Commons Sitting of 14 June 1870

MINUTES.
NEW MEMBER SWORN—Alexander Dundas Whishart Ross Baillie Cochrane, esquire, for the County of the Isle of Wight.
INDIA—ARMY REGULATIONS.

  QUESTION.
  COLONEL NORTHsaid, he wished to ask the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether the Code of Orders called "Cochrane's Regulations for the European Officer in India," is published by the authority of the Secretary of State for India; and, whether the Regulation at page 725 of that Code, which states that "the final jurisdiction in all disputed questions of prize now rests with the High Court of Admiralty," has the sanction of that authority, and still remains in force for the information and guidance of officers in India?
  MR. GRANT DUFF: Sir, Mr. Cochrane's excellent work is published by authority, and correctly states on page 608 of the revised edition that the High Court of Admiralty
  "Has jurisdiction to decide all matters and questions concerning booty of war which it shall please Her Majesty, Her Heirs and Successors, by the advice of Her and their Privy Council to refer to the judgment of the said Court."
  My hon. and gallant Friend will see that the words I have cited must be added to the words he has cited in order to put before the House Mr. Cochrane's full statement, and in justice to that most accurate and useful public servant.

  TRADES UNIONS.—QUESTION.
  MR. MELLYsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he proposes to bring forward the promised measure for the Regulation of Trades Unions this Session; or, if not, whether he intends to bring in a Bill extending the operation of the 32 and 33 Vict. c. 61, being an Act to Protect the Funds of Trades' Unions from Embezzlement and Misappropriation, and which expires on the 31st August next?
  MR. BRUCEsaid, in reply, that it was his intention to bring forward a Bill upon the subject of the Regulation of Trades Unions in the course of the present Session; but in the event of his
  100
  being unable to do so, he should certainly introduce a Bill to extend the operation of the 32 & 33 Vict. c. 61 for another year.

BIBLE (AUTHORIZED VERSION).

  MOTION FOR AN ADDRESS.
  MR. BUXTON, in rising to move
  "That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that She will be graciously pleased to invite the President of the United States to concur with Her Majesty in appointing Commissioners to revise the Authorized Version of the Bible,"
  said, at the request of Her Majesty's Government, who wished to have more time for considering the subject, he had deferred his Motion, which he should otherwise have brought forward much earlier in the Session; and now, perhaps, he should be met with the objection that, in the interval, Convocation had appointed a Committee which, at the end of this month, would commence the revision of the Authorized Version; and that, therefore, it was now too late for Her Majesty's Government to intervene. Undoubtedly, however, should it seem to Parliament that the work ought to be taken up, whether as a national or, as he hoped, an international undertaking, and should accordingly be intrusted to a Royal Commission instead of a Committee of Convocation, that body would feel the respect due to such a decision. It would be impossible for what was, in fact, a mere private body, without any legitimate claim to act either on behalf of the Church or the nation, to pre-occupy the ground, should it be the opinion of Parliament that the subject ought to be taken up by the Government instead. He (Mr. Buxton) had reason to know that the opinion was very widely held that Convocation was not a fit body for the performance of the task. He cordially admitted that Convocation had taken it up in a far more liberal spirit than might have been anticipated, and he gave them all credit for having invited several learned scholars outside the Communion of the Church of England to give their aid. That concession to the spirit of the age was creditable; but it did not appear to him to be enough. All honour to Convocation for the zeal and promptitude with which it had acted in this matter; but he did not think that in such a question they ought to be too

  101
  much influenced by deference towards Convocation. It was really of great importance that the work should be done by the hands not only most capable of doing it perfectly, but in which all men, not only at home but in the United States and our Colonies—in short, wherever the Authorized Version was read—would feel the most absolute and implicit confidence. Now, his contention was, that our Authorized Version was so absolutely dissociated from anything like sect or party, or any one Church of religious body, that it was so emphatically the possession, he would not say merely of the whole British people, but of every English-speaking people throughout the world, that the task of revising it could not fitly be taken in hand by any one Church, nor could any private person, or any self-constituted committee, have any legitimate claim to select those to whom this work should be intrusted. It ought to be taken up as an enterprize common to all those who were so deeply interested in its success. Instead of one Church being altogether predominant in the enterprize, and merely conceding to a few distinguished scholars of other Communions the privilege of aiding them as a matter of grace and favour, all the English-speaking Churches ought to be associated in the undertaking on perfectly equal terms. The sole principle of selection ought to be that of choosing the ablest and most learned scholars, to whatever country they might belong, without the slightest reference to their religious opinions. Now, there were scholars on the Continent of Europe, and others in the United States, whose assistance ought to be obtained; and, for the translation of the Old Testament, it would be essential to invite the aid of some of those Jewish scholars, both here and abroad, who were the greatest living masters of Hebrew learning. In fact, it would be in the power of Her Majesty's Government, and especially if acting in unison with that of the United States, to call together a Commission which would be a perfect instrument for the work, and that the whole world should feel, with regard to it, the most absolute assurance not only of its impartiality, but Of the profound and accurate learning of those by whom it was achieved, so that it should be, indeed, the possession for ever of man-
  102
  kind. Obviously Convocation could not possibly have the same advantages as Her Majesty's Government in dealing with the affair. In choosing this Committee Convocation must, of course, select mainly from its own very limited body, and personal considerations could not fail to have great weight, and the field to choose from outside was far more narrow. As a matter of fact, Convocation had not been able to obtain the cooperation of some of the men, without whose assistance such a work could hardly be satisfactorily carried out. He had, of course, made it his business to ascertain what the result had been of the attempt to frame a committee, and the fact was that no less than three important Hebrew scholars—Dr. Wright, at the British Museum, a first-rate Semitic scholar; the Hebrew Professor of Oxford, and the Divinity Professor, the latter a great Syriac scholar—had declined to act with the committee. Dr. Tregellis, a most distinguished investigator of Greek manuscripts, had also declined, and no one had been found to occupy their places. Furthermore, some very eminent scholars in both Hebrew and Greek had been omitted, and he knew on good authority, though not from those gentlemen themselves, that the utmost dissatisfaction had thus been caused. Still more important was the fact that the whole clergy of the Church in the North—all those belonging to the Province of York, including Yorkshire, Durham, Northumberland, Cumberland, and Cheshire—had been omitted in consequence of a misunderstanding between the Convocation of Canterbury and that of York. It was generally believed that the selection from Scotland was by no means the best that could have been made. And then, again, very large funds would be required for the performance of a work which ought to absorb nearly the whole time and energy of those engaged in it for some years, many of whom would not be able to afford to make the sacrifice without adequate remuneration, besides which there would be heavy expenses otherwise. He believed the Bishop of Gloucester tried to obtain a grant of money from the Christian Knowledge Society, and, perhaps, a little more might be obtained elsewhere. But there was ground for apprehending that the work would be seriously skimped and stinted through

  103
  the failure of pecuniary resources. The revision in the time of James I. cost £30,000, and things were certainly not less expensive in these days. The practical objections, then, to the work being undertaken by a Committee of Convocation instead of a Royal Commission, were really very considerable indeed. But, further, a very grave question was involved—the question whether this House and Her Majesty's Government were resolved to give Convocation that status, as the representative Governing Body of the Established Church, which it had now for many years been passionately striving to attain, but which had hitherto been the policy of statesmen of all parties to refuse. He felt bound to say exactly what he thought, and he hoped that, in doing so, he should not fail in courtesy towards men for so many of whom he felt the highest personal regard. A body, in fact, which contained some of the most illustrious men of the country—such men as the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Bishop of Winchester, the Deans of Westminster and Canterbury, and other men of noble character and distinguished ability—could not be regarded but with sincere respect. But could they wish that Convocation should now be re-endowed with that life and vigour which had happily lain dormant since the days of Queen Elizabeth? For his part, he altogether repudiated such an idea. As a Churchman he utterly denied the right of Convocation to arrogate to itself any authority whatever, great or small, over the affairs of the Church of England. The attempt to do so—that attempt which had been so perseveringly made during the last 30 years—was a mere usurpation. Since the Deformation, Convocation had ceased to have any legal rights whatever over the Established Church. It had no claim to such rights, and it ought not to be allowed to acquire them. Was it to be endured by the laity of the Established Church, that a body from which that laity was altogether excluded—a body purely priestly in its character—should seek to push aside the authority of Parliament, and to be the Governing Body of the Established Church? If the Church was to have any internal government at all, let a fair and reasonable constitution be given her by law; and in such a constitution let the laity have that share of au-
  104
  thority—he would himself say that paramount share—which by right belonged to them. Convocation exactly expressed, both in its constitution and in its conduct, that obsolete idea which prevailed in the Dark Ages—that in religious matters the priest was all in all, and the laity nothing. If they had self-government for their Church it must assuredly be based upon the opposite principle—the principle that the people were not made for the clergy, but the clergy for the people. The struggle of Convocation, in forcing itself upwards to a position of authority, had been going on now for many years. The High Church party within it had been waging war against the lay authority over them which they detested, and from which they were determined to shake themselves free. For a long time their efforts excited nothing but ridicule; but they persevered, and their resolution was gradually leading to success, which had been crowned by this masterstroke of anticipating the appointment of a Royal Commission for the revision of the Authorized Version. Now, the laity of the Church might have been fain to acquiesce in these pretensions, however faulty the construction of this pretended Council of the Church might be, had it shown itself in its conduct to be worthy of the trust. Had that been so? He emphatically answered—"No." There was no public body at the present time existing in this country which had proved itself so entirely alien from the spirit of the age as Convocation. The displays of priestly intolerance, the old persecuting hatred of intellectual freedom in dealing with religious truth, were never more vividly exhibited than in the course taken by Convocation, both with respect to Essays and Reviews, and, again, quite recently, with respect to the appointment of Dr. Temple. In fact, all those members of the Church of England who desired to see religious truth dealt with reverently, but with courageous thought, ought to stand side by side with the admirable minority in Convocation in a firm resistance to the course which the majority of that body were so eager to pursue. He earnestly hoped, therefore, that Her Majesty's Government would not suffer this work to be taken out of their hands. As he had said before, there was yet time. A decided expression now on the part of the House that the Authorized Version

  105
  of the Bible should be dealt with as a possession of the whole English race, as one outside the distinction of Churches, sects, and parties—such a decision must be submitted to with respect by Convocation. There could not be a doubt that, with possibly two or three exceptions, all the best scholars who had expressed their unwillingness to engage in the work would be ready to sit upon a Royal Commission. In fact, he knew that some of them would infinitely prefer that such a course should be taken; and, though some Nonconformists had such a dislike to Government interference that they did not relish the idea of a Royal Commission, yet, as a general rule, they would far prefer that this work should be undertaken as a national enterprize, in which all Churches should stand upon an equal footing, than that it should be carried out by the Established Church, with a few Nonconformists allowed to assist on sufferance as a matter of grace and favour. He should now turn to the objections which, as he was informed, had much influence with some of the leading Members of that House, and which he knew was felt in other quarters—namely, that the time had not yet arrived for the revision of the Authorized Version; at any rate, that the case had not been made out for its being taken up by the nation. The case, however, was overwhelmingly strong. During the last 50 years immense strides had been taken in philological science. The errors with which our Authorized Version abounded had been again and again exposed; and with respect to far the greater number of them critics had arrived at a general consensus. Confidence in the Authorized Version had been rudely shaken, and those to whom the Bible was dearest should, he thought, be foremost in demanding that it should be saved from the discredit which those disfigurements brought upon it. Now, the errors contained in the existing Version, and which might be counted by many thousands, were derived from two distinct sources. One was that the Authorized Version was translated from a most imperfect original text. The Hebrew and Greek text, from which it was taken, was founded on manuscripts of second-rate authority. In the second place, those who translated the Bible, great as was their ability and knowledge, had yet not the skill in philology that was required for the perfect achievement of the task.
  106
  A third objection to our Authorized Version had often been alleged—namely, that the English into which it had been translated had become, in some respects, obsolete; but he candidly admitted that he did not feel the force of that objection. Its archaisms, in his opinion, added to its picturesqueness without really making it obscure, and he trusted that nothing whatever would be done except to correct acknowledged errors. But now, with respect to those errors which were due to the imperfections of the Greek and Hebrew text, these were found mainly in the New Testament. It was a startling fact, but a fact it was, that at the time when the Greek text of the New Testament from which our Version was translated was settled, not a single manuscript had been discovered of a date even as early as the 10th century. Not one of those manuscripts had been discovered which were now regarded by scholars as the trustworthy standards of Biblical text. Our New Testament was translated from a Greek text, which was mainly settled by Erasmus in 1515, and completed by Robert Stephens, at Paris, in 1550. As an illustration of the difficulties with which Erasmus had to contend, it was mentioned that he had only a single manuscript of the Apocalypse, and that an incomplete one, and he made up for its deficiencies by translating into Greek from the Latin Vulgate the missing words and sentences. From this partly conjectural source our Version of the Apocalypse was taken. Since the time of Erasmus and Stephens a great many manuscripts had been discovered; five of which were of the highest class, and had thrown immense light upon the true text of Scripture. Among these was the Alexandrian Manuscript, presented in 1628 by the Patriarch of Constantinople to Charles I., and which dated from the 5th century; the Vatican Manuscript, with regard to which scholars were agreed that it was a century older than the Alexandrian one. It was probably of about the year 350. Then there was the Codex Euphraemi, at Paris, a palimpsest, and dating from the early part of the 5th century, and the Codex Beza, in the University Library at Cambridge. It belonged to the celebrated Reformer Beza, and was in 1651 presented to that University. As far as it went it was of great value. Above all, there was the Sinaitic Manuscript, recently discovered

  107
  by Tischendorf, and which was one of the most ancient and complete copies of the New Testament in the world. The date was probably of the 4th century. In addition to these five most highly important ones, great numbers of other manuscripts had been found, which threw more or less light on the subject. Was it reasonable that we should continue to give to the people of this country a translation of the Bible which was taken from manuscripts extremely imperfect and wanting in authority, when we had far better ones at hand? This, then, was one great source of error. The second was still more prolific—this was that 260 years ago, when the last correction was made, scholarship in England was still in a very elementary state. The able and admirable men who, during the century before, had translated the Bible, and those who revised the translation in the days of James I., had not the technical skill which was required for their task. It would be easy for him to give a host of illustrations of the disastrous effect which these two sources of error had had upon our Authorized Version, sometimes, but more especially with respect to the Old Testament, in making it obscure, and sometimes in perverting its meaning or in disparaging its beauty. It would, however, be out of place to discuss texts of Scripture in that House, and he should therefore abstain from doing so. He believed, however, that the great advantage of correcting our Version would be that many passages at present utterly obscure, the real meaning of which had been fully elicited by our modern critics, would be restored to their natural vigour. The Old Testament, more especially, would be greatly increased in value were its dark and difficult passages made lucid, and its poetry would gain immensely were it translated as it ought to be, and as it had been by Lowth, in a form corresponding to the original—namely, were it arranged in that balance of paragraphs which gave it rhythm to the ear, but which was utterly lost sight of in our translation. In every respect the poetry of the Old Testament would gain enormously by a truer and more careful handling. Some of the most beautiful passages were so utterly bungled in our translation that they contained neither poetry nor sense. This was the broad question at issue—Should they delibe-
  108
  rately determine to retain a distorted image of the Scriptures, or should they have them represented in our tongue as they were actually written? To state such a question seemed to him to answer it. A true reverence for writings so deeply interesting to mankind would surely compel them to the conclusion that no pains ought to be spared to have them mirrored forth with all attainable accuracy, and to save their truth and beauty from being marred by the blindness and ignorance of their translators, and, depend upon it, wherever the original was falsely rendered, this was a dead loss to the reader. In almost every instance the false translation was less vivid, less racy, less livery, he might say, than the true one would be; in almost every instance the passage was made more tame and commonplace. But now he wished, with all fairness, to consider the objections which had been stated with considerable force by Lord Shaftesbury, who was in great alarm lest the Bible, or, to use his own phrase—"this blessed old confessor and martyr," should get into the hands
  "Of the Neros and Diocletians of Divinity, who, where they could not mistranslate, would translate anew, and effect their purpose by forcing passages to appear to be different because the language is altogether remodelled."
  This alarm seemed to him utterly groundless. A Royal Commission, carefully composed, would not consist of the Neros and Diocletians of Divinity. They would have no desire to murder or persecute the Bible. Depend upon it there would not be the slightest inclination, nor would there be the power, in any individual member of the Commission to wrest the translation aside from its true meaning in order to propagate peculiar views of his own. Another terror of Lord Shaftesbury's was not less idle. His Lordship was shocked at the idea of
  "A rude and sudden descent from the majestic and touching tones of our wonderful Version to the thin, Frenchified, and squeaking sentences in modern use."
  This fear was absolutely without foundation. No one that he ever heard of proposed to do more to than correct acknowledged errors, and certainly he (Mr. Buxton), for one, should feel the utmost abhorrence of any plan for substituting our modern English for the grand old phrases of the Authorized Version. But the main danger which Lord Shaftesbury and others seemed to anticipate was that

  109
  the new Version would shake the faith of the people—that they would no longer regard the Bible with their present absolute reverence; and this undoubtedly was the real meaning of the aversion which many excellent persons entertained to any change. He ventured, however, to think that, though their primary motive was the desire that the real and precise truth should be set forth by our translation, yet one of the incidental benefits that would arise would be that this change would shake the superstitious idolatry for the mere words of the Bible, apart from its sense and substance, which had stood so much in the way of religious thought in England. He (Mr. Buxton) rejoiced to believe that the proposed reform would tend to rouse the thought of the people, and to set them reasoning and inquiring with respect to the Bible and with respect to the truths they had been taught to hold. We should in reality be treading in the steps of our forefathers in making successive efforts to bring the translation of the Word of God to greater and greater perfection, until it had been rendered as complete as it possibly could be made. The work had been carried on as long as the English nation had had a history. So far back as the 7th century, Ceadmon, the celebrated monk of Whitby, completed a poetical version of some portion of the Bible in the Anglo-Saxon tongue; and Guthlac, the first Saxon hermit, soon afterwards translated the Psalms. In the next century the Venerable Bede translated other portions of Holy Writ. In the 9th century Alfred the Great himself translated the Ten Commandments into Anglo-Saxon, and expressed an earnest desire that all the free-born youth should be able to read the English Scriptures; while in the 11th century Ælfric translated large portions of the Bible into the mother-tongue of the people. After the Norman Conquest the work remained in abeyance till the year 1360, when John Wycliffe began the publication of portions of the New Testament, which was held to have been the first seed of the Protestant Reformation in England. The Church then took alarm and stopped the work till the time of William Tyndale, who, with a self-devotion and energy never surpassed, gave himself up to the work until he perished at the stake, through the base treachery of Henry VIII., under whom
  110
  a law was afterwards passed, that no person should read the Scriptures in the vernacular tongue, unless he were of noble or gentle birth. But in Edward VI.'s time some new editions appeared; and one called the Bishop's Bible appeared in the reign of Queen Elizabeth, but it never got any hold of the affection of the people. When James I. came to the Throne the celebrated conference was held at Hampton Court, which issued in the appointment of a Royal Commission, such as he now ventured to recommend, consisting of the fittest men, without regard to sect or party or nation; and thus was completed the Authorized Version, which had been so invaluable a treasure to the world. For 1,000 years, therefore, the work had been in progress. The best and wisest of our forefathers were the most zealous in the task; and never was any task performed in a nobler spirit; or whatever its unavoidable imperfections, with, upon the whole, more transcendent success. He might apply to our Authorized Version of the Bible one of its own poetic phrases. They might say of it—"She is all glorious within, and her clothing is of wrought gold." But the last touches of the artist's hand were still wanting, and surely it would be a work well worthy of the Governments of this country and the United States to combine in so setting forth the translation of Holy Writ in the common mother-tongue of our two kindred nations as that it should speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, as to what the original contains, and in presenting the Holy Scriptures to the English race throughout the world, both now and for all ages to come, in their purest and most perfect form, free from every spot or blemish by which their force and beauty could be marred? The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving his Motion.
  MR. PERCY WYNDHAM, in seconding the Motion, said, as a Royal Commission would ensure a proper infusion of the lay element in the direction and carrying out this important work, it had his hearty support. He did not share in the jealousies of Convocation, as expressed by the hon. Mover of the Motion. If he thought that so great a work should be intrusted to any one section of the community, whether clerical or lay, he should be well content to have the matter left in their hands. If it were

  111
  left to them, and if they executed the work successfully, he should be one of the very last to grudge them any prestige or renown which might in consequence accrue to them or to the Church to which they belonged. Convocation had drawn up a series of resolutions, which, so far as they went, were satisfactory; but Convocation was a body of which no laymen were members, and that to his mind was a great objection. He was not one of those who supposed that, in the revision of the Scriptures, whether committed to the hands of Convocation or to a Royal Commission, it would be deemed necessary to go very deeply into the matter, or that questions would be entertained, such as the authenticity of any large portion of the Scripture; but beyond that there came the most important question—that of the right rendering of certain Hebrew words. Some of the greatest authorities of the day had spoken of the Authorized Version as obscure, incomplete, and inaccurate, and that in parts it contained notions of which no trace was to be found in the originals. It would be well for the House to consider how a body of ecclesiastics were likely to treat words when the question was the substitution of another which, according to modern research, would more truly represent the intentions of the writer. There was one thing he could not believe, and that was that any man who took a deep interest in any great subject had the power of entirely divesting himself of partiality in dealing with it. It was very true it might be said that those to whom the present task was intrusted would perform it under the eyes of criticism; but when, he would ask, would that criticism be brought to bear? It would be but a sorry disappointment, if after the work had been completed, it was found to be not so perfect nor so good as they expected, and therefore to ensure the advantage of criticism it must go pari passû with the work. If Her Majesty were asked to issue a Commission, he had no doubt other learned men besides ecclesiastics would be invited to sit upon it. His hon. Friend had mentioned several such names; but if a Commission were appointed he was not wrong, he thought, in supposing that a man like Dr. Deutsch would be asked either to form one of the Commission, or to give his advice as to the best method to pursue. He was glad
  112
  this debate was not likely to dwindle down into a miserable squabble respecting Convocation, and whether that body should or should not invite Dissenters to co-operate with it. An Authorized Version of the Bible was not the property of the Church or of Dissenters. It belonged to all the people of the country, in all their various phases of thought and belief; and the inauguration of so great a work ought, in his opinion, to come from the highest power which was known to us—the Crown—for by such a course they might ensure—what all desired to know as far as modern science and research could tell them—what the Bible really said in matters relating to existing tenets and beliefs.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that She will be graciously pleased to invite the President of the United States to concur with Her Majesty in appointing Commissioners to revise the Authorized Version of the Bible."—(Mr. Buxton.)
  MR. GLADSTONE: The Motion of the hon. Member is not altogether new to Her Majesty's Government, and the Government are certainly responsible for having discouraged the attempt to throw into the hands of the civil authority, at the present stage, the work of revision, whether of the original texts of the Holy Scripture or of the Authorized Version. Adhering entirely to that opinion, I am desirous to lose no time in acquainting the House and my hon. Friend with the grounds on which we have arrived at our decision. I need not say that there is much in the speech of my hon. Friend with which it is impossible to differ. My hon. Friend has instructed the House upon the history of Biblical translation from the first;
  "Gemino bellum Trojanum orditur ab ovo"—
  and I have no doubt we shall profit much, or, if we do not, it will be our own fault, by what he has told us on a subject of extreme historical interest. But that has no direct reference to the question now at issue. Again, my hon. Friend has entered rather largely into the question both as to the position, the authority, and the conduct of Convocation in this country. Well, Sir, it appears to me that that is a matter which lies wholly beyond the scope of the present discussion. If the Convocation of the Province of Canterbury—being,

  113
  what it is, composed simply of Bishops and a number of the leading clergy of the whole of the Southern portion, or larger portion, of this country—thinks fit to acquire public authority by discharging a useful labour on the part of the public, I do not think anyone will grudge Convocation authority of that kind, however much he might be disposed to contest any claim advanced on the part of that body to authority in a more precise and rigid sense. Certainly, I cannot either directly, or by implication, be disposed to throw any censure or imply any opinion as to the efforts which seem to have been made with considerable energy, and, I believe, with considerable effect, by the Bishops and clergy of the Convocation of Canterbury, for the purpose of attaining to an improvement in the Authorized Version of the Holy Scriptures. But, Sir, the question we have to consider is, I admit, a very wide one, and one which it is quite right to bring under the notice of this House. I will only allude, for one moment, in passing, to a passage in the speech of my hon. Friend, where he referred to the difficulty which he anticipated might arise in respect of funds for the effective prosecution of such a measure as the improvement of the Authorized Version of Scripture. My hon. Friend supported his argument by saying that in the 17th century £30,000 was the actual cost in money of that Version; and he said he thought it could not be done for less now. It appears to me that that was a very safe declaration; at least, with this one qualification—it will certainly not be done for less now, if it be done by public authority, by means of funds voted from year to year by this House. If my hon. Friend were disposed to bet, I think he might safely bet that the figure of £30,000 would not be found excessive in that view of the case. But in this great and wealthy country, with a Church the higher clergy of which, though far from extravagantly opulent, having reference to the calls upon them, have considerable means, I do not at all believe that a difficulty in obtaining funds will stand in the way of the useful and effective prosecution of whatever labours may be necessary for correcting the Authorized Version of the Scriptures. Therefore, though I admit that the argument is forcible if the difficulty raised were certain to exist, I cannot admit that the intervention of Parliament can be a neces-
  114
  sity; and, if there be no real necessity for providing funds from the public purse, it is a great deal better that they should not be provided. It is quite possible that if Her Majesty's Government were to make this the subject of an application to Parliament for Votes in Supply, that very circumstance might tend to prejudice the work, and, in certain contingencies, these Votes might give rise to painful discussions, which at times we have all had to hear, but the number and range of which we have been constantly desirous to reduce. So much for funds. But now the difference between my hon. Friend and us rests on wider grounds. We do not, in the slightest degree, differ from him in the faith which he evidently entertains that there is strong need for the application of modern criticism, scholarship, and knowledge, to the consideration both of the Scriptural text and of that Authorized Version, which I concur with my hon. Friend in thinking is one of the most precious treasures belonging to Englishmen. On that point I will not dwell; because I take it for granted that, without any pretensions to minute or accurate knowledge, we have all, in one way or another, learnt or gathered enough with respect to the actual condition both of the text and the Authorized Version to make us believe it desirable that labour should be honestly and freely employed with a view to the eventual improvement of the Authorized Version. There is, therefore, no difference between us on that point. The fundamental difference between us is this—It is the opinion of my hon. Friend—and I do not in the least degree complain that those who entertain it should argue it in this House—that this work will be best initiated by public and civil authority. Now, Sir, the Government are of the opposite opinion. We believe the work will be most safely, most satisfactorily, most effectually initiated by those efforts which cannot pretend to public authority. And why? If I may presume to say so, this fallacy runs through the very interesting speech of the hon. Gentleman who seconded the Motion. The hon. Gentleman appears to assume—and I think it is assumed also by my hon. Friend—that it is in our power, by setting to work a certain critical and. scholar-like machinery, to insure at a single stroke, as I may say, the attainment of a satisfactory result. We do

  115
  not wish to be bound by any such proposition. We do not wish to see a machinery initiated which will produce a result having, ipso facto, pretensions to authority. We believe the wise course is, to allow persons who are willing to engage in this important field of labour to complete their work; but we say that that work ought to be subject to the action of public opinion. I quite agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is most desirable that lay judgment as well as clerical judgment should be passed upon the work; and I, for one, should regard with very great jealousy the appointment of any body which, however carefully selected, was to devote itself to this most delicate and important task, and was to be entitled afterwards to say—"There are the results of our labour; now we expect you to accept them!" There is the dilemma in which my hon. Friend and those who think with him are placed. When these labours are completed by an agency so authoritative, either the result so brought about must be accepted by the public—and I am not willing to be bound to accept them—or else we are in another difficulty, and must acknowledge that the revisers require to have their work revised, and we must again submit it either to a second Royal Commission, or else to some private and less authoritative agency, to supply defects and cure faults which may be found in the work of the first Commission. Our conclusion, therefore, is, that this is a matter which will be better left in the hands of private persons; and if it be true, as it is, that Convocation is not entitled to expect that the public shall, irrespective of its merits, be required to accept any revision it may produce, that fact, in our opinion, so far from being a disadvantage, is a positive advantage, and the assumption or possession of authority by the body undertaking this work would really constitute a danger and a disadvantage. I fear we should be too sanguine in assuming that the result of any single effort, however carefully considered, and however authoritative, must necessarily be so satisfactory as to win its way at once to public acceptance. Let us only recollect what the present Authorized Version is. It is the result, not of one effort, but of a series of long-continued efforts. Nor did the Authorized Version at once obtain public acceptance. It was ventilated in the atmosphere of
  116
  free discussion; it was tried and tested in informal as well as formal ways; and it was not until after the Restoration—that is, not until half-a-century after it was produced—that it became, what it has been ever since, our one permanent standard in the interpretation of the Word of God. I will not enter into the arguments of my hon. Friend against the reasoning of Lord Shaftesbury upon this subject. Lord Shaftesbury entered into the discussion of it with that genuine and honest enthusiasm which is natural to him. But this I must say, without binding myself to particular words, that I, at any rate, am prepared to accept Lord Shaftesbury's reasoning and conclusion, so far as regards the main purpose he had in view—namely, on the one hand to bring home to the public mind the extremely difficult nature of the work to be undertaken, and the great mischiefs that would attend any miscarriage; and, on the other hand, the danger of intrusting this work to a Commission to be chosen by the civil authority, as if the matter were one on which it was in our power to say—"Do this, and the result will be attained!" Our opinion is that that is beyond our power. That being our opinion—and it is one compatible with a full sense of the respect due to the knowledge and honesty of my hon. Friend—it is hardly necessary for me to criticize the particular form in which he has drawn his Motion. But I own I think that, even if we were more inclined to adopt the general view of my hon. Friend, there would be great objection to the method proposed by him of an invitation to the President of the United States to concur with Her Majesty in appointing Commissioners to revise the Authorized Version of the Bible, and likewise, I suppose, the text of the New Testament, as well as of the Old Testament and the Apocrypha. I am quite sure that the President of the United States, and the accomplished gentleman, Mr. Fish, who fills the office of Secretary of State, would receive with the utmost politeness any representation we might make; but I think sentiments of considerable surprise would be excited in the mind of the President if he were to be abruptly saluted some morning with a sealed envelope containing this request. Such an invitation would carry him into a sphere from which I am afraid he is excluded almost by the very letter, certainly by

  117
  the spirit, of the Constitution of the United States. I think my hon. Friend would be willing to concur with us in reconsidering that part of the subject, if it were only at that point we parted company; but we part company with him on the general principle I have endeavoured to describe. The time may come when these labours, that are now being initiated, and to which we all wish success, may reach a state of ripeness in their results, after they have been tested and their fruits accepted and approved by public opinion; and then my hon. Friend, or possibly some Member of the Government, may be in a condition to say—"The time has now come when the civil authority may step in and may assert that the work has been accomplished;" but it is at the close and not at the commencement of this great operation, if at all, the civil authority should step in; and whether it should or not it would be premature now to decide. But it is not premature now to decide that the time for considering the matter has not arrived, and we shall act far more wisely, and in a manner far more friendly to the prosecution of a great and important undertaking if we leave it to the free agencies of those powers of piety, and zeal, and of learning and knowledge which I have no doubt exist in this country in ample sufficiency for the attainment of the end.
  MR. SCOURFIELDsaid, it was rather remarkable that one of the highest authorities with regard to the English language was an American, Mr. George P. Marsh, whose competency was vouched for by Mr. Max Müller. Mr. Marsh had published a work, Lectures on the English Language, one chapter of which was devoted to the expediency of revising the Scriptures at the present time. The conclusion of Mr. Marsh was, that it was not expedient, and on the face of such an authority an appeal to the United States would, not be likely to meet with a response. Mr. Marsh said—
  "Nothing but a solemn conviction of the absolute necessity of such a measure can justify a step involving consequences so serious, and there are but two grounds on which the attempt to change what millions regard as the very words of life, can be defended. Those grounds, of course, are, first, the incorrectness of the received Version; and, secondly, such a change in the language of ordinary life as removes it so far from the dialect of that Version that it is no longer intelligible without an amount of special philological study, out of the reach of the masses, who participate in the universal instruction of the age."
  118
  And, in conclusion, he said—
  "As there is no present necessity for a revision so there is no possibility of executing a revision in a way that would be, or ought to be, satisfactory, even to any one Protestant sect, still less to the whole body of English-speaking Protestants."
  MR. HENLEY: I think we have great reason to complain that a certain number of gentlemen, authorized by the Convocation of Canterbury, have taken upon themselves to unsettle all men's minds on one of the most important subjects. I should like to know how many men's minds are likely to be shaken and affected by what is going on before this business is settled, and whether it can possibly be believed that the amount of good that can result from critical improvements by persons who, either believe themselves to be, or are, great scholars, can compensate for the unsettling of the minds of the people who rely upon the Version of the Scriptures we have, and which has been a comfort to them, as I trust it will be, in spite of all we do. With reference to the Motion made by the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Buxton), it is impossible not to feel that it is almost playing in the direction of the origin of this movement, because what would be the necessary result of adopting the Address the hon. Member proposes? It must be very much longer delay. Conceive having to settle with another foreign country who is to undertake this job. Then, supposing the American side to give one opinion and the English side another; all men's minds would be unsettled, and it would be almost coming to the conclusion that there was no Bible. It is bad enough as it is when one sees what has been going on in this country for the last two or three years, in which tubs have been thrown out to the whales in order to direct attention to other matters. I believe the parties who are making this move are unconsciously playing the game of others. What can play the game of Rome so much as discrediting the Bible? I ask you to consider that. What does she do? She puts forth men of intellect who believe in nothing but themselves, and there is nothing they will not discredit. When we have succeeded in discrediting the Bible, into whose hands will the people of this country fall? I ask you to consider that. Therefore, now this question has been raised do not do anything to hang it up. If one thing could be more unfortunate than another, it would be to

  119
  have this business protracted, and the people who are not scholars, and who want something definite, should have it cast in their teeth—"You have got no Bible; it has got to be revised." What is it that is to be revised? Is it to be the translation, or is it to be the text of the whole, written in various languages? If you once let 18 or 20 very wise gentlemen begin to reject parts, what is to hinder them rejecting the whole? I know not. If it is to be merely their scholarly judgment, and they are to reject this passage and that passage, why may not they reject the whole? I deeply regret that this matter has been agitated at all. I believe it will unsettle hundreds of men's minds; it will do ten times more mischief than all the teaching and all the preaching of those gentlemen who have set it going will ever do good. If the Prelates who have undertaken this revision are to do it themselves, I do not see that we can have any more demand for an increase of the Episcopate, seeing that they have so much idle time on their hands. If they do this—as it seems to me almost extra vires—it will be as difficult as it was when the Episcopal Function Bill passed 25 years ago for plain men to understand how more of them can be wanted. If they are to go through the Sacred Writings line by line and to pass judgment upon each it will not be a matter of a day or a week, but it will be a long business. If they are merely to trust the work to two or three persons, and then gild it with the sanction of their great names, not having gone through it, what a horrible delusion that will be. However, I hope whatever comes of what they are about will be done quickly, so that the unlearned part of mankind may still have something they can rest upon—which has been a comfort to them here, and which I hope will lead them to a better place hereafter.
  MR. R. N. FOWLERsaid, he was satisfied with the course the debate had taken. It was said that the Authorized Version of the Scriptures was not satisfactory to scholars; but in regard to this question the House had to legislate not for scholars, but for the great mass of the people of the country—the vast majority of whom were not like hon. Members, who most of them read Greek, and some Hebrew—who knew no language but English. It must be borne in mind that the Bible was that which bound to-
  120
  gether the Protestant people of this country, however much they might differ in opinion upon religious and political subjects; and, therefore, it was a serious thing to do anything which for a moment should reduce the hold which the Authorized Version had on the minds of the people of England. It must be remembered that the Bible was most read and most studied by a class of people of whom very little was heard in that House. They ought to bear in mind that legislation of the kind proposed dealt most with those classes who came very little in contact with public men, and therefore the House ought to reflect seriously before it did anything to interfere with the comforts of those classes. The language of the Authorized Version of the Scriptures had grown very much into the feelings of the people, in words already quoted by his hon. Friend (Mr. Buxton), it was part of the national mind, and the anchor of national seriousness, and he thought the House ought not to upset a Version which had so great a hold on the national affection. He was glad to hear Her Majesty's Government express their opposition to the Motion.
  MR. BERESFORD HOPEsaid, there was a point on which the Prime Minister had touched, but which required more consideration than had as yet been given to it. Owing to the influence of Thomas Jefferson, a disciple of the French Revolution, not only all recognition of the Christian religion, but all reference to a Superior Being was excised from the American Constitution. That was a great blot on the Constitution of the United States. The President of the United States was stopped from directly taking any step which would have a religious bearing. The people of that country, he fully believed, felt the disgrace of Jefferson's proceeding, and in many indirect ways they endeavoured to counteract it. But anyone who read the American correspondence of The Times must know that the Irish vote was very important to the Government of the United States. Among the Irish there was a strong Roman Catholic feeling, and to the credit of the Roman Catholics it must be said that their churches and other institutions stood among the foremost in New York. We must see, therefore, that, as the Version of the Scriptures used by the various denominations of Protestants was an object of jealousy to a large body of men in the United

  121
  States, there would be a political difficulty in the way of the President joining in such a movement as that suggested by the hon. Member for East Surrey. We should feel some mortification if having, in a spirit of Christian confidence, made an appeal to the United States, the President felt bound to refuse acquiescence in our request. The request, if made at all, must be made by the Sovereign of Great Britain, in her highest Sovereign capacity, and it must be met by the President of the United States in his highest capacity as First Magistrate of that great Republic. Under such circumstances, a refusal would be anything but agreeable, not to say detrimental to our national dignity. He had often listened with great pleasure and instruction to the words of wisdom which usually fell from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxfordshire; but he could not feel that pleasure when the right hon. Gentleman was that evening speaking of the functions of the Episcopate. He (Mr. Henley) spoke of the Archbishops and Bishops as if they ought to be a sort of superior churchwardens bustling about here and there. Differing from the right hon. Gentleman, if that were his (Mr. Henley's) meaning, he claimed for the Church of England the character of a learned Church, and he held that the most rev. and right rev. Prelates should be not only men of work, but men of study—that they should devote themselves to the advancement of the Church as a great teacher of religion and expounder of the Word of God. If the Authorized Version was to be revised—a point on which at that moment he was not bound to offer an opinion—some of the Prelates of the Church should take part in that work of revision. He was glad of the determination come to by the Government, and he congratulated the House on the temperate, calm, and religious tone of the discussion. He hoped the hon. Member for East Surrey would not think it necessary to go to a Division.
  MR. KINNAIRDbelieved that the people of Scotland were not inclined to invoke the civil power to undertake a work which would be better done by private hands. The hon. Member (Mr. B. Hope) had cast a slur on the United States; but his hon. Friend appeared to him to be labouring under a mistake. As a proof of this let him remember that during the recent War the President him-
  122
  self ordered days of national fasting and humiliation, thus, as chief of the Republic, recognizing the Supreme Power of the Almighty, and our dependence on him in all matters. There was a good deal of the old Puritan spirit in the United States, and more Protestantism to be found among the people of that Republic than among some of the friends of the hon. Member for the University of Cambridge. He thanked the Government exceedingly for the decided step which they had taken in meeting the question with a negative, and he trusted that the Motion would be withdrawn.
  MR. MACFIEsaid, the time had come when, in the interest of truth, and piety, and Christianity, there should be a revision of the Holy Scripture. He thanked the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government also for the intimation he had thrown out that the time might arrive, and might arrive ere long, when it might be the duty of the Government to recognize some revision which might have been approved of by the great body of the people of this country. He thought it was the duty of the Government to undertake the revision, for to whom were we indebted for the present translation of the Bible, but for the imprimatur of the Government? He trusted that the anticipations which had been derived from the speech of the Prime Minister would be verified, and that the time would shortly arrive when the Government would take the question up.
  MR. NEWDEGATEwished to tender his thanks to his right hon. Friend the Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley), and to the Prime Minister, for the views which they had severally expressed on the subject. He should not have said a word upon this subject but for the observation of the hon. Member for the University of Cambridge, who seemed to consider the Bishops of the Established Church privileged to moot this question. He (Mr. Newdegate) must be permitted to ask, without intending any disrespect to those right rev. persons, why, if they were, as the hon. Member for Cambridge seemed to assert, competent to produce an improved version of the Holy Scriptures, they had not already done so? He, however, denied that this was a task that ought to be committed merely to official persons. It concerned every member of the Church of England; and every Protestant Christian of whatever denomination whatsoever, whether

  123
  Bishops or others, might be competent to revise the Scriptures. Their duty was not to propose that a revision should be undertaken; but to produce a version for the acceptance of Parliament. He believed that it would be an evil to commence a disturbance without the prospect of a satisfactory conclusion; believed that the House ought to be warned by what was going on abroad—for were they not on the eve of having the infallibility of the Pope declared?—was this a time for them, without the prospect of a settlement, to disturb the faith of the people in the one document which was accepted by almost all? Allusions had been made to the United States, and to the fact that they had no recognized form of religion. But how was that brought about? It was brought about by Jefferson, who overcame Washington, when Washington desired to establish a Protestant Church. But what was the influence behind Jefferson? What of Carroll? He was brother of the Jesuit Carroll, afterwards the first Roman Catholic Bishop of Baltimore. This was an historical fact—a fact which he asserted on the authority of Cretineau Joly, the historian of the Jesuits, who boasted of this fact as one of the great points in the history of the Jesuit Order, that they prevented Washington from establishing a Protestant Church in the United States; and the proof of the approbation of the Papacy was this—that Carroll was appointed a Bishop. Previous to this Jesuits had not been appointed Bishops. The cathedral of Baltimore stands as a monument of what the Pope considered this great success effected by the Jesuits, and not far from Baltimore is Carrolltown. At the present moment, when Rome was superseding every dogma, every doctrine, by one decree—that of the Infallibility, which meant obedience to the Pope—it would be most imprudent on the part of the Parliament of England to enter on any such work as a revision of the Bible. Such revision Parliament might sanction if it were presented: it was not a work for Parliament to initiate.
  MR. BUXTON, in reply, said, he thought there would be no practical difficulty in appointing a Commission for the revision of the Scriptures. The President of the United States ought to be invited to co-operate in this work, because there were in that country 30,000,000 of English-speaking people, by the majority
  124
  of whom the English Authorized Version of the Bible was accepted. Those persons, he felt, were entitled to be consulted when any revision of the Bible was undertaken by the Government of this country. He was not sorry to have elicited the discussion, which had been an interesting and important one.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

IRELAND—LOCAL TAXATION.

  MOTION FOR A SELECT COMMITTEE.
  COLONEL FRENCHrose to move for a Select Committee to inquire into the increase, during the last 33 years, of Local Taxation in Ireland, and to report in what manner it might be diminished, and how far its incidence might be more equitably distributed. In placing this Notice on the Table of the House, he was influenced not alone by the importance of the subject, but by the necessity of bringing to immediate issue the question as to whether England and Ireland were to be separately and differently treated; whether an inquiry into local taxation was to be conceded to one country and to be refused to the other; whether Irish Members were to be excluded from Committees appointed to inquire into the fiscal regulations of England, and Englishmen continued to be appointed to report on similar inquiries in Ireland. As the local taxation of both countries were essentially different, much public advantage would, in his opinion, be obtained by a judicious mixture of the representatives from all parts of the United Kingdom. Much dissatisfaction had been expressed at the manner in which these Committees had been constituted. The Members were not chosen for fitness, for experience, or for knowledge of the subject, but simply because they were sure political votes. It had been frequently asserted that since the Union Ireland had been misgoverned. He did not question it; but for this the Irish were not to be held accountable, for they had been systematically excluded from any management of their own affairs. As he told the House some years ago, out of 16 Departments in Ireland the chiefs, from the Lord Lieutenant and his Secretary downwards, 15 were English, Scotch, or Welsh, and only one Irish. At present Ireland was governed by irresponsible Boards. There was no person in the House of Commons to

  125
  answer for their misdeeds. The heads of these Boards were chosen without any inquiry as to their qualification or fitness for the offices. By these Boards Ireland had been taxed to an astounding amount. During the last live years there had been an increase annually of £3,000,000 taxation on that country. They had had poor rates in their worst form, the maximum of expense for the minimum of relief—the income tax, succession duty, the Lunatic Commissioners, the General Valuators, the railway guarantees—the compulsory presentments for gaols, asylums, and drainages extended to them. They had by Acts of Parliament been forced to repay moneys they had never borrowed, and to reimburse the Treasury for all sums wantonly wasted by their English nominees. After 14 years a claim was preferred for money stated to be advanced during the famine of 1822, £30,000 was compulsorily levied off the Province of Connaught. Two millions of money were by the Board of Works, before the Committee of the House of Lords in their alleged expenditure during the potato failure in 1846 and 1847, totally unaccounted for. A power had been vested in the Lord Lieutenant to tax at his pleasure the Irish counties for certain purposes, one of which was to pay £500 a year into the Consolidated Fund. This power was unconstitutional and was not possessed even by Her Majesty. Notwithstanding this, it was twice every year levied by a compulsory order. Did they wonder, under these circumstances, that they were discontented? As long as this state of affairs was allowed to continue they would find them difficult to conciliate. The right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government must not imagine that even two such measures as those relating to the Church and land in Ireland were sufficient—they must be followed by many others conceived in the same spirit before any change in the feeling of Irishmen could be expected.
  Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members being found present—
  COLONEL FRENCHresumed. Great as was the acknowledged ability of the Prime Minister, the regeneration of Ireland would try these abilities to the very utmost, and if successful, it would be attributed to his personal exertions and his indomitable will. He sincerely trusted
  126
  there would be no faltering in his course, and that the right hon. Gentleman would successfully complete what he had so ably and gallantly begun. Departmental government must be abandoned. The heads of the administrative sections must be properly qualified men; Ireland must be recognized as an integral portion of the Empire. The pensioning of those officers, from whose incapacity Ireland had been so grievously overtaxed, must come to an end, and the Castle cliques, legal and illegal, which were destroyed by the vigour of Lord Clarendon, but again brought into existence through the weakness of some of his successors, must disappear at once and for over. Unless these essential and long-required reforms were initiated without delay, and carried with vigour to success, the association, which was growing by degrees, with the view of securing for Ireland a Federal Parliament, might be found by the right hon. Gentleman to have assumed at an early date much larger proportions than were ever dreamt of on the Treasury Bench. Although he (Colonel French) did not feel over confident in any promise from the Government, who had not made the inquiry into the Lunatic Asylums in Ireland that two years ago they undertook to do—nor had they carried out the inquiry they were directed to make through the Audit Office, by the Committee on the General Valuation, of as to the past and present abuses of the Valuation Board—still, as the Session was so far advanced, and the Chief Secretary for Ireland not being able to serve on a Committee of Inquiry, if he would promise an investigation early next Session he would not press his Motion to a Division.
  MR. POLLARD - URQUHART, in seconding the Motion, complained that the burdens on land had increased nearly 100 per cent within the last 30 years. An enormous degree of discontent existed in Ireland in regard to the manner in which Ireland had been governed, and, in his opinion, a special inquiry was called for.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the increase, during the last thirty-three years, of Local Taxation in Ireland, and report in what manner it may be diminished, and how far its incidence may be more equitably distributed."—(Colonel French.)
  MR. M'LARENsaid, he hoped that the inquiry, if ordered, would be extended to Scotland, as the burdens of taxation had been greatly augmented there also, within recent years. Indeed, he did not see why England, likewise, should not be included in the inquiry.
  MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUEsaid, he was much obliged to his right hon. and gallant Friend for enabling him to decline entering upon such a difficult and grave subject at present. He wished to point out to his Irish friends that the increase of local taxation in Ireland within the last 33 years could be easily accounted for—namely, since that date the British Government had given to Ireland some of those institutions that necessarily belonged to every civilized country. In the first place, the system of Poor Laws, since then established in Ireland, would account for more than two-thirds of that increase. In the next place, the measures instituted for the sanitary regulations of the towns would account for the remainder. He thought, without giving any opinion as to the merits of the proposal, his right hon. and gallant Friend would admit that the present was by no means a favourable opportunity for instituting such an inquiry as was then asked for. Important inquiries were now going on with respect to England and local taxation, the results of which would probably be available before next Session, and would materially assist them in coming to a conclusion upon this question of Ireland. Without pledging himself to any specific course for the next year he could promise his right hon. and gallant Friend that the fullest consideration should be given to the whole question under the light of the inquiries to which he had adverted.
  MR. WHALLEYsaid, he was sorry that a more specific answer had not been given by the Government to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman (Colonel French), who seemed to speak as if Ireland had been greatly taxed and oppressed by this country. All impartial persons must, however, admit that the very reverse was the case. And, so far from Ireland suffering from an increase of taxation imposed unjustly by this country, the characteristic feature of their legislation during recent years was remission of taxation in the sister country. Surely, the right hon. and gallant Gentleman could not be serious in bringing such charges against the British Govern-
  128
  ment, when the fact was incontrovertible that for the last three years, at all events, the British Parliament was occupied with the consideration of measures intended for the benefit of Ireland, to the exclusion of almost every other question affecting the interests of the other portions of the Empire. He regretted very much that this Motion had been treated in so off-hand a manner by the Government.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

  MEDICAL OFFICER (WEST COAST OF AFRICA.)—OBSERVATIONS.
  MR. RAIKESrose to call attention to the hardship inflicted on medical Officers serving on the West Coast of Africa by the determination arrived at by the Secretary of State for War to disallow their claims for promotion, and to move—
  "That in the opinion of this House it is undesirable to deprive medical officers who volunteered for service on the West Coast of Africa before the 1st April, 1867, of those advantages by the prospect of which they were induced to undertake that service."
  The hon. Member was proceeding to address the House on his Motion, when—
  Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members not being present,
  House adjourned at a quarter after Seven o'clock.