to be tried by a jury. But what was the case if a wife petitioned for a divorce against her husband, and the offence alleged against the husband must be, not adultery alone, but adultery under aggravated circumstances? Why, there was no provision made for making the alleged paramour of the husband a co-respondent and having the case tried by a jury; but as the Bill stood, an innocent woman might be alleged by a wife to be her husband's paramour, the case might be tried in her absence, without her being made a party to the suit, and her character might be destroyed, while such an action would be attended with all the scandal which at present disgraced the action for crim. con. He did not believe this to have been the original intention, but, he would ask, could there be a greater instance of the carelessness and recklessness with which this Bill had been prepared? Why, one of the grounds on which the House was asked to support it was that it abolished the action of crim. con., and yet it imparted into another action all the scandal of an action for crim. con. What he wished to know was
1648
whether the Attorney General would be prepared to introduce words into the clause which should place both parties on an equal footing.
THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, he was very glad the subject had been brought under the notice of the Committee, because it was one of great difficulty and not to be too hastily dealt with. It was, however, for the Committee to consider whether the parties to the adultery should universally be all parties to the defence. By the clause the obligation was thrown upon the husband of making the alleged paramour of his wife a co-respondent to the petition, and it was only under certain circumstances that he could be relieved from that obligation. Now, a petition against the husband would contain other allegations than that of adultery alone, and it was only in respect to the allegation of adultery that the alleged paramour could be made a co-respondent. But then came another difficulty. Suppose the alleged paramour of the husband was a married woman, then it was a question whether she could be made a co-respondent without her husband. For his own part, he deprecated multiplying difficulties in the way of an application by the wife. She would have a great many difficulties already to contend against. The husband had means at command which she had not, and in many cases, also, it would be impossible to serve a notice upon the alleged paramour of the husband. It was true that in all cases the notice could be served on the husband himself, but in the event of his running away with a woman who had no known place of residence it would be impossible to serve notice upon her, as no Court would consider a vicarious service upon her paramour as sufficient. If, therefore, an equal obligation were thrown upon both sides, the woman would be exposed to a great amount of trouble and expense which might unduly interfere to prevent application on the part of the wife. The Court would, by the 50th section of the clause, have the power of laying down its own mode of procedure upon the subject; but he would have no objection to frame a clause if the Committee should think that it would be advisable, to place the woman upon the same footing as the man, the Court, of course, having power to dispense with service of notice on the alleged paramour, under special circumstances. The action for criminal conversation was to be superseded entirely, and therefore it was felt to be right to strip

1649
the Court, where the husband complained of adultery, of the power of deciding on the facts, and to impose on it the obligation of having the facts decided by a jury. The wife, also, had a right to complain of adultery when attended with aggravated circumstances, and the question was whether the husband and the paramour of the husband should in all cases have the right of requiring the facts to be proved before a jury. It would be but a truism to say that where a man's character was at stake he should, in the event of his being brought before a judicial tribunal, have the right of having the matter investigated by a jury; but yet how great was the difficulty in such a case thrown on the wife! The wife, though she had been treated by her husband with the most aggravated cruelty, might have no means whatever at her own disposal of obtaining relief, and her connections might be destitute of resources. If she applied for legal aid, a solicitor would probably tell her that to obtain the desired redress she would have to expend £300 or £400; for it must be remembered that the adultery must have been attended with aggravated circumstances, the proof of all of which would be attended with great difficulty and expense. If, therefore, the Committee gave the husband the right of compelling the wife to substantiate her allegations before a jury they would throw impediments in the way of a defenceless and unprotected woman which in many cases might be the means of baffling altogether their humane legislation in her favour. The Bill when before the House of Lords received many important alterations. He was not aware what its state was when first presented to the House of Lords; but he had not thought it right to suggest any alterations in the clause for the reasons he had given. If, however, the Committee desired a parity of procedure in the case of the wife, he should be most happy to throw the clause into that shape; but he could not help placing before them the difficulties to which he had alluded for their consideration. He would put a case which might frequently happen. Suppose a wife applied for redress, produced her own affidavits and the affidavits of her own maid-servant, who might have witnessed some of the grievous acts of cruelty to which the wife had been subjected; and suppose, too, the adultery of the husband had been a notorious thing and was easily capable of proof. In that case, the husband might not file a single affidavit in opposition, or contest
1650
any one of the allegations made by the wife; yet if the Committee were to lay down the rule to which he had referred, the husband might say that those were all questions to be tried by a jury. That, he submitted, would be a hard case against the wife, and, as he had said, a serious impediment in the way of her availing herself of the humane legislation which had been passed in her favour.
MR. AYRTONsaid, he had heard with great alarm the statement of the hon. and learned Attorney General. The Committee had now before them two distinct propositions. The first was whether the adultress should be brought before the Court in any proceeding to be instituted by the wife. On that point it appeared to be the general opinion of the Committee that in some cases it would be desirable to bring the adultress before the Court, but that it should not be made compulsory on the wife to bring her before the Court in all cases. He came, however, to the more important question of the two—namely, the right of any person accused of an offence to demand to be tried by a jury. The Attorney General in this case had suggested that that right was to be qualified simply on the ground of expense. He (Mr. Ayrton) could not understand on what principle a procedure was to be defended which directed that a man should be tried on accusations vitally affecting his status in society without the intervention of a jury, simply on the ground of saving expense to the party who came forward to prefer these accusations. It was a doctrine which he would venture to say had been stated for the first time in the House of Commons that any tribunal might convict a man of rape, bigamy, or incest, without the intervention of trial by jury. The Government had opposed the proposition previously made in the Committee, that a man was to be previously convicted of any of the crimes cited in the 25th clause, as giving the wife the right of divorce before any of those crimes could be imported into a proceeding for a divorce. If that proposition had been adopted, the husband offending against the law would have been brought before a Criminal Court without the prosecutor being necessarily put to any great expense. That proposal, however, had been rejected, and the Committee were now asked, on the ground of a saving of expense, to send the offending husband to be tried before three persons on such vital accusations as those to which reference had been made. He

1651
thought that was a proposition to which the Committee would never assent. If the Committee would look to Clauses 27 and 28 it would be seen that it was quite impossible to limit the right of trial by jury to the mere fact of adultery, and that the question of connivance, which was intimately connected with the adultery, should also be submitted to a similar ordeal. The whole question of trial by jury, with regard to the provisions of the Bill, must be fully reconsidered.
LORD LOVAINEsaid, he wished to ask whether, in the case of a man bringing forward matter to rebut the accusation of his wife, the Judges of the Court would, certainly, as of right, order the circumstances to be investigated before a jury?
THE ATTORNEY GENERALreplied that the Judges would not be bound on any occasion to direct a trial by jury; but, following every rule of procedure hitherto observed, they would, doubtless, take that course.
MR. BOVILLsaid, he would remind the Committee that the House of Lords always required that the facts of the adultery should be clearly established to the satisfaction of a jury. [The ATTORNEY GENERAL: Yes, where the husband is the applicant.] True—but he would also beg to call the attention of his hon. and learned Friend to the circumstance that in the last case, where an endeavour was made by some of the Judges to determine adultery upon affidavits, it was found impossible to do so, and after long investigation and considerable expense they were compelled to have the evidence given orally in Court. Therefore when a constitutional tribunal had the fact of adultery ascertained by a jury he thought it would be monstrous now to say that there should first be investigation upon affidavits, and then, at the discretion of the Court, that a jury should be afterwards summoned.
THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, that he did not oppose the suggestion, he only wished to have the opinion of the Committee. He would not object to insert the words, "The Court, if it think fit, shall have power to order that the party with whom the husband is alleged to have committed adultery shall be made a party."
VISCOUNT PALMERSTONstated, that he proposed that the House should meet to-morrow for the purpose of advancing unopposed Bills a stage, and that the Divorce Bill should be proceeded with on Monday at noon.
House resumed. Committee report progress; to sit again this day at six o'clock.

PROBATE IN THE THREE KINGDOMS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. HADFIELDsaid, he wished to ask whether it is intended that probate taken out in England shall extend to Ireland, and also whether it is intended that the Scotch confirmation shall be operative in
  England.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, that a clause extending English probate to Ireland, and Irish probate to England, would be introduced into the Irish probate Bill. With respect to Scotland the difference in the law was very great, and it was therefore not his intention at present to propose that the Scotch confirmation should be operative in England or Ireland. That must be a matter for future consideration.

EUPHRATES RAILWAY.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  MR. SOTHERON ESTCOURTsaid, he was compelled by the pressure of public business to avail himself of the only opportunity afforded to him as an independent Member to bring forward a Motion which, in his opinion, was one of great national importance. He should, therefore, conclude by moving the adjournment of the House till Monday next. In endeavouring to bring forward the question in which he took so deep an interest he had met with great and frequent disappointments. Twice when he had precedence on the list the days were converted from a Motion day into an Order day, and on another occasion he had been prevented from proceeding by the unavoidable absence of the noble Lord at the head of the Government. But now at last he had the opportunity for which he had long wished, and he trusted the House would pardon him if he took the somewhat irregular course of bringing forward so great a question on a formal Motion for adjournment. Considering how their time had been employed for the previous forty-eight hours, he was inclined to hope that the House would not be very angry if he interposed a rather more agreeable topic, and would not object to follow him from the dreary waste of domestic grievances into the pleasant and classic groves of Daphne. Before, however, he came to the subject matter, there were two preliminary

  1653
  matters upon which he wished to set himself right with the House. The first concerned himself. If any hon. Gentleman had taken notice of the range of subjects with which during the many years he had enjoyed the honour of a seat in that House he had occupied himself, he would find them to have been of a very limited and ordinary kind, referring for the most part to the every-day habits, and, as he believed, the comforts and well-being of his fellow subjects. It might, perhaps, be therefore considered presumptuous in him at that time to venture on so great a task as that of endeavouring to advocate in Parliament the question of a new alternative line or highway to our possessions in the East. But he had one excuse. A dear brother of his, who had since lost his life in the service of his country in the Crimea, was one our body of men which was sent out some twenty years ago to explore the; line of country through which this alternative line must pass. He (Mr. Estcourt) could not avoid learning from his brother something of the locality, and the main points of the question, and when his brother's old commander, General Chesney, some six weeks ago applied to him to bring forward the question, he did not feel that he had a right to refuse. That was, simply the reason why the House had then this question laid before it by a person who had hitherto taken a comparatively humble part in its debates, instead of by such a man as the right hon. Member for Oxford University, or some one of the right hon. Gentlemen on the bench below him. So much for himself. With respect to the next point, he dared say there were many persons in that House—he knew there were in the country—who took an interest in what was called the Suez question. Now, before he said a word in favour of the Euphrates Railway, he wished emphatically to declare that, in as far as he could understand, the line through the valley of the Euphrates was not a competing one with that across the Isthmus of Suez. Let them look at the map. Suez was the natural route to the lower part of India with Ceylon and China, and would have full employment in the immense traffic which could be collected in the Red Sea, whereas the line he was then endeavouring to advocate would pass in an almost straight course to the northern parts of India, and then, it would be his business to show, that, whether looked at from a commercial point of view, or from the political point,
  1654
  which was his, there would be found ample reason for establishing this alternative northern line, as well as that across the Isthmus of Suez. There were two propositions connected with the subject which could not be disputed. One was that it was the interest of Great Britain to furnish to her own people at home and in India the straightest and most direct means of access one to the other. The second proposition was, that the line through the Euphrates Valley offered the straightest and most direct means of access. In the observations he was about to make, he should confine himself mainly to the second proposition. Let any man draw a straight line from Bombay to London, and he would find it pass along the banks of the Euphrates. Now, when he compared the Euphrates with the Suez route, it was not with a view of disparaging the latter, but merely as a means of contrast. Comparing, then, the Euphrates with the Suez route, it would be found that there was a distance of 900 miles in favour of the former; that was to say, an actual saving of from four to five days in point of time. But that was not all. During six months of the year the wind blew directly in the teeth of any one who sailed from Bombay to the Red Sea, and the strait through which they passed was well called "Babel-Mandeb." In the Red Sea itself the wind was still more directly opposed, and to avoid it, ships were obliged to take a course which further lengthened their distance by 600 or 700 miles. Therefore, in one half the year there were four or five days, in the other half from five to ten days of direct geographical difference. Ten years ago a difference of four or five to ten days might not be considered to be of much importance, but at the present moment, when many an aching heart was watching hour after hour for despatches from India, could any man say that five or ten days were not a matter of consequence. But it was not merely a question of the anxiety of private individuals. He was speaking to the council of the nation, and he would not press the material interest which great Britain had in rapid communication with Bombay. Not to dwell then on the physical parts of the question, he would put it in a moral point of view, and he said that it was the duty of this country, having millions of subjects in India—and India must soon become an integral part of our dominions—it was a, moral duty to give to

  1655
  our subjects in India every facility of access to the mother country. He thought then that there would not be much dissent to the proposition, first that it was our duty to establish direct communication with India, and second, that the Euphrates Valley was the most direct route. He came now to the main point of the question—could it be done? He trusted he should not weary hon. Members by taking them along the route. Coasting along Syria they would find the river Orontes, with a harbour at its mouth, called Seleucia, which would not cost this country one farthing, because the Turkish Government had undertaken to fit it for their purpose, and he should add that it had already been surveyed by eminent engineers. They would then go by the Orontes to Antioch, and to that point he would say there were no difficulties of which an engineer would make anything. You would have to pass five or six times across the river, but that was not difficult, and now it was expected that you would easily be able to complete the works in twelve months. From Antioch you would then have before you a long range of level country, and pass over the lowest spur of Mount Lebanon at a height of only 1,100 feet above the level of the sea. Then you would debouch into the great plain of Mesopotamia, where the soil was hard and level, and the territory divided between the Sultan and the independent Sheiks. In short, he believed that on the whole surface of the globe they would not find so many miles as favourable for engineering purposes. The present proposition was to rest content with carrying the line to the banks of the Euphrates, a distance of 150 miles from the Mediterranean Sea. The Euphrates had been thoroughly surveyed, and found favourable for navigation. English iron ships were now plying upon it, and it had been navigated by English vessels for a period, more or less, for twenty years. No doubt the river was in some parts shallow, and he had seen it in a recent publication represented as a series of pools. Well, that might be so; but if there was a stream sufficient to admit ships of traffic, that was all that would be required, He had seen the Report of an engineer, who stated that, even at the periods of the year when the river was shallowest there was sufficient draught for vessels of tonnage capable of carrying passengers and light goods. From the point where the railway would stop the route would proceed to Koornah,
  1656
  in the Persian Gulf; at Koornah there was an Indian flotilla, he might almost say an actual navy. Arrived at the Persian Gulf we entered an almost inland sea, nearly land-locked, and exposed to none of the difficulties which we usually encountered in the Red Sea. It was, in fact, almost a lake. After passing the Persian Gulf, they had within an easy distance the port of Kurrachee, which those acquainted with the East believed would, before many years, become the great emporium and entrepôt of British commerce and traffic to India. It had deep water, and was situated in the Delta of the Indus, that wonderful river which, rushing down from the mountains at Cabul and the Himalaya, was navigable for a distance of a 1,000 miles, and seemed to be designed for the great highway of commerce in that region. The Minister who should be so fortunate to have it in his power to found the greatness of Kurrachee by encouraging this railway, would deserve for himself a niche in the temple of fame, as worthily as Sir Stamford Raffles, the founder of Singapore, or as Alexander the Great, the conqueror of the world. From Kurrachee the line was already settled, and every arrangement made for the formation of the route. Indeed they were actually laying down the railway from that point up to the deep waters of the Indus, where a flotilla would be provided to carry on the traffic to Moultan, and thence to Lahore, Now what position did Lahore occupy? Why it was the apex of a triangle, with one foot resting on Kurrachee and the other upon Calcutta. From Lahore to Calcutta a railway was already made, and from Lahore to Kurrachee railway communication had been commenced. By that triangle communication would be established between Calcutta and Kurrachee, which seemed destined hereafter to become the capital of India. He could assure the House that he did not advocate this undertaking as a commercial or private speculation, but as a national and political object. But, viewed in the former light the enterprise promised to be successful, since within the last five years the exports of Kurrachee had increased twelve-fold. But he ventured to advocate this railway not as a private speculation, for he had no shares or pecuniary interest in it, but as a great national object. If he could not satisfy the House that it was such an undertaking, he would admit that he would not have a leg to stand upon. It was absurd

  1657
  to ask for a Government guarantee for a railway through this country, but the proposed line ran through Turkey, and the projectors could not be expected to spend their private means in carrying it out unless the Government said they would make it a national concern, and would undertake that, when it was completed, the projectors should not be deprived of the fruits of their industry by any diplomatic parchment, or by any incident which might naturally be expected to arise in a foreign country. He was told that the real obstacle in the way of the Government giving such an undertaking, arose out of the circumstances of the railway passing for sixty miles through a country inhabited by the Arabs, and where there was no security against the predatory incursions of those hereditary freebooters. The Arabs had a prescription of 4,000 years in favour of their predatory habits, and it was not to be expected that they could be overcome all at once: but 100 years ago the Scotch Highlanders were just as great freebooters. How were they dealt with? They were paid subsidies, or what was called black mail, and then there was no fear of their annoyance. Could not the Arabs be treated in the same way? Those who had lived amongst them declared that they possessed this quality in common with the rest of the human family, namely, that if you could make it plain to their understandings that it would be better worth their while to be guardians than robbers, they would become the former, and adopt that course which would bring most grist to the mill. A large part of the sixty miles was the property of native chiefs, and there would be no difficulty in obtaining their permission to pass through, when they were made sensible of the advantages of the railway, and backed up by the argument of the breeches pocket. At the cost of only a small annual expenditure such terms might be offered to the Arabs as would induce them greedily to crowd round and tender their services to act as guardians of the railway. He made that statement upon the strength of such authorities as Captain Lynch, Mr. Ainsworth, and Sir Justin Sheil, who had lived amongst them, and who spoke of them as being trustworthy to a high degree. An English doctor at Bagdad said he treated the apprehension that was felt respecting the Arabs as a mere bugbear. General Chesney, who lived among them many years, employed them frequently in carrying treasures, and never lost a farthing.
  1658
  His testimony was, that although an ordinary stranger travelling among them without any particular object would be liable to be robbed, yet that any one who went to them with a public character and as a benefactor would find them to be trusted. His hon. Friend the gallant defender of Kars also knew the Arabs well, and he hoped before the discussion closed, he would give the House the benefit of his experience with regard to them. But granted that it was desirable to make the railway, he might be asked what specific proposition he intended to bring forward. Well, he had been in communication with the parties, who had taken up the question in a commercial point of view, and the real position of affairs was this. A contract had been entered into to make the railway from the Mediterranean to the Euphrates, a distance of 150 miles, for £1,100,000 in round numbers. The sum required to be raised by the promoters was £1,400,000, the additional £300,000 being for interest accruing in the three years during which the railway would be under construction, for engines, rolling stock, and other expenses, which must be incurred prior to working the railway. The Turkish Government had already given the promoters a guarantee of six per cent on their outlay. There were some hon. Members in the House who knew whether Turkey could be depended upon to fulfil her promise; he was himself assured by those who were well acquainted with Turkey that she was to be trusted; but supposing she were not, or supposing the state of affairs at Constantinople did not admit of paying £70,000 a year, there would then be the security of the customs duties of the Porte which were payable at Aleppo, to be received by the railway company, which would realise more than £70,000 a year. Moneyed men, however, were very distrustful, and might say that this was all very well so long as we were friends with Turkey, but supposing political events should interrupt the harmony at present subsisting between England and Turkey, what then would become of the guarantee? That was precisely the reason why he made this appeal to the House; it was to guard against the consequences of such an event that he now brought the question forward. He did not ask for any specific sum; he did not ask for a guarantee, but what he wanted was an undertaking that if this private enterprise were carried out, it should be assisted by the State in the early stages of its

  1659
  existence, so that it should not be overpowered or done up, if he might so use the expression, for want of a little encouragement and support from the mother country. He found, by a memorial of Sir Justin Shell, that the expenditure upon the line would be spread over three years, and what he wanted the Government to do was to promise assistance if the means of the company should be found to be deficient: the expenditure in the first year would be £200,000; in the second £300,000, and in the third £800.000. When the three years were passed the railway would be completed, and the customs duties to be received by the railway would pay the interest on the capital. Now, what he asked the Government was this: if in the course of making the line, or perhaps a year or two beyond that, it should be found that the means of the company were insufficient to supply the interest, would they make, up the deficiency, not exceeding a certain sum? According to the calculation of Sir Justin Sheil, under any circumstances the deficiency, if any should arise during the progress of the railway, could not exceed £100,000. When this trifling sum was compared with the amount now being expended to provide transport to India, it seemed as if the two charges could not refer to the same subject. Had this railroad been established five years ago, we should, within thirty days of receiving information of the mutiny, have been able to pour 5,000 men from the garrisons of Gibraltar, Malta, and Corfu, into the heart of India. Rapidity of communication was everything in dealing with a mutiny or a revolt, and 5,000 men arriving within a month would, probably, have immediately turned the tide of events in our favour, while 30,000 reaching India at the end of three months might—he hoped that such would not be the case—arrive only in time to grace the triumph of an insurgent population. Then, let them also observe what an effect the construction of this railway would have upon our relations with foreign countries; what support it would give to our old ally, Turkey. The Sultan was now the nominal sovereign of Central Asia, but from the distant Pashas of Bagdad and Mosul he could scarcely exact more than a small tribute and an unwilling submission. Let this railway be constructed, and these chiefs must entirely submit to the Government at Constantinople. Look at Persia. There was no reason for our
  1660
  being at loggerheads with Persia; but every eight or ten years we found, almost without explanation, that our Minister was turned out of the capital, and that we had to go to war without knowing anything of the enemy we had to contend with. Why was that? Why, because England was at a distance, and Russia was close at hand. It then would give us a stronger hold upon Turkey; it would bring us into closer vicinity with Persia, and avert wars which were got up solely because Russia was near at hand, while England was at a distance; but, above all, it would enable us to counteract easily any of the designs which Russia was supposed to have upon India. For take the case with regard to Russia, and suppose that Russia ever had the power of sending an armament from the Caspian Sea to the frontiers of India, why this railway would furnish the means of conveying troops with greater rapidity even from London, and more easily still from Malta or Corfu, to Lahore and Mooltan, which commanded the two gates of India. Therefore, he said that in a political point of view it was of the first consequence to us that we should adopt this railway. But did this railway pass through a country with which we had no present connection? Had not this country kept up a line of agents along this valley of the Euphrates for years? Had we not at this moment a chain of consular agents right through the valley at Bagdad, at Aleppo, at Antioch, and elsewhere, and would not the influence of these be strengthened by making this railway? It was well said by the noble Lord at the head of the Government, in a speech which he delivered at Manchester last autumn, that it was by means of railways that the arts and civilization of the western world would be extended to the East; and this railway in particular would be the chief agent by which Great Britain would bind herself to the populous and fertile nations of the East. There was a vast difference between a communication established for military purposes only, and a railway established by private individuals with a commercial object, but made subservient to military ends. If the railway were to be established for military purposes alone, all the world would look upon us with distrust; but this was to be a commercial speculation alone, established by private individuals for trading purposes. He had thus endeavoured to put before the House the principal reasons which induced him

  1661
  to press this subject upon the attention of the Government; and in doing so he had abstained from making a comparison between the character of the countries through which the respective lines would run. He might be allowed, however, to say this much, that looking at the relative value and productive powers of the two countries through which the lines passed it would be found that the advantages were greatly in favour of the Euphrates Valley line. From the Isthmus of Suez to the Red Sea the land was totally unproductive, whereas the land through which this line passed was proverbially the richest in the world. It was the land where vast granaries had been established for centuries. In England not a single railway had ever been made in which the actual traffic had not been double the quantity of the original estimate; no doubt the same would turn out to be the case with this railway, but to a greater degree, because hitherto the country through which it passed had been without all means of communication, except the miserable camel caravans. In order to show the House the extent to which commerce was carried on he might mention that Sir J. M'Neill had observed that the average number of laden camels entering Aleppo every working day was 1,000, while the value of the exports and imports of that town amounted in one year to £2,000,000 sterling, and Aleppo was only one of the points through which this line would pass. He did not, however, bring forward this question as a commercial speculation alone, but as one which, from its general bearings, was well worthy the consideration of the House, and he thought that it would be a gross neglect of duty to the country and to succeeding generations, if a misguided economy prevented the Government from giving a promise to support this railway when once formed. He knew that it might be said that the present moment was inopportune; that every shilling of the resources of Great Britain was required to put down the rebellion in India, and that the work was one which ought not to be undertaken except in a time of peace and tranquillity; but if he knew anything of his countrymen, or of the spirit of the Members of that House, he was sure they would agree with him that this was precisely the moment for undertaking such a work. England was at the present moment an object of interest and anxiety to the world. It was said by some that
  1662
  the glory of the country was gone, that the brightest gem of the British Crown had been attacked, and that the force of England would not be sufficient to restore her to the position which she had occupied. Surely such was a proper time to give the world a proof of pluck and constancy; and what better proof could be given them than by commencing a work which would give this country the firmest grasp upon India which it was possible for her to hold? and he hoped, therefore, that the present Session would not pass without the Government giving their sanction to the scheme. He begged pardon of the House for having occupied their attention at such length, but he begged to assure them that it was only his deep sense of the importance of the subject which had induced him to trespass so long upon their attention.
  MR. CRAWFORDsaid, that as he possessed some acquaintance with the facts, upon which depended the merits of the case brought before the House by the hon. Member who had just sat down—an acquaintance founded upon a long commercial connection with India—he trusted he might be permitted to obtrude some observations upon the House. In the first place he must remark, that while the House had been favoured at much length with a dissertation on the merits of a very chimerical railway scheme, no allusion had been made to that which he thought at the present moment was of far greater public interest than the connection of this country by railway with India. He alluded to the establishment of telegraphic communications with India, a subject possessing for us at this moment immense interest. The hon. Gentleman had alluded to the great importance of establishing our communications with India on a more perfect system than at present. It would be an idle waste of time if he (Mr. Crawford) were to dwell upon the importance of such a topic; but he was sure there was not an individual in this country who would not readily appreciate on the one hand the great political advantage of railway communication with India, and on the other the comfort of being enabled to receive, instead of the present spasmodic scraps of news, intelligence every morning of what was going on in that country. He should venture to make this remark, that communication of that character was an undertaking which ought not to fall into the hands of the Government, but should be

  1663
  taken up and carried out by private agency; but, on the other hand, that the State should in some measure assist in the establishment of such an enterprise. He would venture to suggest, in that view, that the experience of railways in India was well worthy of being followed upon the present occasion; and that it was the duty of the Government to give facilities for telegraphic communication with India on the same grounds as those afforded by the East India Company for the formation of railways in India—that is to say, that the Government should undertake a certain portion of the risk which must necessarily accompany an enterprise of such a character, and that they must take a recompense for that risk by a priority of communication on all occasions; and in order to prevent any misuse of the telegraph, that the Government should be represented at the Board of Management. There were at the present moment before the public, the Government, and the East India Company, two proposals for telegraphic communication with India; one was for a telegraphic line by the valley of the Euphrates; the other proposal was for a line by Suez. The two projects were identical in this respect, that they both professed to take their departure from Alexandria, and bring their communication into India from Kurrachee. He had no interest in saying that he believed the Red Sea line would be the best. Having stated his opinion in very general terms, he should not detain the House. He should, however, remark that he thought there was rather a covert attempt made to elicit an expression of opinion from the House in favour of the Euphrates line; and having said that much, he should ask the House to draw their own conclusions by comparison as to the respective value of the two lines. If Government should see fit—or rather, if Parliament should see fit—to authorise the Government to concede that assistance to the company engaged in forming telegraphic communication by the Red Sea—private individuals being ready with the whole of the money for that purpose—the company would be prepared to lay down within a very brief period—perhaps less than twelve months—a line throughout to Alexandria. There might be some curiosity to know in what way the service was to be carried on between Alexandria and this country. A company had been formed for the purpose of constructing, under a firman from the Turkish
  1664
  Government, a line of telegraph from the Hellespont to Alexandria, which would complete the proposed line of communication to this country. He felt it to be his duty to make these observations to the House so that they might see it was not only possible but practicable to put this country in telegraphic communication with India; and that there were parties who were ready and willing to carry it out.
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he had watched with great interest the vicissitudes which had attended the Motion of his hon. Friend opposite, because it seemed desirable to discuss on one and the same occasion all the subjects germane to the question which he wished to raise. Although, therefore, the course which his hon. Friend had taken, in bringing on his Motion at last, was somewhat irregular, he (Mr. Gladstone) could not but admit that he was perfectly justified by the circumstances of the case; and at the same time he would say, that the ability and clearness which the hon. Gentleman had displayed in putting the matter before the House showed that a more judicious choice of an advocate could not have been made by those interested in the Euphrates Valley Railway. He must confess, however, he had listened with something like apprehension to the statements of his hon. Friend—an apprehension which was increased by the statements of the hon. Gentleman who had preceded him, and who seemed to take it as pretty nearly a settled question that the nation was to give money or money's worth in this matter. Now, he did think the House of Commons should regard with very great jealousy the use, by Members of Parliament, of the advantages which their Parliamentary position gave them, for the purpose of urging in their places and recommending to Government and the country undertakings which, however beneficial they might be in a philanthropic, or however useful in a political point of view, yet were substantially commercial undertakings, and ought to be left to stand or fall as such. With respect to the statement of the hon. Member for Wiltshire (Mr. S. Estcourt), he was thoroughly glad that, whatever his hon. Friend asked for, he did not demand a guarantee. His hon. Friend asked for cash down, and though it was, perhaps, to be wished that he had, as the Scotch said, more distinctly condescended upon the amount, still one could understand a request for cash, while he (Mr. Gladstone)

  1665
  viewed a guarantee with an instinctive aversion and almost horror. He repeated that the request for cash would have been more acceptable had it been more definite. His hon. Friend had drawn a distinction between the prudent and wary capitalists who had taken the whole of the shares and were ready to execute and to manage the whole line, but who had not authorized him to state any particular sum, and Sir Justin Sheil, who said that the whole cost would not exceed £100,000. Now, it was satisfactory to know Sir Justin Sheil's opinion; but he must say he was disposed to ask whether that gentleman advanced the capital, or was prepared to be responsible if his calculation broke down?
  MR. SOTHERON ESTCOURT: It was not Sir Justin Sheil's calculation; I should have said Sir John M'Neill.
  MR. GLADSTONEobserved, that both gentlemen were worthy of the greatest respect; but whatever might be the abilities and the character of Sir John M'Neill, it was quite impossible that he could make a responsible statement to the House on this subject. After all, however, this was not the point. The House was not called upon at the present moment to declare that it would never, under any circumstances, advance money for an undertaking of this kind. Hon. Gentlemen were not called upon to pronounce absolutely in the negative, but he was quite sure they were not in a condition to pronounce in the affirmative; and, although the appeal of his hon. Friend was naturally made to the Government, yet he knew the Government incurred unpopularity by the rejection of philanthropic undertakings, and he thought independent Members ought likewise to give their judgment where they saw cause. However, let the proposal, when it assumed a definite form, come before the House in a regular manner,—for he did think it would be a safer course if those who felt an interest in such subjects were to make their wishes known to the Government, and then be prepared to defend any proposal the Government might make, instead of themselves venturing to recommend commercial undertakings by Motions in this House. He would do both the hon. Gentlemen who had introduced this question the justice to say that they dwelt much upon its political aspect. But the whole plan was essentially commercial, and must be so dealt with. That led him to a consideration of the principles upon
  1666
  which it appeared to him that prudence absolutely demanded they should proceed in regulating the political relations of this country with the East. His hon. Friend had gone very far in describing the political advantages which his plan would entail. By it, he contended, they would not only have a most rapid communication with India, but easy access to Persia, proximity to Russia, control over all the country traversed; and his hon. Friend even went so far, in what might be termed his philanthropic enthusiasm, as to describe this railway down the Valley of the Euphrates by an expressive and well-known English household phrase, as a portion of the Queen's highway. It was to be remembered, however, that the Queen kept order in, and had control over, the Queen's highway; and the great difficulty about such a plan as this was, that when the purse of the English nation was bled to find funds for the purpose of promoting, directly or indirectly, commercial undertakings in foreign countries, you then at once laid a distinct ground for the political interference of the British Government with the Government of those countries. With respect to the policy of this country in the East, there were three rules which, as far as he could see, it ought to be the study of Her Majesty's Government always to observe. The first—and perhaps the most essential of all—was, not to give a handle to other nations for alleging that we are setting an example of interference with their government and domestic affairs. That was exactly the rule against which he was afraid we should offend, if we were led to support by a pecuniary grant, but especially by a guarantee, the construction of a line of railway through the Turkish empire. It was impossible to deny that, by connecting themselves with such an undertaking, the Government created an interest on the part of the taxpayers of this country, who, if they were called upon to contribute to a scheme of this sort, had a right to know what had become of their money, and to call upon the Government to take every measure in their power, even by resorting to force, for the purpose of preventing mismanagement or misgovernment, and of seeing that this railway was properly dealt with. The bad example thus set to other nations, whose policy it might be to make a dishonest use of this plea, would be extremely mischievous. The Government, therefore, ought not to entertain a proposal of this kind, as

  1667
  long at least as it remained in a vague and shadowy shape. If the time should ever arrive when the House was called for such grants of money, those grants should on no account be permitted to carry after them political rights or the presumption of such rights. Another rule which should guide our policy in the East was, that we ought to endeavour to maintain that union and concord of European opinion on the subject of Eastern policy which were so happily established during the late war. When the subject of the Suez line in connection with the Suez Canal was lately brought forward in the shape of a question in that House, the answer of his noble Friend at the head of the Government was represented to have been—first, that the project was impracticable, and a bad commercial speculation; and next, that it ought to be opposed by British influence on political grounds, with a view to the retention of our Indian empire. The opinion of eminent engineers, he believed, upheld the first part of this answer. The House ought to deal with this project, as well as with the Euphrates Railway and the telegraphic scheme, mainly as a commercial question, and they might rely upon it that the best judges of the merits of a commercial speculation were the private individuals who were invited to invest their capital in it. If this project were turned by the Government into a political question, there would be the greatest danger of breaking up that European concert and concord which were of paramount importance in regard to our Eastern policy. He (Mr. Gladstone) was not, perhaps, qualified to give an opinion as to whether the Suez Canal would be advantageous to this country; but no man, however, could look at the map of the globe, and deny that a canal through the Isthmus of Suez, if practicable, would be a great stroke for the benefit of mankind. It had the assent and goodwill of every Government in Europe, and especially of France, our great ally. Could anything, then, be more unfortunate than that we should have squabbles at Constantinople between the British and the French ambassadors on this subject? With respect to our Indian possessions, it was to be hoped that the whole strength and vigour of this country would never be wanting to make the requisite efforts for their maintenance, and that as long as we had duties to perform to mankind in those regions, sacrifices would never be grudged, or even counted of importance.
  1668
  in the fulfilment of such obligations. But let us not create in Europe an opinion that the possession of India by Great Britain was something to be upheld by opposition to measures that were beneficial to the general interests of Europe. Let us not create that fatal antithesis and contradiction, because it would do more to weaken our hold upon Hindostan than ten such mutinies as that which had just occurred. When he gave notice, some hours ago, of his intention to put a question to the Government relative to the Danubian Principalities, he was not aware that that subject had been touched upon in another place last evening; for he confessed that his close attendance in the House had left him no time for the discharge of that first duty—if it was not, indeed, the whole duty of man—that of expending a couple of hours in the perusal of the daily journals, He had already referred to the two cardinal rules which should govern our Eastern policy; but there was a third, of not less importance. It was, that where England had an influence to exercise on the affairs of the East, she should not repose her entire, or even her principal confidence, on armed intervention to prevent the aggressions of Russia upon Turkey, but should endeavour to raise up such living barriers as might effectually interpose between Constantinople and the Russian empire. The question he was about to put to his noble Friend was, whether it was the intention of Her Majesty's Government to produce, at a very early period, papers respecting the subject of the Principalities? There were reasons why the noble Lord, if it was in his power, should strain a point to furnish the House with authentic information on this question. Nearly two years and a half had elapsed since the restoration of peace, and very great delay had occurred with respect to the settlement of the Principalities. The causes of that delay had been mainly beyond the control of Her Majesty's Government, and he did not make it a ground for censure. But a lively interest was felt in this country and in the House on this subject. It was impossible that England could regard with indifference the fate of two provinces which had vindicated for themselves political freedom, not indeed in its perfection, but to a considerable degree, amid surrounding slavery; and which had, at all events, laid within their own borders a foundation on which we might hope to see Christian institutions and Christian liberty

  1669
  flourishing and setting an example to less favoured countries in that quarter. In connection with this question, he could not help mentioning some portion of the London press with honour. One journal in particular—the Daily News (and probably the same remark applied to others)—had striven zealously and consistently to foster the growth of the feeling in this country to look with anxiety and interest to the settlement of the Principalities. As long as his noble Friend was not at liberty to supply them with authentic information on this question, they were of course reduced to depend upon—perhaps to be the victims of—intelligence at best but partial, and, it might be, not wholly trustworthy. And unfavourable impressions with respect to the views of England were likely to gain currency, until Her Majesty's Government had had an opportunity to correct them by an exposition of their policy. What has recently happened?—The elections have recently taken place in Moldavia for the purpose of giving effect to these provisions in the Treaty of Paris with respect to the Principalities, for which both my noble Friend the Member for the City of London and likewise my noble Friend the Earl of Clarendon deserve the greatest credit—those provisions under which it is stipulated that the will of the population itself shall be ascertained, and that that will, when ascertained, shall, subject to the suzerain rights of Turkey, be made the basis of their institutions. Well, what does the world know of these elections? It knows that they have taken place by virtue of that treaty in Moldavia, and that the majority of the Powers of Europe, including France, have protested against them; that England (and when I use the word "knows" I should rather use the word "supposes") has been engaged in supporting these elections, that it has finally been decided that these elections should be quashed, and that that decision has been come to in consequence of the influence of the Emperor Napoleon. Now, Sir, I earnestly hope that it will be in the power of my noble Friend when the time comes to alter and correct impressions such as these. But we are liable to be supplied with information of a partial character. I hold in my hand a volume of documents which has been forwarded to me, and which indicates the way in which these Moldavian elections, now happily crushed, have been conducted. I will just point out to the House in a very few words the statements
  1670
  that these documents embody as to the proceedings which have been going on in Moldavia. Now, the first of these is the declaration of a certain Monsieur Frimo, who had been the head of the police in the city of Niamtzo. He says that he was named in December, 1856, prefect of the district of Niamtzo, and that he received this order from head-quarters when he was named prefect:—
  "By virtue of your office I order you to labour without ceasing against the foolish idea of the union of the Principalities, and to use all your efforts in order that the inhabitants of your town may become adversaries of the union."
  He then goes on to say,—
  "He enjoined me to exert myself, in concert with two other persons who knew all the Unionists and anti-Unionists of the place, to menace and caress, per fas et nefas, in order that there might not remain a single partisan of the union among the inhabitants of the city from first to last, for otherwise I should be dismissed from my office."
  Now, if that be true, that indicates a most scandalous and shameful course of proceeding. It is a scandal if that temporary machinery which was set up under the Treaty of Paris, in order to give free scope to the will of the Moldavian people, has been employed for the purpose of unduly influencing the elections in favour of the views of Austria, which was opposed to the union of the Principalities. I have quoted that from the 98th page of the book. Nearly in the next page I find another document, from an official person named Palladi, who writes to the Minister of the Interior, at Jassy. He says,—
  "Bazile Popovitz, in passing by Bakeo, has commenced to harangue in favour of the union in public places and afterwards betook himself to the arrondissement of Upper Tazleon."
  He then goes on thus:—
  "The undersigned, acting in conformity with the instructions he has received, has taken the measures which are necessary, and has put him under arrest."
  So that a man whose political opinion is in favour of the union—and that was the question that was to be tried—is by an official person laid hold of and put under arrest, if this information be true. Well, then, what says another gentleman, who is deputy of the Bishop of Roman? The deputy of the Bishop of Roman, on the 14th of April, 1857, in writing to the Rev. Father George Dimitrio, Archpriest of Decutsch, says—and I hope the Liberal Members of this House will listen—it was the duty of those who discharged public functions to maintain themselves dans une ligne de condulte conservatrice. He then goes on,—

  1671
  "You, on the contrary, express yourself without the least reserve and in all freedom of conduct, which gives rise to combination. We, therefore, give you to understand that from the present date you are liberated from the functions of arch-priest."
  I will only trouble the House with one more case. In page 103 of the same book I find that Etienne Dascalescon, a boyard and proprietor of Fokschani, describes the conduct of a certain Monsieur 1'Ispravnick, an official person in his neighbourhood. The declaration of this Etienne Dascalescon is dated the 28th of March, 1857. He says on Tuesday, the 26th of March, Monsieur 1'Ispravnick invited to his own house the most considerable of those merchants whom he supposed to be favourable to the Unionist party, and after having held forth to them against the union, he finished the conversation by advising them to mind their own business— that is, in the strict sense of the word, their own commercial affairs, and not to mix themselves up in politics, for that was no affair of theirs; he recalled to their recollection the events of 1848 and their consequences, in order that he might not be put under the necessity of paying out of his own pocket for the cords by which he would have to strangle them. Now, my noble Friend must admit that the circulation of documents of this kind must affect the character of England. I think that Englishmen are in favour of a union of the Principalities. If you want to create strength there, I think that almost common sense would lead one to do so by their union. But if there be successful arguments the other way, it is most important that my noble Friend should furnish the House with those arguments. At any rate, it is important that he should at the earliest moment do something to dissipate the injurious impressions that must be entertained as to the policy of England while these statements remain uncontradicted. I have often had occasion to differ from the foreign policy of my noble Friend, but of one thing I am perfectly convinced, and that is, that in his heart he is a lover of British freedom, and that he will not willingly or intentionally be found, on a question of foreign policy, upon the side which is antagonistic to British freedom. The presumption in this case, as they have been stated in the newspapers, and as they now appear, are not in keeping with what I think we may fairly anticipate from my noble Friend. It is all very well that these elections should have been quashed, but if these elections have been a source
  1672
  of jobbery and wicked oppression, why, then, it was to England we ought to have looked to quash them, and that task ought not to have been left to the absolute Sovereign of France. At any rate, I am quite sure that what I have said is enough to convince the House that there is much gravity in the circumstances, and that it is most desirable that my noble Friend should at the earliest period that the circumstances will permit lay upon the table of the House that authentic information which will enable the House to form a fair and candid judgment, which at present it cannot possibly form upon the policy and even upon the intentions of the Government with respect to the great question in what way the destinies of the inhabitants of the Principalities are to be moulded under the hands of the Powers of Europe, inasmuch as if we are to look to the erection of permanent barriers against Russia, then it is of importance that we should endeavour to bring these Principalities into a state of strength and vigour which will afford the best hope of their real and substantial improvement.
  SIR FITZROY KELLYsaid, he hoped he might detain the House a short, time in putting a question to the noble Lord at the head of the Government, which had some connection with the subject under discussion. It was not his intention to arraign the conduct of the Government on this occasion. It had been his fortune upon more than one occasion, during the last Session or two, to animadvert upon the conduct of the Government of India with regard to their treatment of the Native Princes of India, but he had ever found the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Control and Her Majesty's Government not only disposed to adhere to the first principles of justice in their dealings with the Princes of India, but always anxious to consult their feelings and interests. He might observe that since intelligence reached this country of the outbreak in India, the royal Princes of Oude, and every member of the royal family, bad strictly forborne from urging their case upon the Houses of Parliament and the Government; but had been content, whatever their sufferings might be, to await with patience the time when those unhappy events which now occupied the attention of the country should have passed away, and they could, with confidence, appeal to the justice of the British Parliament. They had followed that course from the

  1673
  time when the events passing in India were first known in England, and no other steps had been taken excepting that of presenting, through him, a petition to that House, in which they had referred to their former position, and had begged to be informed of the events which had taken place in India, and of which news bad reached this country. It was their wish that he, (Sir F. Kelley) would not, at present, refer to their case. But he would now merely state that from the time of the occurrence of these events no communication had reached—he presumed it had not been permitted to reach—the royal family of Oude, and they only learnt what had taken place in India in the same way in which hon. Members learnt it. They had seen that their Sovereign was actually a. prisoner in Fort William, and that no one member of his family had any means of communicating with him, or of receiving a communication from him, in consequence of it being supposed that he was concerned in the outbreak in India. In the meantime the royal family of Oude stated in their petition their perfect and profound conviction, founded upon their knowledge of the whole life and conduct of the deposed King of Oude, that he was utterly incapable of having done any act whatever in opposition to his own fidelity to British interests and his loyalty to the British Crown and people, which feelings he had exhibited when he was King, reigning over a wealthy people, and since he had been deposed and was an exile and prisoner in the hands of the East India Company. The royal family expressed their entire belief that no charge could be brought against their sovereign and relative. The questions which he (Sir F. Kelly) wished to ask were, whether the King of Oude was still in custody or under restraint? and, whether the noble Lord at the head of the Government was prepared to state the charge, or the nature of the charge, against the King of Oude, and upon which he had been deprived of his liberty? If it were compatible with British interests and the line which the Government had thought it their duty to pursue in placing the King of Oude under restraint, it would certainly be doing an act of great kindness, charity, and justice, if the Government would inform the Queen of Oude and the other members of her family of the charge against the King of Oude. The answer of the noble Lord might, in some degree, restore peace of mind to the royal family, and confidence in British justice.
  MR. VERNON SMITHsaid, that as his noble Friend at the head of the Government would have to reply to the questions that had been raised relative to the Euphrates Railway and the Danubian Principalities, the House would perhaps allow him to answer the questions whether the King of Oude was still under duress, and under what charges he had been arrested. He believed from the letters that had arrived by the present mail, that the King of Oude was still under arrest, and that the charge upon which he had been arrested was complicity in the revolt that had taken place at Delhi. That charge was made by a person who was to be examined hereafter. No doubt, an investigation into the facts would take place as shortly as possible, and if it should appear that the King and Court of Oude had bad nothing to do with the revolt, it would be the duty of the Governor General to liberate him. But the hon. and learned Gentleman had rather overstated the case when he said that the King of Oude was undergoing a harsh imprisonment. The King of Oude was certainly removed from his residence to Fort William, but there every species of attention that could be paid to a royal prisoner was manifested to him. He was arrested under Regulation 3 of the Province of Bengal, which set forth:—
  "Whereas reasons of state, embracing the due maintenance of the alliances formed by the British Government with foreign Powers, the preservation of tranquillity in the territories of Native Princes, entitled to its protection, and the security of the British dominions from foreign hostility and from internal commotion, occasionally render it necessary to place under personal restraint individuals against whom there may not be sufficient ground to institute any judicial proceeding, or when such proceeding may not be adapted to the nature of the case, or may, for other reasons, be unadvisable or improper."
  That was the authority under which his Majesty had been confined, and he would now read the letter which the Governor General wrote to the King of Oude upon the occasion of his arrest:—
  "Fort William, June 15th.
  "Sir,—It is with pain that I find myself compelled to require that your Majesty's person should, for a season, be removed to within the precincts of Fort William. The name of your Majesty and the authority of your Court are used by persons who seek, to excite resistance to the British Government, and it is necessary that this should cease. Your Majesty knows, that from the day when it pleased you to fix your residence near Calcutta to the present time, yourself and those about your Majesty have been entirely free and uncontrolled. Your Majesty may be assured, then, that is not the desire of the Governor General

  1675
  in Council to interfere needlessly with your movements and actions. Your Majesty may be equally certain that the respect due to your Majesty's high position will never be forgotten by the Government or its officers, and that every possible provision will be made for your Majesty's convenience and comfort."
  There was no symptom of harshness in this letter. It was his (Mr. Vernon Smith's) desire to treat the Native Princes with the utmost consideration and courtesy, and his noble Friend the Governor General was animated by the same desire. No restraint had been put upon the King of Oude's family in this country, and it was not quite correct to say that no communication had taken place between them, because a communication had been brought to him from the King of Oude to his relatives in this country, which he desired should be immediately forwarded to the Queen of Oude. It was obvious that, as the King of Oude was in confinement at Calcutta, for the purpose of restraining any correspondence in which he might be engaged with the supposed conspiracy, it was impossible to allow any communication to take place between him and his friends. His family in this country would, for the present, be cut off from that communication, but there would be no desire, after the trial, to continue that restraint. The arrest of the King of Oude was a measure of precautionary policy, of which the House must approve. He trusted it would turn out that the King of Oude was perfectly innocent of any implication in the conspiracy, and he had no doubt that if his name had been used without his authority, he would be acquitted. So long, however, as the Governor General had reason to believe that either the King of Oude or his courtiers were acting in complicity with the revolt, his noble Friend would be justified in confining him.
  SIR FITZROY KELLYsaid, it was true that a paper, purporting to have come from the King of Oude, had been brought to the Royal Family of Oude, but they did not know how it had reached this country.
  MR. GRIFFITHsaid, he should be happy to give his assistance towards carrying out the Euphrates Railway, but should consider it unfortunate if other means of communication with the East should be thrown into the shade, or looked upon with prejudice by the Government. For example, how great an advantage it would be if we were able to send our large steamers filled with troops to India through the Red Sea. Concurring with the noble Lord
  1676
  at the head of the Government, as to the physical difficulties which lay in the way of the construction of the proposed Suez Canal, he was yet of opinion that we ought not to manifest any unreasonable jealousy of the prosecution of the scheme. At any rate, it should not be made a stalking horse, under the cover of which we were to gratify our national animosities.
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: Sir the hon. Gentleman the Member for Wiltshire (Mr. Sotheron Estcourt), who began this discusssion, need have made no excuse for the course which he has adopted, because no Member of this House, owing to the part which he has taken in our deliberations, is better entitled to draw our attention to any subject with respect to which he may deem it to be his duty to offer an opinion, and I can assure him that the Government are not the less disposed to entertain the question because it has been brought forward by him. The subjects upon which he has this evening touched, relate to questions which are unquestionably of very great interest to the country. There can be no doubt that if railway communication were established along the route which he has indicated— that is to say, from the Mediterranean to the Euphrates—then a further communication, either by railway or by water, along that river to the Persian Gulf, and so on to India, a considerably increased facility in the conduct of our commercial and political intercourse with that empire must be the result. We should also have the advantage of an alternative route in competition with the line of railway from Alexandria to Cairo, thence to Suez, and down by the Red Sea. I am not, however, by any means sure that the line in which the hon. Gentleman seems to take so great an interest is that which, if we were about to enter upon any project of the kind, the Government would most desire to see adopted; because, if railway communication should be established—as I have no doubt it will be at no distant period—with Constantinople, and if a line should be constructed from the other side of the Bosphorus to the Persian Gulf, it is perfectly plain a much shorter and better means of communication with India will be secured than that which the hon. Gentleman proposes, and which would involve a sea passage either from Marseilles, Toulon, or Trieste, to the further end of the Mediterranean. All these projects, however, are, in my opinion, schemes in reference

  1677
  to which Her Majesty's Government ought to be deliberate spectators. I entirely concur with my right hon. Friend the Member for the University of Oxford in the sentiments to which he gave expression in that portion of his speech in which he so well and so ably pointed out the inexpediency of the Government of this country meddling directly in enterprises, such as that to which our attention has this evening been drawn, and which are to be carried into execution in a foreign State. My right hon. Friend dwelt so forcibly on the political consequences which would be likely to result from a direct connection with such schemes that it is unnecessary for me to say more upon that head, except that, upon the grounds to which he has adverted, Her Majesty's Ministers would be indisposed to mix themselves up with projects of the nature of that which is now under discussion. To pursue a different policy would indeed be to take a course at variance with that which has in similar cases been adopted. Applications were made, for instance, to the English Government upon the part of our West Indian Colonies of Demerara and of our North American Provinces for pecuniary assistance, and with those applications the Government deemed it to be their duty to refuse to comply. The only case, I may observe, in which direct pecuniary aid was afforded was that of a great and important railway in Ireland, but in that instance the Exchequer Bill Commissioners merely advanced as a loan a certain amount to carry on the construction of the necessary works, and security was obtained by Act of Parliament for the repayment of that sum by means of the rates of the counties through which the railway passed. That the House will see is not an instance at all applicable to the case in point; and with reference to the Euphrates Valley Railway I can only assure my hon. Friend who brought forward this question, that, however glad we should be to see that project completed, we cannot hold out the slightest encouragement that we should be disposed, either directly or indirectly, to advance any money for the attainment of that end. With respect to the question of the establishment of a telegraphic communication, I can only say that it is one which appears to me to stand in a light somewhat different from that to which I have just been referring. A telegraphic line of communication is somewhat similar to that postal communication;—to
  1678
  speak in modern jargon—which has been established with distant countries beyond the seas. If a telegraphic line were laid down by the Euphrates Valley, or by the Red Sea to India, Her Majesty's Government would, as I think, very wisely and properly, pay for the use of that line. The subject is one which is open to consideration, and I must say that in my opinion a communication of that description would be found to be of the utmost importance to the interests of the country. I believe that the company now engaged in establishing the telegraphic line down the Valley of the Euphrates—a company distinct, as I am informed, from that which has been alluded to as concerned in the project for a railway—will succeed in the attempt, and that unless some unexpected difficulties arise we may look forward to the completion of the telegraphic line in question within a definite period. The accomplishment of that object would no doubt be productive of great advantage, inasmuch as it would place us in communication with India by the construction of a telegraphic line to Kurrachee. Having said thus much in reference to the projects of a railway and a telegraphic line, I may be permitted to advert to an entirely different topic, to which my right hon. Friend the Member for the University of Oxford has drawn our attention; I allude to the proceedings which have lately taken place in the Principalities of Moldavia and Wallachia. My right hon. Friend has got possession of a pamphlet, of which a copy has been sent to me, but at which I had not time to look; and upon the statements made in that pamphlet grounds his appeal to Her Majesty's Government to lay the papers connected with the recent transactions in the Principalities upon the table of the House. Now, it is my opinion that if all the pamphlets which have been written by well-meaning Moldavians and Wallachians within the last few years upon questions connected with the Principalities could be collected together, they would occupy the greater portion if not the entire of that table, and I cannot help thinking that statements made in publications of that description can scarcely with justice be held to furnish any conclusive reasons upon which to found a claim for the production of a diplomatic correspondence. There may be proper demands upon other grounds; but I do not think it fair to make upon the Government a demand for the production of documents founded upon

  1679
  chance statements in pamphlets. I apprehend that my right hon. Friend could not have been in the House a few days ago when, in answer to the right hon. Member for Buckinghamshire, I explained the state of affairs with regard to the Moldavian Principalities. I will repeat the statement I then made. The Treaty of Paris was concluded about a year ago—in April last year, and not two years ago, as the right hon. Gentleman stated. [Mr. GLADSTONE: I beg pardon for committing such an error.] The treaty of Paris stipulated that after the limitation of Bessarabia, a portion of which now forms part of Moldavia should have been completed, and after the territory so transferred to Moldavia should have been actually handed over to Moldavia, the Moldavian and Wallachian Principalities should proceed to the election of two representative bodies, to be called divans; that these bodies should take into consideration the wants and wishes of the people in regard to the future internal organization of the Principalities; that during their deliberations there should be in the Provinces Commissioners representing each of the contracting powers; that when the assemblies had considered all the matters submitted to them, and when the Commissioners had made their Reports upon what they had observed, the determination of the assemblies and the Reports of the Commissioners should be transmitted to the Congress of Paris, which was to be re-assembled for the purpose of considering the subject; and that then the Congress—in concert with the Sultan, who would be represented in it—should come to an understanding with the Sultan as to what should be the future internal organization of the two Provinces. There was—for reasons of which it is unnecessary for me to remind the House—great delay in the regulation of the Bessarabian frontier. The delay occasioned delay with regard to other matters; and, in consequence, it was not until some little time ago that the firman or decree of the Porte, determining in what manner the elections should take place, was settled in concert by the representatives of the Six Powers and the representatives of the Porte at Constantinople. The firman was sent to the Provinces; but the Provinces differ in some respects with regard to their internal arrangements. The firman was sent to Bucharest, in Wallachia, where the Commissioners were stationed, but it was found not to be clear in its application, with respect
  1680
  to certain details. Reference was made to Constantinople, and on the 30th of May the representatives of all the Powers, in concert with the Minister of the Porte, gave answers to the questions which arose upon these doubts, and the answers were sent to Bucharest. The same interpretation of the doubtful points was to be acted upon both in Wallachia and Moldavia in as far as the internal differences of the two Principalities might admit. There were still misunderstandings. The Kaimaikan of Moldavia did not think that the doubts which had been started with regard to Wallachia applied to Moldavia. The election took place; and then representations were made that from the manner in which the elections had been conducted certain classes who were properly entitled to vote had been excluded from voting. These representations led to discussions at Constantinople. The representatives of four Powers entertained one opinion as to the amount of irregularity; the representatives of England, Austria, and the Porte took a different view. The representatives of the four Powers called upon the Porte to annul the elections. The Porte declined to do so, not deeming it a matter which the representatives of the four Powers were competent to decide; but considering that as the question had been discussed by the Six Powers, who were parties to the treaty of Paris, such an application should proceed from the representatives of all those Powers. Differences arose; and, as I stated before, the late visit of the Emperor of the French at Osborne, bringing the two Governments into personal contact and direct explanation, enabled us to come to an agreement with the French Government that we would unite with France—and trusted Austria would do so also—to remove all suspicion of irregularity with regard to the elections, and that we would represent to the Sultan that it was for his own interest that there should be no imputation what ever as to the constitution of the body whose wishes were to be taken into consideration at the Congress of Paris. That matter, therefore, I now consider as settled, especially as we have reason to know that the Government of Austria is willing to take the same course which we have adopted. My right hon. Friend has amused the House by reading passages describing the different irregularities which took place at the elections. Those statements may or may not be true; and it is very well for

  1681
  us, who have determined—especially in the case of the last general election—to have our elections carried on in a manner pretty free from imputation, to think it extraordinary that other countries do not conduct the election of representative bodies with equal regularity; but when we recollect that these Moldavians and Wallachians are totally unused to such proceedings,—that the authorities wish to attain one result, while other parties desire another,—that the political questions at issue are debated with the utmost vehemence by the opposite factions,—and that the people are not accustomed to that obedience to the law with which we are familiar,—it cannot be surprising that such irregularities as are detailed in the pamphlet quoted by my right hon. Friend should have occurred. I can only assure my right hon. Friend that if he was acquainted with what takes place in the kingdom of Greece—in which a system of representative Government has been established for a considerable period—he would find occurrences far exceeding, not only in gravity, but in absurdity, the cases he has referred to as occurring in the Principalities. The result is, however, that there is now no difference of opinion, among the Six Powers as to the propriety of annulling the elections, and having the lists upon which the elections are made revised in such a manner as to insure the strict and proper application of the firman of the Porte. My right hon. Friend has introduced the much-debated question of the projected canal at Suez. I have no doubt that a great deal of that persuasive eloquence by which M. de Lesseps is now endeavouring in all our large commercial cities to enlist people in favour of the scheme he recommends has been brought to bear upon my right hon. Friend. I was asked some time ago what was the opinion of the Government with regard to that scheme. I stated, as I deemed it my duty to do—speaking as an unprofessional lay man—that I consider the scheme physically chimerical; that I thought it would not be remunerative commercially, and that I also regarded it as open to strong political objections. These objections have, indeed, been constantly urged at Constantinople within the last fifteen years. The main objection upon which our opposition to that scheme was founded was that it was, as we considered, the first step towards the separation of Egypt from Turkey, and that it would thus tend to the disintegration of that Turkish monarchy for the
  1682
  maintenance of which Europe took up arms three years ago. My right hon. Friend thinks it was very unbecoming of the English Government to oppose a scheme which was approved by other countries simply because it was considered injurious to British interests. Now, I must really beg to dissent from that principle. It seems to me that if the British. Government are of opinion that any scheme is injurious to British interests, it is their duty to oppose it, however much their opposition to such scheme may thwart the political and commercial wishes of any other country. The first duty of a Government is to look to the interests of the country; and if those interests are in conflict with any scheme which is proposed, they would be neglecting their duty if they sacrificed the interests of England for the purpose of accommodating themselves to the wishes or fancies of any other Power. The strong ground, and the only ground, upon which we have represented to the Government of Turkey the inexpediency of concurring in the plan is not the injury of England, but of Turkey,—the danger with which it would be attended to the integrity of the Turkish empire. Therefore, when the apostle of the Suez canal is preaching all over England in order to induce English capitalists to give him those means which he is unable to obtain from the rest of the world, for the purpose of constructing this canal, it does not seem to me that I, as an English Minister, took an improper course in explaining to British capitalists that in affording money for the construction of such a work they would be aiding a scheme which was fraught with injury to the interests of England itself.

  SARDINIAN MEDALS.—QUESTION.
  ADMIRAL WALCOTTsaid, that he rose to put a question to the First Lord of the Admiralty with regard to the medals so graciously bestowed by His Majesty the King of Sardinia, and to call the attention of the House to the circumstance of those medals having been awarded to the officers; and soldiers of the British Army engaged in the Crimean war, on the recommendation of his Royal Highness the Commander in Chief and that none were awarded to the officers and seamen of the British Naval Brigade, who served and worked side by side in the trenches with the army during the siege of Sebastopol. Nothing was farther from his intention than to make any complaint

  1683
  of any reward bestowed on the army, for the navy, on the contrary, gloried in the triumphs of the army; but he thought it hard that the men of the Naval Brigade, who had shared in the same privations, and who were distinguished for the devil-may-care manner and rough and ready way in which they surmounted all difficulties, should have been altogether excluded from a share in the Sardinian medals. He could imagine when the floating bridge at Portsmouth brought over from Gosport some soldiers, who would be employed, perhaps, in putting down the atrocities which had occurred in India, from the mutiny of the troops, that one sailor might say to another, "Look at those soldiers, they are good and gallant men, and we grudge them nothing; but see, they have got the Sardinian medal, and why haven't we got it too?" and that the other might reply, "Those who sit up aloft ought to look down and take care of the fortunes of poor Jack, but they do not." He, therefore, trusted he should receive such an answer to his statement as would remove a sore from the mind of the men and officers of the Naval Brigade.
  MR. BERNAL OSBORNEsaid, he could not but regret that he was not able to give so satisfactory an answer to the hon. and gallant officer as he could wish, but he could not refrain from paying his tribute of respect to the hon. and gallant Officer, who always showed so great and kind a sympathy with the members of his profession. The Board of Admiralty, however, had nothing to do with the distribution of the medals in question. The matter lay in the department of the Minister for War, and he confessed that it was matter of wonder to him that no medals had been sent to the Admiralty. This he thought must have arisen from some oversight, for the officers and men of the Naval Brigade had deserved well of their country. Some inquiry was now being made into the matter.
  MR. STAFFORDsaid, he considered that it would never be the wish of the Sardinian Government to cast a slight on such a body of brave men; and he was satisfied that a communication on the subject from the Secretary at War would be at once attended to.

  NETLEY HOSPITAL.—OBSERVATIONS.
  MR. STAFFORDsaid, he must apologize for again touching on a subject which came nearer home—namely, the condition
  1684
  of Netley Hospital. Some time since, a meeting of doctors was held in Southampton, in respect to the health of Southampton Water; and the meeting was so unanimous on the subject of the sanitary virtues of the place that the only doubt in the case was how doctors were so unanimous. The Prime Minister on a former occasion, too, in reply to a question from the hon. Member for Southampton (Mr. Weguelin), had leaped up with more than his usual agility, and declared that nothing could surpass the climate for salubrity; and, certainly, if the health of the noble Lord was due to it, he (Mr. A. Stafford) was satisfied, and had nothing more to say. He (Mr. A. Stafford) had never attached much importance to the particular locality of the hospital: since its foundation there had been alterations made at a considerable expense—an esplanade had been formed which tended somewhat to diminish the influence of the mud banks and to alleviate those evils which would not occur if the hospital had been placed higher up. But there were other evils accruing every day, to which he begged to call the attention of the noble Lord. He (Mr. A. Stafford) had not given notice of his question to the Under Secretary for War, because he knew well the reply he should receive, and he could not help saying that if the War-Office was as skilful in constructing an hospital as it was in drawing up a Report, this country might have one of the finest hospitals in the world. The Report quoted Miss Nightingale as an authority in favour of the hospital, but he (Mr. A. Stafford) called on the House to suspend its judgment until the documents which Miss Nightingale had put in before the Commission of the Army Medical Department were laid before the House. There was one subject brought before the Committee which they had decided contrary to the chief evidence produced with reference to it. He asked no promise from the noble Lord on that occasion, but he entreated him, in reference to this subject, to call to his aid Dr. Sutherland and Dr. Parkes, and ascertain their views. The wards, as they stood, only held eight or nine patients; he (Mr. A. Stafford) asked the noble Lord to consider if every two of these wards could not be converted into one. The hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Tite) had recommended that the building should not be proceeded with until further inquiry should be made as to the principle on which it was constructed. Every person who knew

  1685
  anything of hospitals was well aware of the importance of large airy wards. In small wards the soldiers were thrown too much together, and were too much affected by one another's state of health; pained or distressed by one another's death; while they wanted that variety of incident which was afforded them when a larger number were assembled together. At Scutari it was a practice never to leave two sick soldiers long near one another; but to place new-comers in the beds as often as possible, and to change the patient's ward as often as it could be changed. If there were twenty-four or twenty-five in a ward, it would be impossible for the soldiers to group themselves, and the death of any one would not so seriously affect the others as in the smaller wards. There was another argument for the larger ward, namely, that it was three times less trouble for the nurses to superintend and inspect them, and as the desire of all was to have lady nurses in the hospitals as much as possible, this saving of time and trouble was very important. As at present arranged, Netley Hospital, he had been told on the very highest authority, rendered nursing difficult and inspection impossible; it was in fact described as "inadministrable," to coin a word for the occasion. He therefore, confidently asked the noble Lord to re-open the question to ascertain if it was not possible even at a considerable outlay to prevent this hospital from being a disgrace to the country. In a military hospital he had visited at Naples there was not a single ward with less than thirty patients, and he believed that Netley hospital, as contrasted with it, would be fifty years behind. He entreated the noble Lord to afford an opportunity for the re-consideration of this question. By so doing the health of the soldiers would be studied, and a building would be erected which might be pointed to by Englishmen without shame.
  MR. TITEsaid, that he agreed with the hon. Gentleman, that unless the hospital could be materially altered it would neither be creditable to the country nor useful. He spoke not only with regard to the enormous outlay, which would be not less than £25,000, but also on the score of humanity. The principal alteration required was in the wards, which ought to be capable of containing from thirty to thirty-two men, giving 2,000 cubic feet to each patient, On the ground floor there were ten wards capable of containing only two patients each. These rooms were fifteen feet by
  1686
  thirteen, and had no external air or light, being lighted from the corridor. He could not possibly conceive for what purpose these rooms had been constructed. There were also eight similar rooms on each of the floors above. With regard to the nine bedded rooms he would suggest the propriety of removing the partition walls and making two rooms into one. He hoped the French system would be adopted. In a French hospital there was an entrance hall leading to a large garden. In the case of the Hospital do Nord, the garden was an acre and a half in extent. Then there were what were called pavilions on each side, separated by planted walks fifty feet wide. The windows opened into the air, and there was no attempt at artificial ventilation. The mischief of the plan at Netley was that the contaminated air would be blown into the building. So thoroughly were the French physicians convinced of the necessity of free circulation, that at Lyons, where there were 1,800 beds, and where 200 sœurs de charité were employed, they placed some fever cases of unusual virulence under the great dome, so that they might have around the patients a large body of circumambient air. He (Mr. Tite) had seen the hospital of Milan with its 3,000 beds; those of Genoa and Lyons with their 1,800 beds each, and the Hospital du Nord at Paris, to which he had alluded, and the result had been to convince him that the natural system of ventilation was the best. In Netley he could not understand what was intended, for the great ventilating shaft was placed over the lobby entrance to the chapel. Let them have windows that would open, and let each patient have the 2,000 cubic feet of space allowed in the French hospitals, and the Netley Hospital would not be subject to the reproach which at present attached to such buildings in England. He would, therefore earnestly press on the attention of the Government the arguments which had been urged by the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Stafford). He entreated them to stop this work before it went any further. The mistake was remediable now, but ere long it would be irremediable. What they wanted was the assistance of an experienced architect, accustomed to hospital arrangements. It was most important in a national point of view, when they were about to expend a quarter of a million on the erection of a hospital, that they should avoid the commission of serious blunders.

  THE NEW CODE OF PROCEDURE IN INDIA.—QUESTION.
  MR. AYRTONsaid, he rose to ask the President of the Board of Control Whether it is the intention of the Home Government to instruct the Government of India that no new Code of Procedure which may be enacted by the Legislative Council, shall be carried into operation until the same shall have been laid on the table of this House. When the Charter of the East India Company was renewed it was determined at the same time to establish a new system for the administration of justice in India; and a Commission had been appointed of men more distinguished than competent to frame it. The President of the Board of Control had transmitted the Code so framed to India for consideration, and the Legislative Council had legislated on the subject to the great dissatisfaction of the English residents in India, as well as of the natives. In the Charter of the East India Company it was provided that all laws passed by the Legislative Council should be laid befere Parliament within fourteen days after the 31st of March, and no doubt that had been done in this instance. But substantially it was of no value, as the Acts of the Legislative Council were not printed or circulated, and consequently Parliament had no means of expressing its opinion in respect of their fitness for the purpose for which they were framed.
  MR. MANGLESsaid, that a letter was now in preparation for the Government of India directing them not to pass this law without further reference to the Imperial Parliament. Any law passed by the Indian Government must remain for a certain time on the Table of that House, when it was in the power of any hon. Member to object to it. When such a measure had laid on the Table and had not been revoked by Parliament it then became the law of India.

  THE PRINCIPALITIES, ROME, AND NAPLES.—OBSERVATIONS.
  LORD JOHN RUSSELL: I do not think the example of this night's discussion will tend very much to the regularity of our debates; but I wish to address a few words to the House on a subject which has been lost sight of for nearly an hour. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford (Mr. Gladstone)' having asked certain questions respecting Wallachia and Moldavia, I cannot but observe
  1688
  upon what appeared to me to be an omission on the part of my noble Friend at the head of the Government in making his explanation. My noble Friend stated very truly that the Four Powers went to the Porte and asked that the elections should be annulled, and that the Sultan naturally replied that a representation of that kind ought to have come, not from four, but from the whole of the Six Powers; and that there was therefore some demur in agreeing to the proposal. I have understood, and I see it in the newspapers, that there was a previous step on the part of the Ambassador of England and the Internuncio of Austria. The elections having been delayed by a general agreement, I have been led to believe—indeed it is stated in a letter, though I don't know whether it is a genuine letter or not—but the letter states that there was a representation from them to the effect that the Sultan should not delay the elections any longer, but that he should send orders to have them immediately carried into effect. The letter even says, the Ambassador of England and the Internuncio of Austria stated that they were ready to be responsible for all the consequences that might flow from their interference. The consequence was, that the Sultan, not thinking that the intervention of the Six Powers was necessary, complied with the request of the English and Austrian representatives. The elections took place; and hence the irregularities, and the interference of the Four Powers. The interference of those Four Powers was thus not a spontaneous action on their part, but it arose from the previous interference of England and Austria. Now if these latter did interfere in that way it was an ill-advised step, and a step ill calculated to maintain that agreement between all the Powers, and that good understanding at Constantinople which is so necessary to the general tranquillity of Europe. With regard to the other question to which my right hon. Friend alluded, namely, the union of the Principalities—the Divan being assembled—if it should express a strong wish that the Principalities should be united, I do not see that it would be right or practicable for the Powers of Europe to advise the Sultan to do otherwise than to concur in that opinion. At the same time it would be a step to which I shall look with no very great confidence; because I am afraid that if the Sultan is to have the kingdom of Greece on the one side and the kingdom of

  1689
  Moldo-Wallachia on the other side of his dominions, it may tend to weaken his power—which power we entered into the late war with Russia for the purpose of maintaining. That, however, is entirely a question for speculation, and one that must be left to the decision of Her Majesty's Government. Whether it was wise to convene the Divans may be a matter for debate; but having convened them, I think it would not be practicable to oppose any well-considered wish which may be expressed by the representatives of the people. As to a free Government—surrounded by Russia, by Turkey, and by Austria, which are all inimical to free Government—that will be a great difficulty; and as we have guaranteed such a free Government it may lead to complications. There has been much desultory discussion to-night; but there is still one subject with regard to which, seeing that the Session is drawing so near to its close, I cannot help expressing some regret and some disappointment. Last year the Ministers of Great Britain and France expressed at Paris their earnest hope that the occupation of the Roman teritory by France and Austria should cease; and the Earl of Clarendon pointed out that if certain improvements and reforms took place in the Roman Government, the foreign occupation need no longer continue. The French and English Governments both pointed out that the present was an abnormal state of things, and one by which the tranquillity of Europe might be endangered. Now, we have been lately told that the Pope has been to Bologna; and we are informed that to all the requests that were made to him to effect a reform in the Government of his territories, he expressed a fear that any reform would lead to anarchy; and he at once refused. The consequence must thus be that the foreign occupation must continue—an occupation by Austria on the one hand, because she has long had great influence in Italy, and an occupation by France on the other hand, in order to show that she is not disposed to leave this foreign occupation to Austria alone. I must say that such a state of things is totally inconsistent with the treaty of Vienna and with the independence of a foreign power. A Sovereign who for eight years has had foreign troops in his dominions, and is now obliged to confess that he cannot maintain their internal tranquillity without the aid of two allied Powers, and without foreign troops within
  1690
  his dominions to suppress disturbances—such a Sovereign cannot be held to be an independent one; and we must therefore lament that such a state of things should; continue. Of course it is not a question for a quarrel with those Powers; but we may hope that such a state of things will speedily cease, and that those Powers will hasten as much as possible to evacuate the Roman territories. With regard to Naples, nothing can be said. If the King of Naples can maintain internal tranquillity in his dominions without foreign assistance, we have, of course, no right to interfere; but we have some right to interfere when foreign troops are allowed to occupy the territory of another power.
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: I have no right to interpose, or to say one word; but perhaps the House will permit me to correct my noble Friend with regard to a matter of fact which is of some importance. My noble Friend conceives that the two Representatives at Constantinople—namely, those of England and Austria—separated themselves from the other four. Now, the fact is just the reverse—it was the four who took the first step, and separated from the two; and the subsequent advice given by the two was advice given in answer to an application from the Porte, with a view to obtain their opinion. The matter has, however, now gone by. It relates to misunderstandings which were not intentional either on the part of the four or of the two. It is now a mere matter of past history, and I trust will have no bearing upon the future.
  LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, he must remark that the noble Lord, the Member for the City of London, had taken a most inconvenient course by bringing on such a subject without any notice. It was a very delicate subject, and ought to be lightly handled. He did not, however, suppose that anybody wished to follow the noble Lord in discussing the subject; but he thought that both the Government and the House had been placed at a disadvantage in discussing incidentally the affairs of Europe. The only result of the interruption had been that they had heard the opinions of the noble Lord himself on the question.

  CUSTOMS TARIFFS.—OBSERVATIONS.
  MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, that the right hon. Gentleman, the Vice President of the Board of Trade, had given notice of

  1691
  an addition to a return which stood in his (Mr. Newdegate's) name, with respect to Customs stamps. He did not complain of that, but hoped that a matter to which he had devoted much labour and attention was at last about to be accomplished, and that the notice given by the right hon. Gentleman was an earnest that Her Majesty's Government was about at last to undertake to furnish to the House and to the commercial community a complete compendium of the tariffs of the commercial countries of the whole world. The hon. Gentleman was proceeding to give some further explanations, when he was interrupted by
  MR. SPEAKER,who stated that the hon. Member, having a notice of Motion on the paper for the day, was now taking advantage of the question of the adjournment of the House to enter into the question more deeply than he had a right to do.
  MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, he was only desirous to know that the new compendium of the Customs tariffs would not be in the same form as that in which such returns had hitherto been furnished by the Government.
  MR. LOWEsaid, that he was somewhat surprised at the speech of the hon. Gentleman, for he had had a conversation with him, the result of which was that he (Mr. Lowe) had informed the hon. Member that he was welcome to make his Motion, and that it would be taken as an unopposed Motion.
  Motion, by leave, withrawn.
  Question that the Orders of the Day be now read.

  MR. GLADSTONE.—PERSONAL OBSER VATIONS.
  MR. GLADSTONE MR. GLADSTONE rose and said: Sir, as I have never troubled the House with a question of this kind before, perhaps it will grant me its indulgence while, with great pain, I make a personal statement with reference to an imputation which has been cast upon me out of this House, but bearing upon my conduct in this House. I read in The Times of the 12th of August—not in the articles of The Times, but in the judicial department—the following passage in the report of one of those unhappy trials which are frequently found in the columns of our newspapers. It was spoken by the counsel who had under his charge the interests of the plaintiff in an action of crim. con., and who was referring in his reply to the case of a witness whom he had produced in support of the plaintiff's
  1692
  claim, and who was apparently a person of infamous character:—
  "The learned serjeant would, no doubt, he said, make a good many severe observations upon the witness Taylor; but the jury should bear in mind that guilt of the character attributed to the defendant could only be established by the aid of such persons, and that the journals of the House of Lords bore testimony to the fact that a right hon. Gentleman who was once a Minister of the Crown had tracked the wife of a noble Duke, who afterwards obtained a divorce, all through Italy, and appeared as a witness to prove her adultery; and that the fact of a man in the position of life of the plaintiff employing a man to bring the charge home to the defendant ought not to operate? against him."
  In the Morning Post of to-day is a leading article in which this report is alluded to, and is connected with my conduct in this House in the following terms:—
  "In a recent case of criminal conversation some discredit was cast upon the evidence of an individval who had been brought forward to prove the act of adultery. The counsel for the husband in defending this witness said:"—
  Here follows the quotation which I have read. The writer goes on to say:—
  "The right hon. Gentleman alluded to by Mr. Serjeant Parry" (this was a misquotation for the name of another learned counsel), "was the Member for the University of Oxford—the man who now would deny to the poor that relief which he himself was the principal means of obtaining for a noble and wealthy colleague."
  Sir, I do not mean to take any steps which in former times would have been taken, but I mean simply to avail myself of those weapons which are open to every man when falsehoods are stated with respect to him, and I will simply state the truth in reply. Nor should I have troubled the House on a matter which it is on every account so painful to revive but for two circumstances,— that the attempt has been made to prejudice the discharge of my public duty by means of these untruths; and secondly, because a most foul imputation has been fixed not only upon myself by the combined effect of these passages, but also upon a noble Duke who cannot take up arms in his own defence. These two statements are in substance that I was employed by a noble Duke for the purpose of tracking his wife, to collect evidence against her of adultery, and this supposed conduct of mine is introduced into a court of justice in order to efface from the minds of the jury the painful impression evidently made upon them by most infamous conduct on the part of the witness to whom I am here compared. That is one statement, to which I have to say that it is entirely false. If I had been

  1693
  capable of accepting such an employment, the noble Duke who was concerned would assuredly have been incapable of conferring such an employment upon me. The other statement is, that I was the principal means, as it is said, of obtaining a divorce for a noble and wealthy colleague. Sir, those who care to make themselves acquainted with the truth of this matter will find it detailed in the journals of the House of Lords, or in the evidence taken before and printed for the House of Lords. They will see it is not true that I went for the purpose, or that I had anything to do with the collection of evidence of adultery, but that on my oath I stated that I went for a purpose, as I conscientiously believe, alike friendly and in the interest of both parties. They will also see it is totally untrue that my evidence was the evidence, or a part of the evidence, on which the divorce was founded. I was told that I was called, and I believed that I was called, for the purpose of showing that the person who was claiming the Bill at the hands of the House of Lords had omitted no means that duty or affection could suggest for the purpose of averting the calamity under which his domestic happiness had suffered. And perhaps I may be permitted to say, having occasion to refer to that noble Duke, and feeling that the revival of a matter which is only brought up perhaps to injure myself, is a revival cruel to him—that I am certain that all persons who are conversant with his conduct at that very trying crisis will never look back to any part of that conduct except with feelings of the warmest admiration. As regards the statement that I either went to collect evidence, or that I did collect evidence, it is entirely false. It is also false that I was concerned in that particular Bill for the divorce, my duty being simply to attend as a witness in a case in which the Court which was examining into the question thought it was for the interests of justice that I should so attend.

  DIVORCE AND MATRIMONIAL CAUSES BILL—COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read.
  House in Committee, resuming the discussion on the 26th clause.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, he had considered the Amendment proposed at the morning sitting by the hon. Member (Mr. Puller), and he thought it better to substitute for that Amendment words which would have the effect of imposing
  1694
  on the wife, subject to the discretion of the Court, the obligation of bringing the alleged adultress before the Court.
  MR. PULLERsaid, he was quite willing to accept the Attorney General's Amendment in place of his own if he thought it would accomplish the same object. He must, however, observe that there was no instance of any Court of justice allowing its proceedings to be hampered by a party for whom no relief was prayed, and on whom no punishment was to be inflicted, and he would therefore suggest that some words should be introduced to point out to the Court the reasons why the wife was to be made a party—such, for instance, as giving her an opportunity of vindicating her character.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, the wife was made a respondent in order that she might appear and contest the evidence. The Amendments which he proposed to introduce in the clause were these—In line 21, after "so dying," to insert the words, "on every petition presented by the wife for a divorce, the Court, if it seems fit, may direct that the person with whom the husband is alleged to have committed adultery may be made respondent." The second Amendment was to strike out the word "respondents" in the same line and insert "parties". The third, in the next line, to strike out "alleged adulterer" and insert in lieu thereof "allegation in the petition."
  Amendment by leave withdrawn, and the first two Amendments proposed by the Attorney General agreed to.
  On the third, for inserting the words "allegation in the petition," instead of "alleged adulterer,"
  MR. AYRTONobserved, that by Clauses 27, 28,29, the Judge was to decide on several questions, but he thought that all those questions should be presented to the jury. He could not understand how the allegation was to be submitted to a jury while the counter charge was not to be so submitted. Then there was the question of connivance. He submitted that all the questions should be submitted to the jury. He hoped that the hon. and learned Gentleman would take some larger words than those which were proposed for insertion in the clause.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, that no petition from a husband would be received that did not contain a denial of connivance. However, he was willing that all contested matters of fact should be submitted to a jury. He, therefore, would

  1695
  propose to insert, instead of "allegation in the petition," "contested matters of fact."
  Amendment agreed to. Clause agreed to.
  Clause 27 (Court to be satisfied of absence of collusion).
  MR. HENLEYsaid, he should be glad to know what steps the Court was to take in order to satisfy itself upon that point. Was the Court to try a number of separate issues before it entered into the main case?
  MR. AYRTON MR. AYRTON moved the omission of the words "duty of the Court to satisfy itself," his object being to leave all the questions referred to in the clause to the decision of a jury, and not to the Court, while the effect of those words would be to deprive the subject of those rights which he thought had been secured by Clause 26.
  Amendment proposed, to leave out the words "duty of the Court to satisfy itself."
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, that the two clauses were to have different functions, and to apply to different circumstances. In some cases there would be a respondent, while in many there would be no appearance. When there was no contest there would be no question for a jury, but it would be the duty of the Court to do that which was now done by the House of Lords—satisfy itself that the allegations of the petition were correct. It was to meet such a case that this clause had been framed. He did not think that its language could be improved.
  MR. MALINSsaid, he thought it was necessary that the Court should satisfy itself as to the facts.
  MR. AYRTONsaid, he should have been satisfied with the explanation given had it not been for the words at the end of the clause, "and shall also inquire into any counter-charge which may be made against the petitioner," which seemed to imply that the clause was applicable not only to a case where there was no appearance, but also to a case where there was not only an appearance, but a countercharge. He therefore submitted that words should be inserted to show that the clause was applicable only to cases in which there was no appearance. The finding of the Court should, he thought, be founded upon the verdict of the jury, and not upon any subsequent inquiry on the part of the Judges.
  MR. BUTTmaintained that it would be the duty of the Court to satisfy itself as to the facts, irrespective of any admissions which might be made by the party petitioned
  1696
  against. There was no analogy between the Divorce Court and a Court of Law or Equity, because the former had to deal with an important social relation, and had a great moral duty to perform, which the latter had not. The clause, too, was based upon the canon law.
  Question, That those words stand part of the clause, put and agreed to.
  MR. BOVILLsaid, he rose to move the insertion after the word "adultery" of the words, "or has by his or her misconduct or wilful neglect conduced to the same." The clause proposed that there should be two subjects of inquiry by the Court, independently of facts alleged in the petition—connivance and condonation. Those matters were an absolute and positive bar to divorce in the Ecclesiastical Courts; but there were other circumstances which ought to be inquired into—namely, whether the husband, supposing he was the party complaining of the adultery, had been guilty of misconduct towards his wife, and whether he had been guilty of wilful neglect of his marriage vows. The object of the words which he proposed was to compel the Court when the suit was not contested, to inquire into the conduct of the husband to see, whether his misconduct and wilful neglect had conduced to the adultery, and if so he apprehended it would be the duty of the Court not to grant the divorce. The husband must prove that he was not the instrument of his own disgrace. As the law existed at present that matter was necessarily investigated, both in the Ecclesiastical Court and in the Court of Common Law. It was more especially so in the latter court, where, although the conduct of the husband was no ground for determining the verdict, it was, nevertheless, taken into consideration by the jury when assessing the damages. And in the House of Lords the matter was carried still further, for by a Standing Order of that House, the petitioner was obliged to tender himself for examination by the Lords at the conclusion of the opening of his case. He thought that this matter ought still more to be attended to than formerly, inasmuch as the Bill extended the facilities for divorce; and, moreover, the House of Lords could exercise a discretion, but when a new tribunal was to be instituted the rules upon which it was to act must be defined.
  Amendment proposed, in line 28, after the word "adultery," to insert the words "or has, by his or her misconduct or wilful neglect, conduced to the same."
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, that independently of any objection to the looseness of the wording of the Amendment, he thought it was unnecessary, as the object which the hon. and learned Gentleman had in view was abundantly provided for in the clause as it stood. The words of the clause had been selected from the vocabulary of the Ecclesiastical Court, where the word "accessory" had been construed to mean any neglect or misconduct on the part of the husband which had led to the commission of adultery by the wife. Misconduct or neglect on the part of the husband at any time, not connected with the adultery, would be a matter totally unconnected with the issue before the Court.
  MR. BUTTsaid, he was quite prepared to support the hon. and learned Attorney General in his opposition to the Amendment, but he thought the 27th clause was open to improvement. The 28th clause declared what should be a conclusive bar to the husband obtaining a divorce, and the 29th practically covered the object which the hon. and learned Member for Guildford (Mr. Bovill) had in view in making a discretionary bar to a divorce, by providing that the Court should not be bound to pronounce a decree if the petitioner had been guilty of unreasonable delay in presenting or prosecuting such petition, or of cruelly towards the other party to the marriage, or of having deserted the other party before the adultery without reasonable excuse. He would suggest as an improvement to import into this section the words of the 29th clause.
  MR. BOVILLremarked, that the 27th clause imposed a duty upon the Court. The 29th clause contained a proviso that, in certain events, it should not be incumbent upon the Court to pronounce a sentence of divorce. How could that clause come in the place of the 27th? If it did, the 27th clause was mere surplusage. He must persist in asking for the insertion of the words he had proposed, which he believed to be necessary to carry out the expressed intentions of the Government.
  MR. GLADSTONE,without presuming to offer a legal opinion upon the effect of words, wished to observe that it appeared to him quite clear that the clause at present did not stand well. The hon. Member for Youghal (Mr. Butt) had pointed out that the clause must be viewed in connection with the two following clauses. This clause was one directing the Court as to
  1698
  the matters into which it should inquire and if it were necessary to have specific directions as to what the Court should inquire into, the chaise should state all the matters upon which the Court was to adjudicate. This clause directed the Court as to the matters into which it was to inquire, but it did not include all the matters upon which that Court was to adjudicate. In the 28th clause it was laid down that if a petitioner failed upon any of four grounds the petition should not be granted. In the first part of the 29th clause it was declared that if the petition was not found wanting upon any of those four points a decree should be pronounced. There was a discretionary power conferred, but all matters of injury must be stated. If that were not necessary, then the 27th clause was superfluous.
  MR. BUTTsaid, that defect in the clause was merely verbal, and would be removed according to his suggestion by the insertion at the end of the 27th clause of the words of the 29th clause, "or has been guilty of unreasonable delay in presenting or prosecuting such petition, or of cruelty towards the other party to the marriage, or of having deserted the other party before the adultery complained of and without reasonable excuse." The Court would then have power to inquire into all matters that might influence its own judgment.
  MR. WIGRAMsaid, he doubted the propriety of importing the words of the 29th clause into the 27th. The object of the words in the 27th clause was, that certain circumstances upon grounds of public policy should preclude the Court from granting a divorce.
  MR. BOVILLsaid, he did not think that the hon. Gentleman's suggestion would meet all the various cases which might come before the Court. In the 16th clause it was enacted that the practice and rules of the Ecclesiastical Court were to govern the new Court in reference to all cases but those of dissolution of marriage, and he was anxious in this clause to enact that the Court should be governed by the practice and principles which had always been observed by the House of Lords in dealing with divorce Bills.
  MR. MALINSsaid, he was inclined to agree with his hon. and learned Friend that the clause as it stood was sufficient; but to save time he thought the Attorney General would do well to agree to the insertion of the words in question.
  SIR JAMES GRAHAMsaid, that if the hon. and learned Attorney General would say that he would agree to the insertion of the words proposed, he should not detain the Committee with any further remarks. When the hon. and learned Member first moved the insertion of the words in question he was not inclined to agree with him, but after what had been stated he was bound to say that if the hon. and learned Gentleman took a division upon his proposal he should support him. They were about to transfer to the new tribunal the powers of the present Ecclesiastical Courts, the powers at present possessed by Other Courts in crim. con. cases, and the powers exercised in such questions by the House of Lords; and he felt certain that the Government could have no desire not to guard the power of granting a divorce a vinculo by all the provisions at present in force in these Courts. By the 27th clause the power of inquiry into connivance now exercised by the Ecclesiastical Courts was already given to the new Court; but still there would be wanted the precautions taken by the House of Lords, who would not grant a divorce unless there had been, not nominal, but substantial damages obtained from a jury, and it must be remembered that the verdict in the trial at common law depended upon what the conduct of the husband might have been.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, that his objection to the introduction of these words was, that if a husband had been guilty of conduct or of neglect that conduced to his wife's adultery, he would, both in the House of Lords and the Ecclesiastical Courts, properly be said to be "accessory to" that adultery; and that, if to an expression already having a definite meaning they added words expressing the same meaning in a different form, a Court of justice would conclude that they meant something more than was conveyed by the antecedent term. Although he entertained this objection, yet if the general feeling of the Committee was in favour of the Amendment he should be prepared to accept it.
  MR. HENLEYsaid, he wished to point out that in the 29th clause, in which this word "accessory" occurred again, there was a proviso empowering the Court to refuse a divorce in case the husband had been guilty of unnecessary delay or of cruelty. Therefore, here was something in which the Court was allowed a discretion beyond the matter included by the
  1700
  word "accessory," and he thought that similar words ought to be introduced into this clause.
  SIR JAMES GRAHAMsaid, that if the Attorney General was sure that the word "accessory" would include gross negligence, such as would now induce a jury to give a man only nominal damages, he did not think that this Amendment was necessary.
  MR. WIGRAMsuggested that the object aimed at in the Amendment might be attained by adding to the clause a proviso, that a husband or wife who had, by his or her misconduct, conduced to the adultery of the other should not be entitled to a divorce.
  SIR JAMES GRAHAMsaid, that this would introduce a new definition of the word "accessory."
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALremarked, that he saw no objection to the adoption of the course suggested by the hon. Member for the University of Cambridge.
  MR. BUTTsaid, he thought that if this proviso were agreed to, the 28th clause, also referring to cases in which the husband had been "accessory" to his wife's adultery, would not give a discretion to the Judges, but would create a positive bar to divorce.
  SIR ERSKINE PERRYsaid, he was afraid that, without the words, the door would be opened to divorce in cases where it was not at present recognized. He put it to the Committee, and the hon. and learned Attorney General, whether, under the language of this Bill, as it stood, in the case which occurred two or three days ago, where a farthing damages were obtained, the husband would not be entitled to demand a, divorce? If that were so he was sure it was not what the Legislature desired to see established.
  MR. WALPOLEsaid, that this clause referred to the three pleas in bar of a divorce, condonation, connivance, and recrimination, to which the Court was to be bound to attend. The proper clause in which to move the Amendment was the 29th, on which they might consider whether they would give the Judges, in certain cases, a discretion to grant or refuse a divorce.
  MR. HENLEYsaid, he must remind his right hon. Friend that this 27th clause pointed out into what the Court was to inquire, and of what it was to satisfy itself. It was the more necessary that the Amendment

  1701
  should be made because unopposed cases would be dealt with under this clause.
  MR. BOVILLsaid, he was not prepared to assent to any of the suggestions which had been made to him. The hon. and learned Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Wigram) had suggested the addition of a proviso defining the meaning of the word "accessory." Now the fact was that accessory was a word already well known to the law, and the case which he wished to meet was not that case whore the word accessory would strictly apply, but it was the case where such misconduct as did not fall within the meaning of the word accessory had taken place, misconduct of that nature which was at present taken into consideration by the Jury in awarding damages, and by the House of Lords in granting a divorce.
  Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 55; Noes 93: Majority 38.
  MR. BOVILLsaid, that the clause contained no provision with regard to collusion, and he should feel it his duty to move the insertion of words which would make it imperative upon the tribunal constituted by the Bill to inquire into the question of collusion. If the Government were sincere in the desire they expressed of not effecting any change in the law, they ought to make it the duty of the Court to inquire whether there was any collusion, and whether the parties were living separate and apart by consent before the adultery, in which case the House of Lords invariably refused a divorce.
  Amendment proposed in the same line. After the word "adultery" to insert the words "and whether there has been any collusion, directly or indirectly, between the parties, or any of them, and whether the hushand and wife were living separate and apart by consent before the adultery was committed."
  MR. COXobserved, that the 38th clause required that an affidavit should be filed stating that there was no collusion, and the Court would therefore have the power of inquiring into that question.
  Question, "That those words be there inserted, put, and negatived.
  MR. GLADSTONEobserved, that he wished to know whether his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Bovill) had accurately stated the practice of the House of Lords, because, if so, he must oppose the clause
  1702
  as one essentially departing from the principles acted upon by that tribunal?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALremarked that he had never understood that the House of Lords considered the simple fact of a husband and wife living apart from one another to be a bar to a Bill of divorce. He would consider the propriety of introducing the words which had just been under discussion into the 29th clause.
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he wished to know whether the hon. and learned Gentleman would introduce the word "collusion" into the clause?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, the clause provided that the Court should inquire whether the petitioner had been "conniving" at adultery, and that he thought was sufficient.
  MR. GLADSTONEconceived, that the term "connivance" referred entirely to acts of adultery, while "collusion" would apply to arrangements made for obtaining divorces.
  LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, that the only way in which collusion is provided against was by the 38th clause, which rendered it necessary to file an affidavit. But what is the value of an affidavit?
  MR. BOVILLobserved, that he believed he had been correct in stating that the fact of husband and wife living separate and apart by consent before adultery was committed had, according to the practice of the House of Lords, been held a positive and absolute bar to divorce.
  MR. WALPOLEremarked, that he thought that security against collusion was provided by Clause 38, under which affidavits must be made stating that there was no collusion or connivance, taken in connection with Clause 40, which gave the Court power to examine the petitioner.
  MR. HENLEYsaid, he thought it rather odd that, while the marginal note was in these words, "Court to be satisfied of absence of collusion," the word 'collusion" did not occur in the clause.
  Clause agreed to.
  House resumed. Committee report progress; to sit again on Monday next at Twelve o'clock.

JOINT-STOCK COMPANIES ACT (1856) AMENDMENT BILL.

  THIRD READING.
  Order for Third Reading read.
  Bill read 3°
  On the Question that the Bill do pass,
  MR. MALINSsaid, he must object to the passing of the Bill unless certain words were inserted providing that it should apply only to companies established under the 7 & 8 Vict., c. 110. Last year the Joint-Stock Companies Act was passed, by which all insurance companies were excluded, and the 7 & 8 Viet., c. 110, was repealed. In consequence of those two provisions, insurance companies were at liberty to establish themselves under a deed of settlement without being registered, but the present Bill would impose on all those companies established since 1856 penalties for not having complied with the provisions of the 7 & 8 Victoria. This would be ex post facto legislation, and he therefore must oppose the passing of the Bill, unless the words he had suggested were introduced.
  MR. ADAMSsaid, he would also oppose the Bill in its present shape, for if it passed without the proposed Amendment gross injustice would be done.
  MR. WILSONpromised to introduce words in the Bill in the other House to the effect desired.
  MR. MALINSsaid, he was quite content with this understanding.
  Bill passed.

JURISDICTION IN SIAM BILL.

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  MR. HENLEY, amid some laughter, asked who had charge of this Bill, and whether any one knew anything about it.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, he only happened to know incidentally that the necessity for this Bill arose from an Order in Council which transferred the jurisdiction from the Court of Siam to the Court of Singapore; and unless that Order was confirmed by Act of Parliament it would not operate with reference to Singapore.
  Bill read 2°, and committed for Tomorrow.

  CHARITABLE TRUSTS ACT CONTINU ANCE BILL—COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read.
  MR. WIGRAMsaid, the continuance of these exceptions with reference to Roman Catholic charities was very unsatisfactory. When the noble Lord the Member for the City of London was at the head of the Government he distinctly pledged himself to continue the exceptions for two years and no longer.
  MR. KINNAIRDreminded the House that a distinct pledge was given last year that the subject should be dealt with in the present Session.
  MR. BAINESsaid, a pledge was certainly given in the last Session, not that the exemption should cease this year, but that the Government would do their best to settle the question. A Bill was accordingly introduced with that object, but a Committee of the House of Lords, to which it was referred, reported that in consequence of the importance of the question it would be impossible to legislate in the present year. They therefore recommended that the whole subject should stand over until next Session, and that there should be a Continuance Bill for one year.
  MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, those who consented to the former Bills—and he was one of the number—were very anxious that active measures should be taken to settle the matter.
  House in Committee.
  Clause 1,
  MR. WIGRAM MR. WIGRAM moved the substitution of the 1st of June for the 1st of September. 1858, as the period of exemption.
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, he hoped the Committee would not limit the period within which a Bill was to be introduced next year.
  MR. MALINSsuggested the withdrawal of the Amendment, because the Government had now sufficient notice that something must be done in the next Session.
  Amendment withdrawn. Bill passed through Committee.
  House resumed. Bill reported without Amendment; to be read 3° Tomorrow.

  SALE OF OBSCENE BOOKS, &, PRE VENTION BILL.—COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read. Motion made and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
  MR. ROEBUCKobjected to the House going into Committee upon this Bill owing to the lateness of the hour (twenty minutes past one).
  Motion made and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."
  SIR ERSKINE PERRYsaid, that the hon. and learned Member had already given in his adhesion to the principle of the Bill, and he was not acting fairly in opposing the Bill going into Committee.
  MR. BERNAL OSBORNEsaid, he thought the House was much indebted to the hon. and learned Member for having

  1705
  watched the progress of the measure through the House, as it was a most mischievous Bill whatever may have been the motives of those who introduced it.
  SIR GEORGE GREYthought the Bill should not be proceeded with at that hour of the morning.
  MR. MALINSsaid, the Bill was not new to the House if it was new to the Secretary of the Admiralty. The Secretary of State for the Home Department had given it his full approval, and yet the hon. Gentleman had come down and designated it as a mischievous measure.
  Original Question and Motion by leave withdrawn. Committee deferred till Wednesday next.
  House adjourned at Two o'clock.