Commons Sitting of 10 February 1871

MINUTES.
NEW WRIT ISSUED—For Westmoreland County, v. Thomas Taylour, commonly called Earl of Bective, now Marquess of Head-fort.
SELECT COMMITTEE—Kitchen and Refreshment Rooms (House of Commons) nominated.
PUBLIC BILLS—Resolutions in Committee—Ordered—First Reading—University Tests [6]; Merchant Shipping Survey* [3]; Burials* [7]; Parochial Councils* [10].
Ordered—First Reading—Citation Amendment (Scotland)* [1]; Marriage with a Deceased Wife's Sister* [2]; Game Laws (Scotland) Amendment * [4]; Railway Companies * [5]; Sunday Trading * [8]; Hypothec Abolition (Scotland)* [9].

THE CONFERENCE.—QUESTION.
SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, he would beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether the
120
Papers relating to the Conference which are to be laid upon the Table will contain all Communications received by Her Majesty's Government in reference to proposed action on the part of other Powers consequent upon the Circular Note of Prince Gortschakoff?
VISCOUNT ENFIELD, in reply, said, that all Papers in connection with the hon. Baronet's Question which could be published without detriment to the public interests would be included in the documents to be presented to Parliament. Two sets of Papers in relation to that subject and the Franco-Prussian War had been just laid upon the Table.

NEW COURTS OF JUSTICE.—QUESTION
MR. G. B. GREGORYasked the First Commissioner of Works, What was the cause of the delay in commencing the building of the New Courts of Justice?
MR. AYRTON, in reply, said, he was not surprised at the Question of the hon. Gentleman, considering the interest he had taken in the subject, and the extraordinary statements which had been persistently repeated during the Recess — that in consequence of his (Mr. Ayrton's) dislike and opposition to the present scheme for building the new Law Courts, he had done his best to prevent the commencement of the work. The project for the erection of the building was submitted to the House by the hon. and learned Member for Richmond (Sir Roundell Palmer) six years ago. The proposition was that the Government should purchase the site at a cost of £750,000, and should erect the new Courts of Justice upon it, at a cost of a similar sum. Commissioners were appointed to give their sanction to the details of the project, and to give their guarantee to the House that the expenditure on the whole should not exceed £1,500,000. When that plan was brought before the House he (Mr. Ayrton) gave it his earnest support, and urged the House to carry it into effect at the earliest possible period. But the Commissioners, instead of acting in conformity with the statute, after giving the guarantee required, proceeded to entertain a project which resulted in their adopting a scheme, which would involve an expenditure of £3,250,000, in place of the sum originally contemplated. That scheme was found

121
to a certain extent matured when Her Majesty's present Government succeeded to Office; but, in consequence of the discussions which were then raised, nothing was done for a year: and it was not until the Christmas before last that he was requested to take steps to induce the Commissioners, and all parties concerned, to adopt some plan to give effect to the intentions which Parliament had expressed in the Act they had passed. Now, it would have been almost easier to have begun de novo than to have reduced the scheme from the dimensions of £3,250,000 to which it had swollen—and in the meanwhile the purchases of land had expanded to £900,000—to its original dimensions of £1,500,000: but, after going into all the details, they were able to bring the project for the building itself within the original compass. Still difficulties arose in reference to the construction, which were so serious that as early as March he (Mr. Ayrton) suggested to the architect that he must radically change his plan if he were to conform to the wishes of Parliament. The architect exerted all his skill and ingenuity to carry out his own design; but in July he came to the conclusion that it would be better to take the course which he (Mr. Ayrton) had suggested months before, and prepared a revised plan. In August last the Commissioners signed their Report approving of the revised plan, and it was sent to him from the Treasury with the request that he would take the necessary steps to carry it into effect. The first question he had to consider was what was to be the duty of the architect, who would be responsible to the Government and to Parliament that the plan would be carried out for the sum that Parliament had thought fit to provide. It was not until the end of September that a formal contract was made with the architect, clearly defining his duties and his relations to the Office of Works; and directions were immediately thereon given to prepare a sketch plan. The architect stated that it was impossible to do that before the 1st January last, and that working plans could not be prepared before the 1st July. In order that no delay should take place in proceeding with the work, he (Mr. Ayrton) requested the architect to prepare immediately specifications in order to lay in the foundation, and to get the ground
122
ready for the superstructure. At the end of November, while the sketch plan was in progress, the specifications were sent in, and tenders for this part of the work were invited, on the condition that it should be completed by September next. It required some time for the builders to ascertain what was the work for which tenders were asked; but as soon as they were aware of the nature and extent of the work, they protested against the shortness of time allowed them for its completion. In consequence the time was extended from the 1st September to 1st February, when the foundation would be completed. He did not think that this would lead to any delay in the erection of the building, because in the meantime all the working drawings and preliminary steps for the superstructure would be going on. The contractors were to go on pari passþ with the preparation of the working plans and drawings, so that the moment the foundations were completed they would be in a position to ask for tenders for the whole work. So desirous were the Government to have the work carried out properly and promptly, that notice had been given for the purchase of additional land that would be required. The result would be that—apart from the additional expense in the purchase of land, which could not be avoided—the building would be erected for the sum originally proposed—namely, £750,000, and he ventured to assert that it would be a more useful building, and better in every respect, than it would have been if the vast expenditure which the Government had checked had been incurred.

THE BLACK SEA CONFERENCE — REFUSAL OF A SAFE CONDUCT TO THE FRENCH PLENIPOTENTIARY.

  QUESTION.
  MR. AUBERON HERBERTsaid, he would beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether it is the case that the Prussian authorities, at the instance of the English Government, promised a safe conduct to a French Plenipotentiary to attend the Conference, and after having done so refused to grant the safe conduct; and if such has been the case, what course has been taken by Her Majesty's Government?
  MR. GLADSTONE: The course of the transactions with respect to the safe

  123
  conduct for the Foreign Minister of the Defence Government of France has been somewhat minute and difficult to follow, and I will not attempt to state, in answer to my hon. Friend, the whole of the details. But as he has raised the question, and as there is, perhaps, a notion abroad that there has been something like a breach of faith, I will state enough to give, I think, a fair view of the matter. In the first place, a request was made on the 27th of November, through M. Tissot, the French Charge d'Affaires, that a safe conduct might be afforded to M. Jules Favre through the Prussian lines in order to allow of his attending the Conference on Eastern affairs in London. This request was forwarded by Lord Granville through the kind intervention of Count Bernstorff, the German Ambassador. The answer received from Count Bismarck was that a safe conduct was at M. Jules Favre's disposal, but that it must be sent for by M. Favre—and the reason he gave for that peculiar method of proceeding was that a flag of truce sent in by the Germans had been fired upon by the French. Whether this statement is erroneous or not we need not stay to inquire; but it was the reason given why M. Favre must send for the safe conduct. The safe conduct was not sent for at that time; but on the 13th of January M. Jules Favre applied himself to Count Bismarck, and the answer given was that the application should not be made to him (Count Bismarck), but to the German military authorities. As late as the 18th of January Mr. Odo Russell wrote to Lord Granville, stating that no difficulty had been made in the matter on the part of the military authorities or by Count Bismarck, and that the French Minister had only to apply for, in order to receive, the safe conduct. But on the 22nd of January, when the bombardment of Paris had begun, the military authorities of the German army declared that no one could be allowed to enter or leave Paris during the period of the bombardment; and that, no doubt, is the circumstance which may have been construed by some into an abrupt refusal on the part of the Germans of that which had been previously conceded. No doubt it was a refusal; but it was a refusal with a reason assigned: and at the same time as the German authorities came to that conclusion M. Favre him
  124
  self on the very next day—for it was on the 23rd of January—wrote to say that there were various reasons, which he would not state in detail, irrespective altogether of this conclusion of the Germans, which would prevent him from absenting himself from Paris during circumstances so critical as those which at that time had arisen. With respect to the proceedings of Lord Granville in this matter, the endeavours we have made to procure the presence of a French representative at the Conference will appear quite clearly in the Papers which have been laid upon the Table, and which I hope will be very shortly in the hands of Members.

LICENSING BILL.—QUESTION.
MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, When it is his intention to bring forward his Bill on the Licensing of Houses for the Sale of Intoxicating Liquors?
MR. BRUCE, in reply, said, he was unable at present to fix a day for introducing his promised Bill on the subject; but he assured his hon. Friend that he would bring it forward as soon as he had a fair opportunity of proceeding with it continuously. He might add that it was the full intention of the Government to get the Bill passed into law during the present Session.

FRANCE AND PRUSSIA—THE WAR—RE-VICTUALLING OF PARIS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. BROWNsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty, Whether he is in a condition to give any information as to what assistance has been rendered by Her Majesty's Government from available stores in the re-victualling of Paris?
  MR. BAXTER: In reply to my hon. Friend, I beg to say that late on Wednesday evening the Admiralty received from the Foreign Office a request that such assistance as could be provided from the Government stores for the re-victualling of Paris should be sent off without delay. Our stock of provisions at present in the victualling yards is so large that 2,500 tons, amounting in value to nearly £50,000, can be spared for Paris without the slightest inconvenience to the

  125
  naval service. In anticipation of such a demand probably being made, we had set apart large quantities of flour, biscuit, salt pork, salt beef, preserved beef, soup, essence of beef, and boiled mutton in readiness for shipment at a moment's notice; and the vessels to convey the stores were also waiting. Immediately on the receipt of the communication from the Foreign Office, telegraphic orders were sent to the various ports to begin to load the ships at daylight yesterday. I have to inform the House that the Pelter left Portsmouth, the Buffalo Deptford, and the Helicon Devonport, yesterday afternoon, all for Dieppe. The Tamar sails from Devonport and the Buzzard from Deptford to-day, both for Havre; and the Valorous and Lord Panmure for the same port will leave to-morrow. It will be a consolation to the right hon. Member for Buckinghamshire and those who believe with him that our stores are in such a lamentable condition to know that, if necessary, we could afford at least 1,000 tons more.

THE ADDRESS IN ANSWER TO THE QUEEN'S SPEECH.
Report of Address brought up, and read.
MR. BAILLIE COCHRANEdesired to call attention to one point which had been omitted from the most able and interesting speech of his right hon. Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire in the course of the debate so abruptly terminated yesterday. He alluded to the subject referred to by Her Majesty when She expressed a hope that the armistice
"May result in a Peace compatible, for the two great and brave nations involved, with security and with honour, and likely therefore to command the approval of Europe, and to give reasonable hopes of a long duration."
He wished in the first place to ask for some explanation from Her Majesty's Government as to the course they intended to adopt in regard to the impending negotiations. Unfortunately, a very general feeling of dissatisfaction prevailed throughout the country at the want of sympathy shown by Her Majesty's Government in respect of the great misfortune of our old friends and allies. ["No, no!"] That was a prevalent opinion, and it was justified by some of the expressions used by right hon. Gentlemen on the Treasury Bench in addressing their constituents. Of
126
course he did not allude to the Prime Minister, who had not had an opportunity of visiting his constituents; but he had been surprised and grieved to see the spirit of exultation at the misfortunes of France, and the want of sympathy with the people of that unhappy country, exhibited in the speech made by the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary in his speech at Paisley. ["No, no!"] Those who would refer to the right hon. Gentleman's speech would find that he exulted over the calamities of France, because, he said, the result would be a greater confidence in England, because France in her prostrate condition would be less able to trouble this country. He was not quoting the right hon. Gentleman's precise words, but that was the tendency of his remarks. Now, he was quite ready to admit that while the war continued, whatever might be the feelings and sympathies of Her Majesty's Government, it was very difficult for them to interfere; in the first place, because, in the state of our naval and military preparations, our interference would not have been attended with much result. But now that the war had terminated, or was at least suspended, and the period for negotiations was at hand, the position of Her Majesty's Government had entirely changed, and he wished to urge upon them the necessity of attaching due importance to those negotiations. It could not be supposed that this country was uninterested in the new settlement of the map of Europe. In that very able article in a celebrated review which had become famous from having been attributed to a most important personage, and which might be described as "the happy-England and silver-streak article," there was a very strong passage as to the result of German unity as affecting Russia, Turkey, and the great Slavonian races. That showed that whoever wrote that article felt the importance of the reconstruction of the map of Europe in its bearing upon the interests of Europe. He hoped, therefore, that Her Majesty's Government would state to the House their views with respect to some of the rumours current as to the probable terms of peace. M. Prevost-Paradol—alas! now no more—when German unity was mooted in 1866, referring to what compensation France could have for that change, said there was but one course that France

127
could take, and that was to fight, sword in hand, against German unity to the last gasp. He maintained, therefore, that they were now at the turning point of that momentous controversy, and that the greatest responsibility would rest upon Her Majesty's Government—perhaps within the next few days—if the terms of peace entered into were not those which would really give security to Europe. Some persons said that, however powerful Prussia might become, she would never do us any harm; but these tremendous changes must seriously affect the whole Continent. It was after the capitulation of Sedan that they had the Russian Note repudiating the Treaty of 1856; they had also seen mooted in a German paper the notion of the annexation of Denmark to Germany; and he should not be surprised if, in the course of time, the annexation of Belgium should likewise be suggested. Before the House, therefore, came to any question as to our armaments, they ought first to consider whether or not in future we were to maintain our treaty obligations. For himself, he felt much disheartened by what fell from the Prime Minister last night in speaking of that most important Treaty which it cost this country so much blood and treasure to secure—the Treaty of Paris of 1856. He was perfectly astonished to hear from the right hon. Gentleman that from the first, and as far back as 1855, he had always thought the clause of that Treaty preventing Russia from having a fleet in the Black Sea was unjust. ["No!"] Well, he had so understood the right hon. Gentleman, who also said that Lord Palmerston and Lord Clarendon were tinder the same impression. ["No!"] He should be glad to give the right hon. Gentleman an opportunity of correcting him. The right hon. Gentleman went on to state that Austria and other signataries of the Treaty had evinced a disposition to recede from that condition. If that was really so, how was it that when the Russian Note appeared it created panic and consternation in every body's mind? And why did Lord Granville write that very able and spirited despatch, which was quite unmeaning if — as he understood from the Prime Minister's speech—they intended to give up that most important and vital part of the Treaty? What were the real facts of the case? So important was that
128
clause of the Treaty that in 1855 the Conference of Vienna was broken up on that very point. In February there was an armistice; and for 11 months this country went on expending its blood and treasure in the Crimea for that very point and no other. Were they to be told, then, 14 years afterwards, that the matter was wholly unimportant and indifferent to this country? Having himself had some communication with St. Petersburg, he was led to believe that if our Government had only stuck to Lord Granville's despatch and insisted on the withdrawal of the Russian Note, that Note would have been withdrawn. But the moment they talked of a Conference it was known that the result would be what the right hon. Gentleman indicated last night—namely, that they were going to give up everything for which they had made such costly sacrifices. What confidence, then, was to be placed in treaty obligations? If the solemn stipulations regarding the neutralization of the Black Sea were to be set aside, how was anybody to feel certain that existing treaty obligations in respect to Belgium or other States would not be given up also? Before considering the question of armaments, then, it was most important to decide what they wanted to have armaments for—whether they meant to uphold the faith of treaties, or whether they would confine their policy merely to the defence of these islands, shutting themselves up in insular selfishness, not even caring for their own Colonies, and taking no interest whatever in events passing on the other side of the "silver streak of sea." If they were, indeed, to adopt a policy of isolation, then they would not require to increase their armaments. And here he could not help remarking on the inconsistency of the Government. If they thought the country now was really as safe as it was before the war, and that there was no danger, why did they propose to strengthen their defensive establishments? If they did not intend in future to take any interest in foreign affairs, he was at a loss to understand why they were going to add to the Army at all. But, on the other hand, he felt sure that if they intended to maintain the dignity of the country in the face of the world and to play their part in the affairs of Europe, they did require a greater force than they now possessed.

129
But they also required that the Government should have a distinct, clear, and avowed policy—that it should tell Europe plainly what it intended to do, and, having thus declared its intention, should firmly adhere to it. Unless this country was prepared to maintain its position in the face of Europe it would sink into a third or fourth-rate Power. In his opinion the Government were bound to declare to the House the course of policy they intended to pursue with reference to the approaching negotiations. The right hon. Gentleman would, in all probability, urge the necessity of waiting before such a declaration should be made. But the House had waited. They waited last Session for such a declaration, and it was the opinion of many eminent politicians that if the House of Commons had been allowed to speak out frankly last Session on the subject the war would have been prevented altogether. Such a declaration of opinion on the part of that House would have greatly influenced the mind of the then Emperor of the French, who, he must say, had been most ungenerously treated by the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister and his Friends. If the right hon. Gentleman did not choose to go to his constituents he had had ample opportunity at the Mansion House and elsewhere to express sympathy with the misfortunes of an ancient and a faithful ally. The right hon. Gentleman, however, had not thought fit to adopt such a course. The present condition of affairs was unsatisfactory, but something, at least, would have been achieved if the right hon. Gentleman could be induced to make a declaration to the House such as he asked for.
MR. GILPINsaid, he had not intended to take part in this debate, which appeared to be a continuance of the discussion which occurred last evening. It was to be regretted that the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Baillie Cochrane) had not taken the opportunity of making his statement last night, when the speech of the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government was fresh in the memory of all. He took the liberty of asking the hon. Member upon what grounds he formed his estimate of the opinion of the country with reference to the policy that had been pursued by the Government in relation to foreign affairs. Had the hon. Member attended one public
130
meeting where a thousand persons fairly called together had been present, in which he had been able to carry a resolution supporting the opinions which he had expressed to the House that night? He himself (Mr. Gilpin) had been present at four or five meetings within the last few months, at which the assembled thousands of working men had unanimously passed resolutions in favour of the policy of the Government. He joined issue with the hon. Member when he said that Her Majesty's Government—of whom the hon. Member was not more independent than himself — had been charged by the public with indifference or supineness with respect to the sufferings endured on the other side of the Channel. The hon. Member spoke of the indifference with which the Government had regarded the violation of treaties by certain Continental Powers, and yet in the same breath he blamed them for not taking steps to express sympathy with the misfortunes of a ruler for the expulsion of whose dynasty from the throne of France this country had engaged in the war that terminated in 1815, it being one of the stipulations of the Treaty entered into in that year that no Napoleon should ever sit upon the throne of France. It was extraordinary that the hon. Member should overlook the fact that that Treaty had been torn into shreds, while he expressed such unbounded surprise that another Treaty had been disregarded. The hon. Member had told the House that he had received communications from St. Petersburg. Perhaps the senders of those communications had mistaken the address of the Foreign Office. He had himself not had the advantage of receiving such private communications; but judging from the public communications from St. Petersburg, and from all he was able to learn from the Press of the different countries of Europe, he believed that the conduct of Her Majesty's Government in this matter had not only received the sanction of the people of those countries, but had met with the approval of even the parties directly concerned. The hon. Member opposite had referred to the subject of the increase in our armaments—a subject which would be brought under the consideration of the House before long, and had remarked that such increase would not be necessary if we intended to be selfish,

131
and to rely for our security upon the silver streak of sea. They had been justly told the Government did not pursue so selfish a policy; but on behalf of thousands, he (Mr. Gilpin) wished to state that he would be content with an increase of our armaments only on the condition that there was no increase in the expenditure upon those forces. Could our armaments be rendered more efficient at their present cost the country would approve of changes by which such a result might be obtained; but if the Government meant that they were going to have armaments that should entitle this country to meddle in foreign quarrels, and to dictate to a country whether it should constitute itself a Republic, or should accept such and such a king, let this country be ever so rich, it would, be unable to keep up the armaments necessary for that purpose. And he wished to say further, that if this Parliament separated without doing very much more than provide for an increase in our armaments, the country would be greatly dissatisfied. The people required large social reforms, and they believed that it was the intention, of the Government to effect them. The true way to secure the country was to govern it justly, and to cause the incidence of taxation to be revised, and the taxation itself lightened as much as possible. They wanted measures to make the working men better and happier. Improve the position of the working man as much as possible, and no increase of an outside army would be required to defend the hearths and homes that would be so dear to all.
SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, he rose to express the regret not only of himself, but of a large number of people out-of-doors, that Her Majesty's Government had not seen fit to give a greater prominence to the Licensing question. He had no intention of underrating the importance to a large section of the community of the changes proposed to be effected by the various measures about to be introduced by Her Majesty's Government. But the Bill to which he should have wished greater prominence given affected the home of every poor man in the kingdom. The little he had done in that direction had been done with the view of pointing the road for the Government to follow, and from the promises held out last Session, and held out to the country during the last
132
few months, he believed the Government really meant to deal with the question. In the course of the past Session, and during the last few months, promises had been given by the Government that this subject would be dealt with. He regretted, to find that the answer the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department had given to a Question put to him that evening was very similar to one he had given last Session on the same subject. A Licensing Bill had been mentioned in the Queen's Speech of last year, and hon. Members had been told that such a measure would be brought in as soon as Her Majesty's Government could see their way to its being debated. But the end of the Session arrived without such, a Bill being even laid upon the Table, and he was afraid that the matter would be shelved in a similar manner during the present Session. He trusted, however, that the right hon. Gentleman would give him an assurance that such a measure would be brought in shortly. Although the question did not bear a very attractive title, still it was one that deeply affected a very large section of the community.
SIR LAWRENCE PALKsaid, he did not rise to censure the past policy of the Government, because he did not regard the present as a very happy or convenient moment for discussing foreign affairs; but to remind the House that the speech of the First Minister of the Crown had raised the suspicion that a new line of policy was about to be adopted, and that they had a right to demand from the right hon. Gentleman a clear, plain, and straightforward declaration as to what shape that policy would take. As far as he could gather from the right hon. Gentleman's observations, he appeared to think it very doubtful whether there were any treaties in existence binding in any way on the honour of England. Certainly, the whole tenour of the right hon. Gentleman's speech had led him to imagine that Her Majesty's Government were prepared to abandon the treaty neutralizing the Black Sea. The question involved was most important one. It certainly seemed to him that if we abandoned one treaty, a reason would be supplied by that course for declining to maintain any treaty to which we might be a party. The hon. Member for Northampton (Mr.

133
Gilpin) had rather supported the same view by instancing the case of the Napoleonic dynasty. No doubt this country was as much pledged to the prevention of that dynasty from being placed on the throne of France as it was pledged to any other undertaking that we had ever given. At the same time, he perfectly agreed with the statement of a great man, that treaties were not made to last for ever. But then it might fairly be asked what was to be the limit in regard to the binding force of treaties? If England must merely look on, then the smaller the army, the fewer the ships and soldiers, and the less expenditure we had the better; but if it was our duty to maintain the honour of England, in regard to her word and signature attached to treaties with foreign Powers, then it seemed to him that the amount and burden of the guarantee we had given should be determined early in the Session, and before the House proceeded to consider the Army and Navy Estimates. It was, therefore, of the highest importance that the Government should give an answer to the House on this point as early as possible. He concurred in the sentiment uttered by the hon. Member for Northampton, that the great strength of England would consist in social reform; and he likewise supported the hon. Member's opinion that the burdens of the country should be fairly imposed. He hoped that when his hon. Friend and Colleague (Sir Massey Lopes) brought forward the question of local taxation, and of the injustice inflicted upon the landed interest and the tenant-farmers, the House would find the hon. Member for Northampton supporting his hon. Friend not only by the ability of his speech, but by his efficient assistance in Committee.
MR. RATHBONEsaid, he concurred with the hon. Gentleman the Member for West Essex (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson) in the hope that the Government would bring forward some clear and definite measure respecting the Licensing question. There was no question which so strongly excited the attention of all classes in this country, and particularly of the working classes. Many had pledged themselves to a measure of this nature, and if it were not brought forward he felt they would have broken their pledges.
MR. BRUCEsaid, he did not know that any stronger pledge upon the subject could be given than that which was given in the announcement in the Speech from the Throne. It was well known that the Licensing Bill was one of the measures which could not be carried in the preceding Session on account of the want of time. The reputation of the Government was dear to them, and the mention of the subject for a second time in the Queen's Speech seemed to him a sufficient guarantee that it was the intention of the Government to deal with the subject. For his own part, he believed that no measure, not even the most important of those passed during the preceding Session, excited deeper interest among the people of this country than any that might be considered for the suppression of drunkenness. The working classes felt that it was a question which affected themselves as a particular portion of the community, on account of the special temptations to which they were, perhaps, more immediately subjected than was any other class. At the same time, the Government must be allowed to choose the period of the Session when, in their judgment, measures should be brought forward. He was not aware of any advantage that could accrue from fixing an early day for the consideration of so important a question; and he thought it was to put a somewhat hard and harsh interpretation upon the declared intention of the Government for hon. Members to demand at so early a period of the Session that a day should at once be named by the Government when they intended to bring forward any particular measure. No hon. Member would question the importance of the Education Bill, yet that measure was not brought forward until a later period of last Session. There were several other important measures to be brought forward, in regard to which a strong feeling prevailed among a large class of the population. One of these was the Regulation of Mines Bill, on which depended the improvement of the present condition of that important industry, the pursuit of which imperilled so many lives. He had received a communication on this question from the noble Lord the Member for Haddingtonshire (Lord Elcho), to whom he now repeated the assurance he had already given to the noble Lord in private, that

135
the Government would exert every effort in order to carry that measure through at the earliest possible period consistent with just claims from other quarters. Having said so much he must now notice a statement made elsewhere by the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight (Mr. Baillie Cochrane), who had imputed to him (Mr. Bruce) language he had never used, inasmuch as the hon. Gentleman represented that, while addressing his constituency, he exulted over the misfortunes of France. He (Mr. Bruce) now assured the House that nothing could be further from his mind than the expression of a sentiment of exultation at the misfortunes of any country. In the middle of September last, when heated discussions took place about the necessity of increasing our armaments, the question was raised whether it was not the duty of the Government to call Parliament together to deliberate upon that particular question, and he uttered what appeared to him a very obvious and by no means original observation, that this country was under no pressing danger justifying immediate anxiety or alarm. He said there was but one country which had possessed that rare combination of naval and military power which could excite reasonable fears; that Russia, however powerful by land, was weak at sea; and, unfortunately for France, the fate of war had been so adverse to her that for some time to come no danger could be apprehended from her. In brief, the statement he made was based upon the most evident facts, and in making it, nothing was farther from his intention than to exult over the fate of a country with which he had felt our own ties were so strong and close. With respect to the challenge thrown out by the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Baillie Cochrane) that the Government should give an expression of their policy with regard to the discussions likely to arise between France and Germany relating to the question of peace, he believed that the hon. Gentleman would act more judiciously in not pressing his demand until we heard what were to be the terms of peace. It was not for the Government of this country to declare either for France or for Germany what they considered those terms should be. When those terms were declared it would be time enough to express an opinion on the question. He could conceive nothing
136
more injurious to the interests of Great Britain than for its Government to take any step which would have even an appearance of a desire to dictate to either party what terms they should offer or what they should accept.
MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he was quite ready to give the Government credit for their intention to bring forward a Licensing measure; but the House must remember that the question ought properly to have been introduced last Session, and the Government must be judged, not so much by their words as by their deeds. With regard to the feeling throughout the country on this subject, there was an impression, and he thought a growing impression, that the Government had not yet made up their minds as to the principle on which the proposed measure ought to be framed. It was certainly the feeling of various deputations which waited upon the Secretary of State for the Home Department in the course of the last Session, that the Government had more than once changed their minds in regard to the principle upon which they should frame the Bill, and it would doubtless be a great disappointment to the country at large to hear that the whole of the Recess had practically been wasted, and that the period was still indefinite when the Government would be able to bring the measure before the House, he would venture to suggest that the Government might lay the Bill on the Table of the House, if not in a week or two, at least at a very early period, so that the country might at least know that a principle had at last been agreed upon, and might have an ample opportunity of discussing the principle of the measure, and making up its mind as to whether it was one it might accept.
SIR WILFRID LAWSONsaid, he must express his regret that a day had not been named for the introduction of the measure; but he was very far from wishing to condemn the Government without seeing the Bill it was intended to bring forward. No time should be lost by the Government in declaring the principle of the Bill, so that they might know what they were to expect. Nobody felt more dissatisfied than he last Session with reference to the conduct of Government with regard to home affairs. He regretted, for instance, that the licensing Bill was not brought forward, and that

137
the Ballot was shelved. But he felt he would be doing wrong not to approve the foreign policy of the Government; and he only hoped they would strictly adhere to that policy, and continue to resist the clamour of what might, without speaking disrespectfully, be called the war party in that House. It appeared to him there was never a moment in the lifetime of this generation when there was less necessity to strengthen and increase our armaments. We had always heard that our large forces were necessary because of the ambition of France. But the French were now in a position which rendered them unable to strike a blow at us for many years to come. Were we then to be in fear of the Prussians, who conquered the French? Prussia, after the late expenditure of blood and money, was in a less formidable condition than before. And what was the reason of the misery of these two countries? He maintained that it arose entirely from the "bloated armaments" which, they had of late years kept on foot, and that it would have been much better for both if all the money which they had for years past expended in preparing for war had been cast into the sea. He could not help thinking that if we in this island of ours could not place ourselves in a fit state of defence on an expenditure of £25,000,000 a year, there must be something radically wrong in the system which we pursued. Formerly it was said the country would be fully protected if the Militia were formed. We got the Militia. Then it was urged that we must have Volunteers. And now that we had the Volunteers they were said to be worth nothing at all. If what Her Majesty's Government proposed to do was to secure increased efficiency with our present expenditure, the Government would have every support from Members on that (the Ministerial) side of the House; but they would find objections equally strong to the expenditure of a single penny in the increase of fresh armaments. Of course our present expenditure would not satisfy many people, any more than had the amount which we had expended upon fortifications. He had been led to make these remarks from his great anxiety to see the Government carry out those measures which they had announced for reform in our home affairs He trusted they would go on with the
138
measures which they had promised, and carry out the war which they had hitherto waged against pauperism, vice, and immorality, enemies in our very midst; and if they did this and pursued a course of honest and sensible home reform, they would, he believed, while finding the power of the Government consolidated, at the same time earn the gratitude of he country at large.
MR. W. M. TORRENSsaid, he was sorry to hear his hon. Friend (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) charge hon. Gentlemen who were sensitive for the honour and zealous for the dignity of the country with being desirous of plunging England into war. He had heard such insinuations out-of-doors, but had always disregarded them as palpably unjust. For himself, and all whose sympathies he shared, he roust repudiate and repel them as wholly undeserved. They were not there to incite to war, but to expostulate against exorbitant and oppressive terms of peace—terms which they sincerely believed it was not for the true and lasting good of the people of Germany that their Sovereign should exact. For the many years during which he had had the honour of a seat in that House, he had steadily opposed an excessive expenditure and wanton intermeddling with foreign affairs; but he was, nevertheless, as desirous as any hon. Member could be that the honour and dignity of this country should be maintained. The Queen had reminded the House that but a few days had elapsed since a most destructive and desolating war had ceased to rage, and that only a few days might possibly elapse before its ravages might recommence. These were terrible words from the gracious lips of Royalty; but not more terrible than true. On ordinary occasions the Speech from the Throne, which was but the programme of the Minister for the Session, was met by that House with political politeness. But this was the longest and most pregnant Speech which had for a long time been delivered from the Throne. Her Majesty had in that Speech expressed her desire to take counsel of her Commons and Peers — not for peace alone and not solely for settlement of home questions. Events had occurred during the last six months such as had not happened during the lifetime of the oldest Member of that House; they

139
had witnessed a war which he could compare, as far as his limited reading went, to nothing since the times of Attila and Ghengis Khan. They had seen the fairest portion of Christendom laid waste, villages burnt, open towns bombarded, and city after city laid under ruinous requisition; the youth of the country had been decimated, old age and infancy driven to seek shelter in the open fields, the wounded left uncared for in the open amid frost and snow, and unoffending families, who had not fled in time, destroyed as they lay in their beds. To end such guilt and misery, France had said—"Take all the money we have, and go;" but the victors wanted more than money. They wanted the humiliation, abasement, and utter prostration of France. They would not say definitely what the terms were to be; but he (Mr. Torrens) and those who thought with him, felt that it was the duty of the neutral States, and of England, especially, as the chief of those States, to interplead while there was time in favour of moderate and reasonable terms, and to say aloud that, for the sake of Europe, France ought not to be thus cruelly and utterly undone. Yet the Home Secretary told the House that they had better wait before giving an opinion, and learn what terms the conqueror might think fit to impose. They had better wait till the promised Papers were on the Table in order that they might see what Ministers had done during the Recess, and to understand their reasons for what they had left undone. It was, indeed, quite true that, before making up their minds regarding the conduct of Ministers, the House could afford to wait, but France could not wait—she was in jeopardy every hour. He held in his hand a letter from a French gentleman, whom he had never seen. He would not mention the name of the writer, although he had no objection to furnish it privately to any hon. Member who might desire it. The writer was, however, a distinguished man, who had held Office under more than one Administration, and was a member of the new National Assembly. Without uttering a single word or reproach against England, his correspondent, writing on the 31st of January, said—
"If the Neutral Powers intend to show any desire to act it must be in the interval between the Armistice and the meeting of the Assembly.
140
If the English people desire an end of the war and a cessation of William's massacres, let them press with their whole weight, that reasonable terms may be made. Prussia asks securities. The neutralization of a strip of frontier territory would meet the case. The peace of Europe would thus be guaranteed, and wars become more difficult."
What did they ask for? Sacrifice from Germany, or favour for France? Nothing of the kind. They asked for no more than moderation, reason, and justice.—
"Justice [said Mr. Burke] is the standing policy of great and free States, and any eminent departure from it lies under the suspicion of being no policy at all."
We should be forsaking and forgetting the highest sanctions and duties of international justice if we did not do all in our power at a crisis like the present to prevent the imposition on disarmed France of extortionate and intolerable terms. The original cause of war—who was right and who was wrong — was not now the question. The question now was as to European peace. He pleaded for France, not for the sake of France herself, but for the sake of England, and for the sake of Western Europe. So far from believing, with the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Gilpin), that the people of this country were satisfied with the policy of isolation, which was repudiated by the right hon. Gentleman the First Minister of the Crown last evening, he felt convinced that the country at large was anxiously waiting to learn what the Government intended to do. He would ask his hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) what man in his senses, were he Conservative, Radical, or Whig, would do anything to deserve the imputation of wishing to plunge his country into war, and venture to appear before a constituency with any hope of success, seeing how largely the constituencies of hon. Members were dependent for their daily bread upon the prosperity of the trade and industry which war so seriously impaired? It was for the Government to defend their own reputation, and when the time arrived the conduct of the Government would no doubt be discussed; but they had also a duty to discharge, and they should not feel that that duty had been discharged towards either the country or the Crown if they passed a colourless Address, which might be suitable enough for ordinary occa-

141
sions, and did not tell Her Majesty what was the earnest and heartfelt wish of all classes in this country — that everything should be done in our power to give France a fair chance to live, as we should like ourselves to be let live. He maintained that if we did not do this we should not be doing our duty as a great nation, and we should probably have to pay dearly for it hereafter. He would wish to refer for a moment to the question of indemnity. His hon. Friend (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) had said that France had paid very dearly in blood and treasure, but so had Prussia. Yes, but Prussia intended to get back the money. It was not the blood that she intended to get back—that was like water spilt in the sand, and could not be recovered. When the House parted last autumn the war was beginning, and we had then the word of a King, which used to be a solemn thing, that the war was not against France, but against the French Emperor and the army. That war went on for three months, and during all that time he asked any hon. Gentleman to say whether a single voice was raised by anyone of weight or influence in this country asking the Government to interpose? Not one. When, at the end of that time, the Emperor, two of his armies, and his greatest fortresses were in the hands of the enemy, then a change came over the spirit of our people. From that day a deeper feeling in favour of France had become perceptible; the people thought that the war ought to be ended, and from that day they were anxious to know what ought to be done. If not after Sedan, at least after Metz it was time for the war to have ended. The doctrine he was prepared to hold was that there and then the war did end, that a new war was begun against France and her people—a war of vengeance, a war of devastation, and a war of conquest. They had heard the First Minister of the Crown last night say in cautious and measured terms that the representations made by this country and other Powers against the threatened bombardment of Paris might at least be looked back upon with peculiar satisfaction by those who had made those representations. That was a diplomatic way of saying a great deal, and he (Mr. W. M. Torrens) was delighted to think that we had the least share whatever in saving for a time that multitudinous and beautiful city from what would be the
142
disgrace of the age. But there was an expression used by the First Minister which he hoped he might say he had misunderstood. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to convey—he fully believed without intending it—that we, by our representations, had obtained from the King of Prussia in the first instance the withdrawal of the candidature of the Prince of Hohenzollern. As a matter of history, he believed nothing was more demonstrable than that the withdrawal of the candidature by the King of Prussia never took place and we had certainly no partin obtainingit. He had been favoured with a perusal of the telegram sent by M. Benedetti to his Government on the 13th of July, giving an account of his final interview with King William—
"I observed to His Majesty that the resignation of the Prince of Hohenzollern, approved by him, was a guarantee for the present, but it appeared necessary to insure for the future, perfect and mutual confidence, and for this purpose I hoped the King would allow me to inform you in his name that if the Prince changed his mind he would interpose to prevent it. The King absolutely refused, saying that he could not and would not make such an engagement, and that he must for this and every other eventuality preserve the liberty of consulting circumstances."
He (Mr. W. M. Torrens) had gone carefully over all the documents, and he was prepared to assert that not only was the first intimation of the withdrawal made by the French Ambassador to the King of Prussia, but that on the following day, when the King became aware that the information was correct, he sent an aide-de-camp to Count Benedetti with the spontaneous declaration that for the future he reserved his liberty of action in the event of the Prince changing his mind. If that were so, it was obvious that France was not so inexcusable as had been supposed, for it should be remembered that the candidature of the Prince was not spoken of then for the first time. The Journal Officiel of 30th March, 1869, contained a despatch in which the Government of Berlin, when expostulated with, had renounced their designs on the throne of Spain. Well, then, the candidature having been first tried in 1869 and disclaimed, it was revived in 1870. Baron de Thile, when called on for explanations, declared that the Cabinet of Berlin knew nothing of it, and referred the French Chargé d' Affaires to the King as the head of the Royal Family, whom it alone concerned; but, as head of the

143
family, the King, when appealed to, absolutely refused to bid the Prince withdraw, or to repudiate his candidature. His retirement for the time being was compassed wholly by other means, and the Spanish Ambassador at Paris was the first to make known the fact to the Due de Gramont. What security then had France that a design thus twice furtively planned, would not be attempted a third time? If that were so, then the advice of Her Majesty's Ministers, though sound and good, had been ineffectual. Then he would, ask the House to refer to the position in which we stood when we gave that advice on the occasion when Lord Granville wrote to Lord Augustus Loftus, directing him to throw all the weight of this country into the scale to induce Prussia to withdraw. Let the House now endeavour to put itself into that position, and try to apprehend what the Queen in her Speech from the Throne told them She apprehended—namely, that a third war would break out unless wisdom and forethought were exercised betimes on the part of those concerned. What he contended for was that England was deeply concerned; because he did not believe any peace worth talking of if it were an extortionate peace as regarded money, a partitioning peace as regarded territory, or a humiliating peace as regarded honour. He was told that the extravagant sum of 10 milliards stated as an idemnity was but a fable, and that four milliards was nearer the truth. He was speaking in the presence of men capable of judging as to the rate at which even such a sum could be raised either in London, Amsterdam, or Frankfort, and he asked what would be the amount of the interest on that sum which would assuredly be for many years an impayable debt? And what was an impayable debt when due to a foreign conqueror but a tribute imposed by one nation on another? The power to impose such a tribute was the very definition of conquest. We could not tell what the conqueror might ask; but he hoped that the House would press upon the Government its earnest desire that on behalf of the peace of Europe and the weal of England they should make such representations as would show in a legitimate way that they were opposed to extortion. Mr. Grattan, speaking of another conqueror, said—
144
"Ambition is omnivorous; it feeds on famine, and sheds seas of blood: ready to risk being starred in ice if it can steal empire from desolation."
France had been made desolate, and Germany had been made an empire. The past was irrevocable; but the present and the future were still in our hands. The spectacle now exhibited in France was an ominous lesson to Europe and to the rest of the world; and if we in our power, who were said to be the freest, richest, and greatest country on earth, showed any hesitation in taking a bold and manly course, the nations of Western Europe would view their position with despair—they would feel that they might be dealt with in our time as Macedon dealt with the smaller states of Greece, as Poland in the last century, as Denmark in our own day had been dealt with, because we had not the wit, the wisdom, and the worth to do unto others as we would that others should do unto us.
MR. RYLANDSsaid, that the appeal of the hon. Member who had just spoken to hon. Gentlemen opposite meant, if it meant anything, that the Government should intervene in such a way as to make our power and influence felt in the determination of the terms of peace. The hon. Gentleman had said that England's power ought to be brought to bear. ["Hear, hear!"] What did that mean, and what did hon. Gentlemen opposite mean by those cheers? Were they prepared to say to Prussia—"If you do not come to such and such terms with France we will declare war against you?" The hon. Gentleman who had just spoken had a sort of hazy idea that we might go to a certain extent and bring a sort of unknown power to bear upon Prussia and France, and that without exerting any physical strength, but merely by the shadow of something behind, we might induce Prussia, conquering and victorious, to submit her judgment to ours. He did not for one moment suppose that she would do so, or that any hon. Member would propose to back up the view of Her Majesty's Government as to the proper terms of peace by an appeal to physical force. The view put forward by the hon. Gentleman, that we ought to constitute ourselves the arbiters of Europe and the protectors of all the other Western Powers, could only be enforced

145
if we had a Government possessing the quality of omniscience, backed up by omnipotence. Now, the fact was that upon the part of our own Government there was no omniscience. He had a very high opinion of the ability and knowledge of the Members of Her Majesty's Government; but he did not attribute either to them, or to any Government which might be formed by the right hon. Member for Buckinghamshire (Mr. Disraeli) the possession of omniscience. The history of this country showed that, with the best intentions, gross mistakes had been made by the Government of England in dealing with foreign countries, and that they had calculated upon eventualities which never happened. A system, no doubt, was kept up which was supposed to give us some means of anticipating future events, but experience proved that in this we were continually disappointed. Why, last autumn something like a panic showed itself in the House, and every hon. Member was considering what would follow when the Emperor Napoleon had crushed Prussia and got to Berlin, as it was then believed he might easily do. The Government, even, fell in with that view to some extent, and, yielding to pressure, adopted measures in preparation for an emergency that had never arisen. Something had been said about our military power, and it was implied that if we could once raise a sufficient force there might be some chance of our carrying out a dignified and spirited policy. But was it imagined, after the experience of this war, that we could hope to compete with the great military monarchies of the Continent? Why, the thing was perfectly preposterous. At one time there was a talk of our sending 20,000 men to Antwerp, and £2,000,000 of money were voted in anticipation. But what could 20,000 men have done? Why, in the great battles which had been fought, the belligerents were able to bring something like 1,000,000 men into the field. The true dignity and honour of the country were in no degree affected by our not having interfered in this unfortunate quarrel. They were far better supported by the sympathy and liberality shown towards the suffering people of Paris. He had no wish to isolate this country from considerations affecting the welfare of others,
146
but he certainly wished to withdraw her from interference which proved in no degree advantageous to national interests. After all the blood and treasure which had been spent, could we point to a single treaty or engagement of the slightest value to the people of this country? A vast debt had been contracted in carrying out a spirited policy, and no benefit whatever had been obtained. This ought to be a great warning to Gentlemen upon both sides of this House. For his own part, he should support the course which had been taken by Her Majesty's Government, and he had no doubt their influence would be exerted at the proper time in favour of moderate terms of peace, which in the end would prove most lasting.
Address agreed to:—To be presented by Privy Councillors.

PRINCESS LOUISE.

  MESSAGE FROM THE QUEEN.
  Message from Her Majesty brought up, and read by Mr. Speaker (all the Members being uncovered), as follows:—
  VICTORIA R.
  Her Majesty relies upon the cordial interest which Her faithful Commons have expressed in the approaching marriage between the Princess Louise and the Marquis of Lorne.
  The numerous proofs which the Queen has received of their loyalty to Her Throne, and of their attachment to Her person and Family, lead Her to hope that they will make such a provision for the Princess Louise, with a view to the proposed marriage, as may be suitable to the dignity of the Crown.
  V.R.
  Committee thereupon upon Monday next.

UNIVERSITY TESTS BILL.

  RESOLUTION. FIRST READING.
  Acts read; considered in Committee.
  MR. GLADSTONE, in moving that the Chairman be directed to move the House, that leave be given to bring in a Bill to alter the Law respecting Religious Tests in the Universities of Oxford, Cambridge, and Durham, and in the Halls and Colleges of those Universities, said: Sir, the Motion which I have to make will entail the necessity of only a very short ex-

  147
  planation, as the House, I think, will feel that the question to which my Motion refers has now reached a stage at which it is not necessary upon the introduction of the Bill that there should be any prolonged debate upon the merits of the question. Had it been necessary, in the judgment of the Government, that arguments should be advanced at this stage in favour of the proposals I am about to make, those arguments would have been used by my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General. I should not have thought fit to attempt to displace one who with so much prudence and so much knowledge has, during successive years, recommended this subject to the attention of the House. It has fallen into my hands on account of the maturity at which the subject has arrived, and the position it has assumed as a question between the two Houses of Parliament, to propose the introduction of this Bill, and the few words I am about to state will have reference to that peculiar position of the question, and not the merits of the original proposition. Last night my hon. Friend who seconded the Address (Mr. Morley) made an appeal to Gentlemen opposite, urging them to combine with us in the settlement of this controversy. I felt the weight of that appeal, and I would wish to be understood as adopting and echoing his words, and, moreover, I feel within myself a strong conviction that the force of such an appeal will be felt by many who sit on the other side of the House who have hitherto taken a prominent part in opposing this Bill. And here I found myself upon a recollection of the manner in which the Bill was treated during the discussion last year. I am not seeking to take any unfair advantage; I am as far as possible from endeavouring to convey any imputation; but I think that many hon. Gentlemen sitting opposite, and several of those connected with the representation of the Universities, who have hitherto taken a prominent duty and responsibility in opposition to this measure, will not conceive that I misunderstand or misrepresent either their conduct or their language if I say that the general tone and effect of their speeches was to convey on their part the impression that although they did not compromise their opinions nor surrender in any point of right the ground that they had occupied, they did feel that the
  148
  controversy had reached a point at which it would be for the interest of all parties that it should be brought to a settlement. The Bill that I propose to introduce after the preface that I have made, the House will readily perceive is the exact and identical Bill of last year. I believe it will have undergone no change whatever, and had it been the view of the Government that they were in a condition to introduce important changes, or to be responsible for important changes if they were introduced, I should not have been justified in using the language I have employed. I have treated the controversy as one the discussion of which has been entirely exhausted, and into which I defy any ingenuity to import novelty of any kind. The controversy is a controversy upon which the judgment of this House and the country has been so often and so decisively pronounced that all that remains is its settlement. In the course of the Recess a desire, and I do not say an unnatural desire, has been made known to the Government from several quarters that the provisions of the Bill should be altered—[Cheers]—in consequence of the rejection of the Bill of last year by the House of Lords. Well, I wish to call the attention of my hon. Friends who cheer me, for a few moments, to that subject, and to state the ground taken by the Government, and the position in which they find themselves now in the face of the House of Lords. The desire entertained by many persons out-of-doors is that into this Bill should be introduced an absolute repeal of all restrictions contained in College statutes which make the acquisition of Holy Orders a condition under any circumstances of holding a Headship or Fellowship. Well, no man, I think, can hear those words without at once admitting, whether he approves or disapproves such a proposal—and that is not the question now—that the introduction of such a proposal into the present Bill would be a great extension and a great alteration of the provisions of the Bill. The effect of that would be that we should not be winding up an old controversy, but we should be beginning a new one. So far as I am able to anticipate what would probably happen, I apprehend that it would be necessary for us to listen to appeals from hon. Gentlemen who represent the Universities, and many others in this House

  149
  pointing out the novelty and broad sweep of the proposition—that it was now for the first time under the consideration of the House, and demanding that days should be appointed for the discussion of various and complicated matters involved in the measure, and giving a totally distinct character to the discussion to that which I anticipate respecting this Bill. I do not enter into the merits of the case, for that is quite unnecessary. I will not enter into the consideration how the Government is to find time amidst the pressure of the multitude of important subjects which are pressed upon us from every quarter of the House. The point which has been conclusive with the Government, and which binds them, is that which arises in connection with the position of this question as between ourselves and the House of Lords, and it is that point on which alone I shall dwell. Now, had this Bill been in the hands of what are called independent Members of Parliament, it would have been perfectly free to them to take any course they pleased in altering it from year to year. They might have said—"The House of Lords having rejected the Bill, we shall propose another measure of a much more drastic character." That course would be quite within the discretion and competency of a private Member of this House, but it is not within the discretion, rightly understood, of the Executive Government. When the Executive Government makes itself responsible for a measure, and has attached to it its credit and influence, when they have obtained the assent of this House to it, one thing follows as an immediate and obvious consequence — namely, that they are bound to give the House of Lords a fair, full, and free opportunity for discussion and deliberate judgment before assuming that the House of Lords is decisively opposed to that measure, and before reconsidering their course in consequence. Now, the question that we ask ourselves is this—whether it would be fair on our part as the Government of the Queen, whether it would be consistent with, that respect which we owe to the other branch of the Legislature, that we should treat the vote of the House of Lords in the month of July last as being a decisive vote upon the merits of the question? We do not think that we can so treat it. We think it right and just to the House of Lords, we think it right according to
  150
  the rules which regulate the well-working of our legislative system, that we should again at the earliest period in the present Session present to the House of Lords this measure for consideration. We entertain the sanguine hope that hon. Gentlemen opposite will favour the passing of the Bill through this House. But whether that be so or not, whether we are right or not in anticipating the early settlement of the controversy, we feel it to be our duty to that branch of the Legislature to give it the opportunity of a full, careful, and deliberate discussion of the merits of the Bill. I do not think it would be fair in us to treat the vote of last year, much as we objected to it, and much as we resented it, as a decisive vote. In the first place, it was the first time that the Bill had been before the House of Lords in the shape that it then bore. The Bill was sent to that House in the month of July, and it was on the 14th of July that the second reading was held. Upon the House of Lords, in the course of last Session, we made great demands, and from the House of Lords, I do not hesitate to say, we obtained last year large and liberal concessions. When these liberal concessions have been obtained by a Government backed by the authority of the House of Commons, that Government ought to show some sense of that conduct and some reciprocation of that temper. We should, therefore, be unwilling to proceed in a harsh or ungenerous manner in regard to the controversy of this Bill, and we think we shall not be discharging our duty with respect to the House of Lords, as well with respect to the general interests of the question, unless we can send this Bill to the House of Lords at a time when they can receive it, before it comes to them in a crowd with greater measures of such vital importance as the Education and the Irish Land Bills of last year. I have not said a word upon the merits of the case, but I have endeavoured to put prominently in the view of the House that consideration which I think is quite decisive in regard to the conduct of the Government. We have found it to be our duty to make one more appeal to the House of Lords upon this subject under the favourable circumstances that are now before us. We also feel justified in making an appeal to those who have hitherto opposed this measure on the

  151
  opposite side of the House, and in asking them to assist us to pass it forward without entailing upon it those difficulties which attend the discussion of great questions. It is right, Sir, that I should state I have had communication with many leading, influential persons among those who are desirous that this measure should be further extended, so as to dispense with Holy Orders in the case of all holders of Fellowships and Headships, and that they should be free of all restriction whatever. I have frankly stated to them the position of the Government and the obligation they feel themselves under with reference to the House of Lords, and I have intimated to them that in the view they take of their duty it will not be possible to accede to their wish. I have also learnt from them, so far as the feeling could be collected, after that declaration made frankly on the part of the Government, that they were still anxiously desirous we should prosecute this Bill in its present shape, with the explanation I have now made. I am, therefore, acting in fulfilment of the willingness I expressed to them; and I hope Gentlemen opposite will not think me too obtrusive if I state that it is our intention to go forward with this Bill with all despatch in the prosecution of all its stages, because we think it fair to those who desire the extension of the measure that it should be presented to the House of Lords at so early a period of the Session that, in the event of its failing to become law, they may not be prejudiced in their views, but have ample opportunity during the Session of raising the question after the feeling of the House of Lords shall have been expressed on this Bill; and I do hope that some influence even from the other side of the House may favour the passing of the Bill. With these explanations, I beg to move that you, Sir, do now leave the Chair, in order that the Motion may be made for the introduction of the Bill.
  MR. GATHORNE HARDY: Sir, I shall certainly follow the example which has been set by the right hon. Gentleman, and entirely abstain from making any comment on the question itself or the principles involved in it. I cannot but say that I think the course taken by the right hon. Gentleman in bringing forward this Bill at an early period
  152
  is not at all in discord with the view taken by the House of Lords last year. I agree that the House of Lords expressed no objection to the reception of the Bill, but, on the contrary, showed rather a disposition to give it that full consideration which it had never, on any previous occasion, received. Indeed, as the right hon. Gentleman stated, it had never before reached the House of Lords in the shape it did last year, and the desire was that the Committee should take such steps, by receiving evidence and information on the subject, as should tend to preserve religious instruction in the University; and that, I presume, would still be the object of the Committee if re-appointed. With respect to the course we should take on the subject, I quite agree that so far as this House is concerned the majority against us is overwhelming, and, therefore, though it will be my duty to protest against the measure, I should only wish that time may be given us for consultation as to what steps should be taken at some particular stage; but no opposition will be offered to proceeding with the Bill with such speed as may be considered becoming, with a view to the objects and intentions of the Government as explained by the right hon. Gentleman. I have been opposed to the measure in principle, I remain of the same opinion still, and I may consider it necessary to divide on the question again on the second reading; but I will offer no opposition to the measure by interposing delay. I hope it will receive due consideration from the House of Lords and from the Committee, to which I have no doubt it will be referred.
  Motion agreed to.
  Resolved, That the Chairman be directed to move the House, that leave be given to bring in a Bill to alter the Law respecting Religious Tests in the Universities of Oxford, Cambridge, and Durham, and in the Halls and Colleges of those Universities.
  Resolution reported: — Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. DODSON, Mr. GLADSTONE, Mr. SOLICITOR GENERAL, and Mr. GOSCHEN.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 6.]

  CITATION AMENDMENT (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. ANDERSON, Bill to amend the process of Citation in Scotland, ordered to be brought in by Mr. ANDERSON, Mr. GORDON, Mr. MILLER, and Mr. ARMITSTEAD.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 1.]

  MARRIAGE WITH A DECEASED WIFE'S SISTER BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. THOMAS CHAMBERS, Bill to render legal Marriage with a Deceased Wife's Sister, ordered to be brought in by Mr. THOMAS CHAMBERS and Mr. MORLEY.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 2.]

  MERCHANT SHIPPING SURVEY BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Resolved, That the Chairman be directed to move the House, that leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide for the compulsory Survey of certain Merchant Ships, and for the adoption of a maximum load line.
  Resolution reported: — Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. PLIMSOLL, Mr. WHEELHOUSE, and Mr. LAMBERT.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 3.]

  GAME LAWS (SCOTLAND) AMENDMENT BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. LOCH, Bill to amend the Game Laws in Scotland, ordered to be brought in by Mr. LOCH, Sir ROBERT ANSTRUTHER, and Mr. PARKER.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 4.]

  BURIALS BILL.
  Acts read; considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Resolved, That the Chairman be directed to move the House, that leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Burial Laws.
  Resolution reported: — Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. OSBORNE MORGAN, Mr. HADFIELD, and Mr. M'ARTHUR.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 7.]

  RAILVAY COMPANIES BILL.
  On Motion of Sir HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON, Bill to amend the Law for Railway Management, to change the mode of trial of cases for compensation for Accidents, and to define the liability of Railway Companies, ordered to be brought in by Sir HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON, Mr. HINDE PALMER, and Mr. ROWLAND WINN.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 5.]

  SUNDAY TRADING BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. THOMAS HUGHES, Bill to amend the Law relating to Sunday Trading, ordered to be brought in by Mr. THOMAS HUGHES, Mr. JOHN GILBERT TALBOT, Mr. THOMAS CHAMBERS, and Mr. M'ARTHUR.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 8.]

  HYPOTHEC ABOLITION (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. CARNEGIE, Bill to abolish the Landlord's right to Hypothec in Scotland, ordered to be brought in by Mr. CARNEGIE, Mr. FORDYCE, and Mr. CRAUFURD.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 9.]

  PAROCHIAL COUNCILS BILL.
  Considered, in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Resolved, That the Chairman be directed to move the House, that leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide for the establishment of Parochial Councils in parishes in England and Wales.
  Resolution reported: — Bill ordered to be brought in by Viscount SANDON and Mr. COWPERTEMPLE.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 10.]

  KITCHEN AND REFRESHMENT ROOMS (HOUSE OF COMMONS).
  Standing Committee nominated, "to control the arrangements of the Kitchen and Refreshment Rooms, in the department of the Serjeant at Arms attending this House:"—Colonel FRENCH, Mr. HENRY EDWARDS, Mr. DALGLISH, Mr. ONSLOW, Mr. ADAM, Mr. FITZWILLIAM DICK, Mr. Alderman LAWRENCE, Mr. GOLDNEY, and Captain VIVIAN:—Three to be the quorum.
  House adjourned at a quarter after Seven o'clock, till Monday next.