Lords Sitting of 10 July 1855

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.— la Gold Wedding Rings; Burial of Poor Persons; Commons Inclosure (No. 2); Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes; Public Libraries and Museums; Incumbered Estates (Ireland) Act Continuance.
2a Victoria Government; Waste Lands (Australia) Acts Repeal; New South Wales Government; Places of Religious Worship Registration; Youthful Offenders (No. 2).
3a Burial-Grounds (Scotland); Indemnity; Court of Exchequer (Ireland); Stock in Trade; Copyhold, &c. Commission Continuance.

OUTRAGE ON A FLAG OF TRUCE AT HANGO.
THE EARL OF MALMESBURY: Seeing my noble Friend the Secretary for Foreign Affairs in his place, I wish to ask him
646
what progress he has made in the inquiry he has instituted concerning the melanchol affair that took place some time since at Hango? When I last brought the subject under the attention of the Government, my noble Friend said he had lost no time in requesting the Danish Minister at St. Petersburg to obtain information and explanations from the Russian Government as to the cause of what appeared to be a wanton and cruel massacre. It appears that in the meantime Admiral Dundas, anticipating the wishes of the Government, has sent a flag of truce to the Commander in Chief at Helsingfors, requesting explanations upon the subject, and the correspondence between Admiral Dundas and the Russian General has been printed in The Times. My Lords, I am glad that that flag of truce arrived safely at its destination, and that the Russian Government did not a second time disgrace itself by violating one of the most sacred international laws ever instituted between different countries. But I cannot find in the answer of General De Berg, any justification of what has occurred; may, I am sorry to say, his reply aggravates the cruelty and inutility of the massacre. I will bring some sentences of his letter under your Lordships' notice. It begins, not by any expression of regret at what has taken place—and there is no expression whatever of a sentiment of regret from one end to the other of the despatch—but by accusing us of following a custom which was certainly common in the last war, and which, I believe, has been followed throughout all wars within the memory of man—it accuses us of sometimes hoisting Russian colours, with the intention of deluding Russian ships and so capturing them. This accusation requires no answer, because it is very well known that it has always been looked-upon as a perfectly fair ruse at sea to hoist the flag of a different nation in order to entice an enemy into our hands, and that this ruse has never been found fault with, and has been employed by the greatest and most generous commanders. General De Berg proceeds to throw doubt upon the statement of Captain Fanshawe, and, consequently, upon the despatch and the accusation of Admiral Dundas, and throughout the letter, in speaking of the intentions of the boat and of the captain of the vessel, he uses the words "pretence" and "pretended." It is hardly possible, however, to conceive how he can justify the argument that we

647
had any hostile intentions in landing upon the coast as we did—because, in the first place, the men were in a single boat; in the second place, they were carrying with them five Russian prisoners whom they generously intended to restore to their countrymen; and, lastly, there were three persons in the boat who were certainly not likely to assist in any hostile demonstration—I mean the ship's stewards, who intended, if they were allowed, to land and obtain provisions. General De Berg proceeds to say that Lieutenant Geneste "pretended" to have had a small white flag hoisted, and this is the second time he makes use of the adjective "small." But, whether the flag was large or small, it was equally a flag of true, just as General De Berg, whether he is a giant or a dwarf, is equally an aide-de-camp to the Emperor of all the Russias. Therefore, if he means anything by this expression, he means that the flag was not visible to the naked eye, and was not perceived by the officers and the troops on shore; but it appears to me perfectly impossible that this could have been the case, because, according to Captain Fanshawe's statement, the flag was hoisted within half a mile of the shore. I am perfectly willing to admit that there was an irregularity in the conduct of our officers, and that we ought not, strictly speaking, to have landed until the flag of truce had been replied to; but that is no justification of the conduct of the Russians. They saw the boat, because they lay in ambush for it; and an ensign (I will not mention his name for fear of making a mistake in the pronunciation), with the body of men he commanded, was ensconced coolly and quietly in hiding, waiting until the landing took place. The boat must, therefore, have been seen; and, if the flag of truce was not to be answered, it was the duty of the Russians, as honourable soldiers and Christian men, to do what is usual upon such occasions, namely, to make signals from the shore that it would not be received. No such signal was given, and no human being was seen upon the quay until Lieutenant Geneste and the boat's crew had landed. If there were any doubt as to the boat having been seen, we have General De Berg's own words upon the point—
"The crew of Lieutenant Geneste's boat were caught in their own trap; seven men were killed, four wounded, and the remainder made prisoners, as the list I enclose will inform you. The affair only lasted a moment."
648
"Caught in their own trap" is the expression; so that General De Berg still insists that the intentions of Lieutenant Geneste were hostile. "The affair only lasted a moment!" No wonder, when sixteen men, with no arms in their hands, not expecting to be attacked, were fired upon by 200 or 300 people. The statement of the survivor was incorrect as to the number of persons killed; but this inaccuracy may be easily accounted for, because he was struck, and, according to General De Berg himself, seven men were killed and four were wounded. This was quite as much a breach of the law of nations and a cruel massacre as if every one of the crew had been destroyed. What is the evidence of Captain Fanshawe as to this? He says—
"When the boat got back to the ship, I may here mention the dead body of one man was found. There were two shots through his leg, which he had had time to bind up with a silk handkerchief before he received two fatal wounds, one in the abdomen and the other in the head."
This shows that after the unfortunate man was disabled by the shots in his leg, he was, in cold blood, murdered. There is one sentence in General De Berg's letter which I desire that my noble Friend should explain, or, if he cannot do so, make some inquiry about—the General makes the following accusation—that on the 14th of May an English cutter, hoisting a white flag, destroyed a defenceless village. This is a subject that requires some explanation, as it involves a very serious charge against the officers and seamen in Her Majesty's service. There is not, however, one line in his despatch which can justify the cruel massacre which took place at Hango. It is stated in translations from the Russian newspapers that I have seen, that the ensign who was engaged in this outrage has received, in consequence of his great victory, a decoration. If this be so, his general has deeply identified himself with this cruel act; and I should like to know the feelings with which the thousands of brave generals and officers in the Russian army, who have gained medals for their conduct at Alma, Inkerman, and in the conflict on the 18th of last month—I should like to know the feelings with which they will attach to their uniforms the same medal which has been awarded to this ensign. I cannot help contrasting the behaviour of De Berg with that of his countryman and fellow-soldier General Osten Sacken. When the Tiger was cast on shore the Russians might easily have committed

649
an act similar to that which has been perpetrated at Hango, and have murdered every one of the Tiger's crew; but they were spared, and they were, according to the most humane rules of war, treated with kindness and care; and that they were so treated was mainly owing to the good feeling of the general whom I have mentioned. I hope that the Russian Government will feel that the conduct of this ensign, and the despatch of the general justifying and identifying himself with the conduct of the younger officer, are unworthy of the officers of a great Sovereign and of a great nation like Russia.
THE EARL OF CLARENDON: My Lords, I am sorry to say that I am not in a position to supply the further information which my noble Friend has asked for. A copy of the despatch has been received which Admiral Dundas addressed to the military officer in command at Helsingfors, detailing to him the circumstances of this cruel massacre, and trusting that he would be able to give such an explanation of this transaction as would vindicate the honour of the Russian flag. General De Berg, as your Lordship's are aware, has returned an answer to this despatch, but the explanation given cannot be considered satisfactory, and I think that answer has been justly characterised by the noble Earl. Neither has the general vindicated the honour of the Russian flag. He has replied to the despatch of Admiral Dundas by making unsupported charges against us—he has asserted that we have hoisted Russian flags with a view of deceiving them, and that we have, under a flag of truce, taken soundings. The only passage in his letter which can be considered satisfactory is that from which we learn that, instead of seventeen men having been murdered, as we were at first led to believe, only seven were killed. An answer has been sent to this letter by Admiral Dundas, under the instructions of my right hon. Friend at the head of the Admiralty (Sir Charles Wood), very much in accordance with what has just fallen from my noble Friend (the Earl of Malmesbury). Admiral Dundas was desired to inform General De Berg that it was impossible that we could believe the statement that no flag had been hoisted, or that it had not been seen; that it was the known custom in the Baltic, and elsewhere, to make such an announcement of a peaceful and merciful mission; and that, even if the flag was not seen, yet that
650
this was no justification for the cruel massacre which had taken place, for the Russians might easily, with the overwhelming force which they brought down, have taken as prisoners the men when they were standing unarmed upon the pier. With respect to the assertion that the boat could not have come upon a peaceful mission, because there were arms in it, Admiral Dundas was directed to state that the muskets found were those belonging to the boat; that they were lying at the bottom of the boat unloaded, and covered by the tarpaulin on which the prisoners' luggage was laid;—so that the Russians could not have known that the muskets were in the boat until after they had committed their merciless and murderous act. With respect to the assertion that we had hoisted the Russian flag on several occasions, Admiral Dundas was directed to observe that this was a common stratagem, which was resorted to by the cruisers of all nations, and the only limit to this stratagem was that, before the actual commencement of hostilities, it was required that the vessels should hoist their real national colours. As to the charge to which my noble Friend has called the attention of the Government, with respect to one of our ships, under cover of a flag of truce, having made an attack on and destroyed an unsuspecting village, the Admiralty have received no information with respect to such a transaction, and Admiral Dundas was instructed to say that we did not believe, and could not believe, that any officer in Her Majesty's service would have so abused a flag of truce, or have acted contrary to the usage of nations. With respect to the particular point referred to of an English boat, under a flag of truce, having taken soundings at Kertch, on the very day on which the despatch referred to was received, the officer who commanded the boat where these soundings were alleged to have been taken, arrived in England, and he said that there was not the slightest foundation for the charge which had been made. Under these circumstances, it is impossible to say what the real facts of the case are, or in what manner the flag of truce was hoisted, or the possibility of its having been observed by the Russians, until Lieutenant Geneste and the survivors are set at liberty, or allowed freely to communicate with the Admiral. Admiral Dundas has been instructed to demand, the immediate release of the prisoners; founding such demand upon the circumstances

651
of their capture. Instructions were sent on the 23rd of July to communicate through the Danish Government with the Government of Russia; there had not yet been time for the reception of any answer from the Russian Government, and, until the answer is received it is impossible to know what the conduct of the Russian Government has been, and will be, with reference to this matter; and this we must know before we decide on the course which ought to be taken by the Government of this country.
LORD CAMPBELLsaid, that having devoted a considerable portion of his life to the study of the law of nations, he had no hesitation in pronouncing that, even upon the showing of General De Berg, the massacre of Hango was a flagrant and most flagitious violation of that law. The hoisting of the colours of one nation for the purpose of entrapping the ships of another had always been recognised as a legitimate stratagem of war; but firing on a flag of truce was altogether a different matter. Flags of truce were things which had been known and respected for centuries—in fact, they dated even beyond the era of modern civilisation, for the ancient Greeks used to send out their heralds with a flag of truce. The flag of truce was understood and respected by every country of the world that was not sunk in hopeless barbarism. As for the decoration bestowed upon the young Russian officer who had been the first to outrage one, he could only compare it to the mark set upon the brow of Cain the first murderer.
LORD COLCHESTERdid not doubt that the conduct of the Russians in this unfortunate affair was all that could be imagined of base and unmanly; but he hoped that especial care would at all times be taken to regulate our proceedings, as regarded flags of truce, in the strictest and most accurate manner, so as to preserve the lives of our own men, and to rob the enemy of anything even resembling an argument for their disgraceful conduct. He could not extenuate the conduct of General De Berg, or find any palliation for it. At the same time, he was bound to say that there were circumstances connected with this flag of truce which ought not to have occurred. He hoped that, in order to deprive the enemy of even the shadow of a pretext for disregarding the practice of honourable warfare, care would be invariably taken to conduct the arrangements
652
as regarded flags of truce with the strictest possible regularity—that no persons would be allowed into the boat except those who were specially required for the purposes of the mission, and that arms would not be permitted to be stowed away in the boat. While he made this remark, he wished it to be understood that he did not in any way challenge the conduct of Admiral Dundas, who, he was sure, had acted in an exemplary manner; nor had he any doubt that the conduct of the enemy was base and outrageous.
THE EARL OF MALMESBURYtrusted that we should be able to obtain the depositions of Lieutenant Geneste and the other persons who were taken prisoners by the Russians. While on the subject of prisoners, might he ask the Government whether there was any chance of our having a general cartel for the exchange of prisoners taken on both sides during this war?
THE EARL OF CLARENDONreplied, that he had the satisfaction of being able to answer the noble Earl's question in the affirmative. A proposal for an exchange of prisoners had been accepted by the Russian Government, and a joint commission of English and French officers had been appointed to sit at Paris with the view of arranging the terms of the cartel.

VICTORIA GOVERNMENT BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
EARL GRANVILLE,in moving the second reading of the Bill, said that it would not be necessary for him to trouble their Lordships at any length, the subject to which it and the other two Bills, which stood on the paper, referred being already perfectly familiar to them. Their Lordships were aware that an Act was passed in 1850, extending the constitution which had been previously given to Van Diemen's Land and South Australia, and enabling the Legislature of those colonies to revise their own constitution. The same powers were afterwards conferred on the Legislature of Victoria. Some misunderstanding subsequently arose while Sir John Pakington was at the head of the Colonial Department, on the subject of a nominative Upper Chamber for Victoria; but that question was happily set at rest by the Duke of Newcastle. Colonial Acts, establishing Constitutions for Victoria, South Australia, New South Wales, and Van Diemen's Land, respectively,

653
were afterwards sent home to the Imperial Government for its sanction. In the case of Van Diemen's Land, no difficulty whatever had presented itself, and the assent of the Crown to the Colonial Act had, therefore, already been granted. With regard, however, to the South Australian Constitutional Act, it was found that the colony had exceeded its powers. After much consideration, the Government at last determined that the least objectionable course was to take the colonial measure as it stood, without subjecting it to alteration, and then to pass an Act in accordance with the precedent of the Canada Bill of 1847, by which means they would obtain the authority of Parliament to enable the Crown to give its assent to the act of the colonial Legislature. With this view, the Bill now before their Lordships had been introduced, and he, therefore, begged to move that it be read a second time.
Moved, that the Bill be now read 2a.
LORD MONTEAGLEadmitted that the principle of this Bill and "of another of a similar character introduced" into Parliament, was one requiring decision on the part of the Government, and it might be injurious to the colonists themselves if any unreasonable delay were allowed to occur in giving effect to some legislative measure upon this subject. At the same time he thought the House ought to consider well whether a measure like this was the best and most convenient mode of overcoming the difficulty which had unhappily arisen. In 1850 his noble Friend (Earl Grey), then Secretary of State for the Colonies, introduced a Bill creating separate constitutions in the Australian colonies previously placed under the authority of one Government. At that period it was resolved that the waste lands of these colonies should no longer be retained within the control of the Home Government, but should be placed at the disposal of the colonial Legislatures; and clauses for effecting such a transfer of authority over them were originally included in the Bill of 1850. Those provisions were, however, afterwards withdrawn from the measure; whereupon the colonists complained that they were defrauded of what they considered was their right, and they also accused the Government of a breach of faith with them on this subject, to which they justly attached the highest importance. By the same Bill the colonial Legislatures were empowered to frame new constitutions
654
for themselves, through the agency of those very Legislatures condemned by the Bill itself. Four of these colonies had availed themselves of the powers thus conferred upon them; and all had adopted the principle of a Government through two legislative bodies, the very principle which this House had declined to affirm when he (Lord Monteagle) had urged its adoption in 1850. The principle of legislation involved in the Bill of 1850 was this—the legislative bodies were authorised to pass a Bill framing a new constitution, which was to become law on receiving Her Majesty's approval, to be signified by Order in Council; but certain limits were laid down, beyond which the colonial Legislatures were not permitted to pass. But unfortunately in each case the Bills which had been sent over from the Australian provinces violated the very principles on which the Legislative Assemblies were authorised to proceed; they contained clauses which set at nought the rights of the Crown, and they were inconsistent with Acts of the Imperial Parliament. It was impossible, therefore, because it would have been illegal, for the Crown to assent to the Bills in the shape in which they were passed, and in the two instances of Victoria and New South Wales, the very singular course had been adopted by the Secretary of State, who had by his own authority expunged from the Bills those clauses which had been inserted by the colonial Legislatures ultra vires, and giving to them in that form the assent by which they were to become law. This, he contended, was a violation of the Bill of 1850, by which it was distinctly provided that the Royal assent was only to be given to the Bills sent from the colonies, whilst those consented to by the Crown were not the Bills which had been sent over, inasmuch as portions of them had been struck out in this country by the authority of the Government. This was a grave embarrassment, and he foresaw that it might lead to great difficulties in the future working of the Bills. The Bills from Van Diemen's Land and from South Australia, in both of which the powers granted by the Act of 1850 had been exceeded, had been most properly sent back and submitted afresh to the Legislatures which had passed them. The Legislature of Van Diemen's Land had amended its original Bill, and he believed the Legislature of South Australia was about to do the same. Why was not the same prudent course resorted to in the

655
other instances? The Government had had sufficient time to take the same course with regard to these Bills, inasmuch as they arrived in this country in 1854, and he regretted very much that they had not done so, for so all the difficulties he had described would have been avoided. Certainly some allowances should be made for the succession of blunders, when it was remembered that during the last twelve months there had been four successive Secretaries of State appointed to administer colonial affairs. Under such circumstances, how could it be expected that colonial legislation would be conducted upon any consistent or efficient system? To that circumstance he attributed it, that no attempt had been made to obtain in the colony of Victoria, by the just and legitimate application of the same principles which had been acted upon in the case of Van Diemen's Land and South Australia, the assent of the colonists themselves to the necessary alterations in the Bills which they had sent over to this country. The Bill for the settlement of waste lands had come too late, for a state of discontent had been produced in the colonies which could not now be remedied. The original mischief had been the adoption of the theory of Mr. Wakefield, and the attempt to fix by law the market price of an article which, like all others, must necessarily fluctuate with the demand and the supply. Land became unsaleable at an upset price of 1l. Licences for occupation and the squatting system followed, and the result was the creation of a monopoly of land, a monopoly of political power, and an aristocratic interest which must throw great difficulties in the way of the colonies, and prevent the land being profitably employed. There was another point to which he wished to direct the attention of the Government. Under the law as it stood, an important privilege was reserved to the Crown in respect to the colony of Australia, the privilege of dividing it hereafter into provinces and new colonies, the privilege which had been acted upon in respect to Victoria, South Australia, Western Australia, and Van Diemen's Land. Great anxiety was felt in the district of Moreton Bay and the northern provinces, lest they should be excluded from similar advantages. He earnestly hoped there was nothing in the present Bill, or in the intentions of the Government, which would divest the Crown of the fullest power of acting on that privilege in other cases as they saw fit. The
656
people of Moreton Bay possessed just as good a right prospectively, to have an independent constitution granted to them as any of the colonies that Parliament was now dealing with. Another point to which he wished to draw the attention of the Government was the manner in which the land and emigration fund had been dealt with. The Legislature of Victoria, in the course it pursued, had violated the law and exceeded the limits of good sense and justice. By an Imperial Act, which no colonial Legislature were competent to repeal, the produce of the sale of waste lands was divided into two portions, one portion being appropriated exclusively to the purposes of emigration. Australia having partaken of the excitement which followed the discovery of gold, and which, to a certain extent, made it a curse instead of a blessing, had forgotten the obligations of that Imperial law, had seized the funds appropriated strictly to emigration, and had applied them to the general expenditure of the colony. The colony itself would be the main sufferer from this unfortunate violation of the law. He wished, then, to know whether the House was to consider that question to be now entirely disposed of, or whether any remedial measure was contemplated by the Government on the subject? Though he had felt it his duty to call the attention of the House to these points, it was not his intention to throw any difficulties in the way of this or the other Bill before the House, knowing as he did the great inconveniencies which would result from postponing the settlement of these important questions.
EARL GRANVILLEsaid, he did not think it necessary to follow his noble Friend through all the topics of the speech which he had just delivered with so much ability and fairness, and in which he had, with the most perfect consistency, rather criticised our former policy than referred to the two Bills to which he had now to ask their Lordships to give a second reading. There were two practical points with, regard to which his noble Friend asked an explanation, and to those only he would refer. The first was, whether it was the intention of the Government to introduce any measure with respect to the misapplication of monies by the colonies derived from the sale of lands? To that question he was unable to give an explicit answer, but he should make it his duty to inform himself upon the point. He did not understand exactly what the charge of misapplication

657
of money turned upon; for, by Sir John Pakington's measure the money was allowed to be dealt with by the colonies, and therefore he did not see how they could be said to have misapplied it. As to the separation of the northern provinces and their erection into a separate colony, if his noble Friend looked to the 6th and 7th clauses of the New South Wales Bill he would find that point fully provided for. His noble Friend spoke of the inconveniences of the changes that had taken place in the Colonial Office; but he did not see that there had been any inconvenience at all. No doubt his noble Friend, who was in possession of a permanent office, felt the great superiority of his position over those who were liable to be changed from day to day; but he, nevertheless, could not show that any inconvenience had in the present instance been caused to the public service. He did not believe that, if there had been any one Colonial Secretary in office during these two years, he would have found it expedient to send these two Bills back again to the colonies, as such a step could hardly have failed to be productive of irritation, while there was no likelihood that any material change would have been consented to by them.
Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly; and committed to a Committee of the whole House on Thursday next.

PLACES OF RELIGIOUS WORSHIP REGISTRATION BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD BROUGHAMin moving the second reading of this Bill said, that by the Toleration Act all Dissenters were exempted from the penalties to which they were subjected under former Acts on condition that their chapels should be kept open during divine service, and be duly certified and registered. In 1812 some alterations were made by Lord Sidmouth's Act, but the present Bill was rendered necessary to correct an error in the Act of 1852, carried by the then Bishop of Salisbury. The object of that Act was to render unneccessary the registry and certificate of Dissenting chapels in the Bishops' Court, the Archdeacon's Court, and the Quarter Sessions, and to transfer the certificate and registry to the Registrar General and his deputies in the provinces. But how was that object accomplished? It was a most marvellous illustration of the absolute necessity, he
658
would not say of a Minister of Justice—for he knew that was a most unpleasant doctrine—but of a Department of Justice, charged with the preparation of Acts of Parliament, for he felt assured that, had such a department existed, the error which he was about to point out to their Lordships never could have been committed. The Act declared that all registries and certificates by the bishop, the archdeacon, and the sessions should be absolutely null and void, and then it said, in lieu thereof, "Let there be a registry and certificate by the Registrar," adding, "and such certificate shall have the same force and effect with a certificate by the bishop, the archdeacon, and the sessions," of which another section of the Act had declared that it was null and void. It turned out that under this Act no less than 6,516 Dissenting chapels had been registered and certified by certificates declared to be null and void, so that all the original penalties were revived against every one of these Dissenting chapels. It might be said the penalties were not in force; but, even admitting that they were harmless, this took place. Under the Act passed in 1836, with respect to civil marriages and marriages in Dissenting chapels, a marriage in a Dissenting chapel was only valid and the issue of that marriage legitimate, when the chapel was licensed; but it could not be licensed unless certified to have been registered, so that every one of these 6,516 chapels were prevented from being legally licensed for the solemnisation of marriages. But several hundreds, and, probably, all of those chapels had been licensed, and the marriages that had taken place in them were null and void—as null and void as the certificates. He must say that, so far as he knew anything of the feeling of Dissenters, they were not at all satisfied with the existing law, or with the law as it would be amended by this Bill, for they could see no reason why certificates should be required in order to exempt them from the penalties of that barbarous code of which at least a remnant unhappily still remained in force. To say that they would bear with Dissenters for doing that which they had as good a right to do as Churchmen, was utterly absurd and inconsistent with the principle upon which they professed to be dealing with Dissenters. They might as well talk of tolerating him in walking across the street, or in entering and leaving his house when he chose, as of suffering a man to worship according to his conscientious

659
convictions. He wished to protest against the views which were entertained on this subject in some quarters, and he begged to move that the Bill be read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.
THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, that undoubtedly the Bill was an exceedingly proper one, and would remedy a great misfortune if in truth marriages in chapels, licensed under the recent Act, were of doubtful validity, in consequence of the defect in the certificate which his noble Friend's construction of the Act would imply. In looking over the Bill, he doubted whether the construction of his noble and learned Friend was correct, for he thought the clause only meant that the certificate should be equal in force with those which used to be granted by the bishop before the passing of the Act of 1852. If, however, there was any doubt on the subject, the Bill ought to pass into law. With regard to what his noble and learned Friend had said on the subject of toleration, he entirely agreed with him, but as regarded registration of chapels, he must insist upon the imperative necessity that those places of worship in which marriages were celebrated should be certain and known; otherwise we might have a similar laxity with regard to marriages as prevailed in Scotland, and that could only be prevented by the registration of places where marriages were solemnized.
LORD BROUGHAMsaid, it must not be supposed that he did not wish places to be registered where marriages took place. His opinion on that point was quite the reverse.
THE DUKE OF ARGYLLsaid, he hoped when the Bill of the noble Earl (the Earl of Shaftesbury) came on, there would be no attempt to confound it with the present Bill, for the two Bills were quite distinct.
THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURYsaid, that Dissenters as well as churchmen were affected by the penalty which his Bill proposed to remove, and they equally desired its removal.
Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Thursday next.

THE DIPLOMATIC SERVICE.
THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDE,in moving "That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, for a Return of all Persons employed in Her Majesty's Diplomatic Service, with the dates of their
660
first Appointments and of their subsequent Promotions," said, he thought it his duty to move for this Return in consequence of numerous attacks having lately been made, both in speeches and in writing, against the diplomatic service of the country. These attacks were most unfair as well as unfounded, and, if ever there was a time when it was injudicious and unpatriotic to depreciate the diplomatic service, he believed it was the present. The objections which had been made against the diplomatic system were twofold: first, that it was radically a bad system; and next, that it was badly conducted and administered. He was no opponent of administrative reform, and he had no doubt that in our diplomatic service there was abundant room for improvement; but at the same time he denied that the present system had worked ill, or that the diplomatic servants of the Crown had not performed their functions creditably, honourably, and usefully. It was said that too great favouritism was exhibited in the appointments which were made, that merit was almost invariably sacrificed to routine, and that no man could rise in the service by study, application, and ability alone. For his own part, he did not believe that merit had been sacrificed to routine, and it was to supply materials for thoroughly inquiring into any case of abuse that might be discovered that he moved for this Return. With regard to the charge that merit was entirely sacrificed to Parliamentary and political influence, he wished to call the attention of their Lordships to the fact, that in the twenty chief diplomatic missions—namely, the two embassies and eighteen first-class missions—the individuals who were now at the head of those missions, had been every one of them in the public service so long ago as the year 1828. That, to his mind, was a primâ facie evidence that persons were enabled to rise in the diplomatic service steadily and regularly, without political and Parliamentary influences preventing them from receiving the highest appointments in the service. The most important post in the diplomatic service was that of Ambassador. There were now only two ambassadors, and he denied that either of these had been appointed by favouritism. He was a member of the Government when the last appointment was made to the Embassy at Paris, and he knew of his own knowledge the great solicitude of his noble Friends then at the head of the Government, and

661
of the Foreign Office (Lord John Russell and Earl Granville) to discover the best man who was suited to the post, and it was not until the most cautious and careful inquiry, that Lord Cowley had been selected for the appointment. Lord Cowley was not selected from motives of family connections or political friendship, but because he was looked upon as the best man who could be found to represent Her Majesty at Paris. No one could deny that Lord Stratford de Redcliffe was appointed to the Embassy at Constantinople because there was no other English subject so thoroughly conversant with Eastern politics, and he believed that the same principle generally guided our diplomatic appointments. He thought the present system was administered with fairness, although he did not say that no appointment was ever made from personal or political influences. But a number of persons would always carp at every appointment, not only in the diplomatic service, but also in the Church, in the army, in the navy, or in any other profession. The diplomatic service of no other country stood higher than our own, and, in his opinion, it had rendered great services to the nation. Many persons thought the duties which the members of that service had to perform were very slight, and some authorities, in their examination before the Committee of the House of Commons on Official Salaries, a few years ago, said, that now the communication between London and Paris was so easy, there was no occasion for any diplomatic agent at Paris, and that the watchfulness of the press was sufficient to keep us in possession of what was going forward abroad. He did not entertain that opinion. He thought, although brilliant abilities might not be necessary, great and peculiar qualifications were required in members of the service. The duty of a diplomatic agent was not merely to record facts, and he denied that the public opinion of foreign countries could be learnt from the press better than from the leading men of those countries. The French Revolution of 1848, was an event with regard to which it was most important that some warning should be received by the Government of this country, and he had referred back to see what trust was to be placed in the opinions expressed by the press upon that subject. The morning papers spared no expense in obtaining the best possible information upon all matters that passed abroad; The Times newspaper, especially,
662
paid gentlemen with the greatest liberality to obtain information to guide their judgment as to what happened in foreign countries, selecting them, of course, not from motives of political bias or personal favour, but as the best men to be procured for that purpose. What was the information given by The Times upon this particular subject? On the first day of the revolution, when the barricades were being erected, the following passages appeared in an article upon the state of Paris:—
"The demonstration and the disturbances which occurred in Paris on Wednesday may occasion a vast deal of public alarm and some deplorable incidents; but we can entertain no doubt that, politically considered, they will tend to increase the strength of the Government and expose the imprudence of the Opposition. … We suspect it will turn out that no serious popular insurrection is even probable. The people have been stirred, but not inflamed. They are shaken, but not irritated; they are unarmed, and no preparations for insurrection had been made. Under such circumstances the result is certain."
This showed that had the British Government been compelled to rely upon the press for information, on the real tone and aspect of affairs at Paris at that time, they would have been most grievously misled; but it so happened that their Minister on the spot was better informed than the newspaper correspondent, and he took care to advise his Government more truly in order that they might be prepared for the impending convulsion. It was said that the intelligence furnished by our diplomatic agents, was not so rapid as that received by other countries. This, however, he doubted; but of this he was certain, that the intelligence transmitted by our agents was more sure than that obtained by other States. Our diplomatic agents might not all be men of extraordinary sagacity, but they were all honest and faithful servants of the Crown, who did their duty well. Whatever might have led to the present war, certainly it was not owing to our diplomatic service. Sir Hamilton Seymour repeatedly warned our Government, both of the designs of Russia upon Turkey, and also of the large armaments she was collecting. Colonel Rose gave similar intimations; Lord Cowley kept our Cabinet perfectly informed of the intentions and wishes of the French Government; and Lord Stratford de Redcliffe urgently pressed on his Government the necessity of instant preparations for war, unless they desired to see Turkey handed over permanently to the predominant influence of Russia. Therefore, our diplomatic agents,

663
instead of deserving blame, were entitled to the thanks of the country for their vigilant conduct. The position which they had to fill was neither easy nor lucrative, and the surrender of all the ties of home and of friendship which they were imperatively called upon to make, could only be compensated by the acquisition of honour and reputation. If, however, there was any case in which blame could fairly be imputed, be it that of an Attaché or a Minister, let it be fully sifted and investigated, and the blame justly distributed; but, surely, the whole service ought not to be disgusted and degraded in the eyes of Europe, by being indiscriminately aspersed and vilified. The noble Marquess concluded by moving for the Return.
THE EARL OF CLARENDON: My Lords, I do so entirely concur in everything that has fallen from my noble Friend in reference to the diplomatic servants of the Crown, and the manner in which they have performed their duties, that it would be an unnecessary waste of your Lordships' time were I to go over the same ground and use the same arguments as he has used to establish the same conclusion. I can say from my own knowledge—and from my knowledge of the opinions of my predecessors in office, I am quite sure that they will concur with me in so saying—that the British interests abroad are represented by the diplomatic servants of the Crown in a manner that does us very great credit; and that our international relations through the instrumentality of our foreign Ministers are maintained in a manner which is not only advantageous to this country, but which will be satisfactory to any one who has the means and the disposition to inquire into such matters, and who do not suppose, simply because the correspondence and proceedings with our foreign agents are not necessarily brought before the public, that therefore those international relations are not maintained in a proper manner. Whenever the necessity for the production of that correspondence and proceedings has arisen, I do not think it any exaggeration to say that the manner in which our foreign agents act upon their instructions, and act for themselves when they are unavoidably left without any instructions, is shown to be such as generally to fulfil the expectations and requirements of the country; and that the making known their proceedings to Parliament gives the best, because the most practical, refutation of those doubts and
664
censures which have been, and are constantly made upon this particular branch of the public service. I quite concur with my noble Friend, that it is impossible that in a large body like the diplomatic body there should not be some men who possessed greater diligence and talents than others, and who have shown themselves more fit for particular posts than others; but I do say that, generally speaking, the interests of Great Britain abroad are represented fully as well, if not better, by our agents than by those of any other country; and that our interests are advanced and promoted not only with zeal and ability, but with that honourable and truthful straightforwardness of purpose which I hope will always be the leading feature of English policy, as it is of the English character. My noble Friend has not alluded to the consular service; but I should not be doing justice to a very large and deserving body of men if I did not testify to their merits and to the manner in which they perform their duties, which are often extremely arduous, and which always require great tact, great judgment, and extensive knowledge. I am sure that my predecessors in office will concur with what I say in reference to the consuls as well as in reference to the foreign Ministers, but I am perhaps in a more favourable position than any of my predecessors to speak of them, because in a state of war new duties have been imposed upon these bodies, which call for a greater amount of ability, tact, and knowledge, than is required by the duties of a time of peace. Your Lordships may judge of that when I say that the correspondence which has been received at the Foreign Office from abroad in 1853 amounted to 35,000 separate communications, and in 1854 to 48,000. I have always exercised my best abilities in reference to the business that passes through the Foreign Office; nothing is received there from abroad which does not obtain my attention, and nothing proceeds thence for which I do not consider myself responsible. Now, with reference to all that mass of correspondence, the instances in which it has been my agreeable duty to express satisfaction, and convey the approval of Her Majesty's Government, have been very frequent indeed; and the instances in which an opposite opinion has been expressed have been of extremely rare occurrence. As representing Her Majesty's Government, I think I cannot give a better

665
proof of the satisfactory way in which our diplomatic and consular duties abroad have been performed than what that simple fact affords. As my noble Friend says, it would be invidious to allude to particular persons by name; but I agree with him that there is a great majority of our diplomatic servants abroad who are the right men in the right places; and that there are not any men that any Administrative Reform Association could give us, who would perform the function in a more satisfactory manner. My Lords, one of the great charges brought against the diplomatic service of this country is, that it is too aristocratic; now, that is a charge that is really somewhat vague, or at least which conveys no definite meaning. It is extremely difficult—and I rejoice that it is extremely difficult—to say what is aristocracy in this country, or where it begins, and where it ends. It would be absurd to say that the aristocracy is confined to your Lordships' House, to the bearers of titles, or to the branches of your Lordships' families, because there are names of which this country will ever be proud, and which will occur to every one of your Lordships—names of men of what is called humble origin, but who, by their talents and enterprise, have raised themselves to positions in which they are now fulfilling all the conditions of aristocracy, and who have more power and influence than the great majority of your Lordships. There are none of these men whose claims to have their sons attached to a foreign embassy would be disputed by any one; only they are far too wise to seek to place the members of their family in such a barren and unremunerative position. But, my Lords, there are some members of your Lordships' House who are occupying high posts in the diplomatic service. My noble Friend has instanced two, and I should like to know whether these two diplomatists could have their places filled by persons more capable than they of properly discharging the duties of their offices? Her Majesty's Minister in Spain had long been known in the profession before the Sovereign rewarded his father for his long services by giving him a title. Was his career in diplomacy to be cut short because he has inherited the title which his father had so honourably gained? The distinguished services of Her Majesty's ambassador at Constantinople, are too well known to your Lordships to require any comment; and nothing could be more true
666
than what my noble Friend said in reference to Lord Cowley, who held a title which was conferred upon his father for long diplomatic services, and who had gone through all the different grades of diplomacy before he was selected by my noble Friend behind me to discharge the duties of an inferior mission to Frankfort, because he thought him the man most fit for the place. From that time to the present, his conduct has answered all the expectations formed of him, and has amply justified the opinion of those who selected him afterwards as the best person to represent the interests of England at Paris. Indeed, the whole course of Lord Cowley's conduct has fully justified the choice of my noble Friend, and it is in a great measure to his judgment, talent, and tact, that we are now indebted for the harmonious relations that exist between the two countries under somewhat difficult circumstances. There are also a few "honourables" in the service, and this is made a charge against it. I am at a loss to imagine why certain English gentlemen, upon whose education no care or expense has been spared, should not be permitted, in conjunction with others equally, but not more capable than themselves, to serve without salary until they become fit to be pampered upon a salary of 200 l. a year. But, my Lords, there is now a cry for reducing those salaries, and for reducing the number of our diplomatic servants abroad, more particularly with reference to the missions to the German Courts. My Lords, I should at any time sincerely regret to destroy the hopes of men who have served for many years, and who look to those missions as the legitimate reward of their labours; but for public and political reasons I should regret to see those missions abolished, and more especially at the present moment, because such a proceeding would only tend to strengthen and confirm an unfortunate error that now prevails in Germany with respect to the indifference, not to say the hostile feeling, which is supposed to exist in England towards the Courts of Germany. Our endeavours should be to create confidence in the policy of the English Government and of the English people towards Germany; and I am sure that we are well entitled to that confidence. There is now a large proportion of the German prints that are actively engaged in representing the policy of England as hostile to the interests of Germany; and the result is, that a feeling

667
of estrangement has grown up towards this country in the minds of the people of Germany which ought not to exist, and to which we should endeavour to put an end. We have no claim and no wish to interfere with the internal affairs of other countries, but we have a right, and we are justified in guarding ourselves against hostile misrepresentations. It is by constant interference and diplomatic agency that Russia has acquired that prodigious influence in Germany which really renders some of the German states more like outlying dependencies of the Russian empire than anything else, and has almost constituted the Emperor of Russia their Suzerain, instead of their being independent States. We cannot contend with Russia in the decorations and snuff-boxes which are scattered through Germany in such degraded profusion, but we can contend with her in everything where truth is concerned, and in everything which really affects the interests of the German people. We can show that people, by our acts, that our interests are identical—that we have no wish to see Germany weakened by disunion, or prevented from taking that part in European affairs which becomes them, and to which they are entitled by the intellect, enlightenment, and courage of the German people. We can show a hearty sympathy in all her progress, in art, in science, in education, and in liberal institutions to which the German mind is now directed; and I must say, my Lords, that if we were to abolish those four or five inferior German missions it would be to proclaim to all Germany that we do not think it worth while to retain her friendship or her alliance. Why, we should leave the field open and unopposed to our enemies throughout the Continent, and I am convinced that it would be an ungenerous and short-sighted policy, which, whether we are at peace or whether we are at war, would not be long in making us experience its bad effects. My Lords, I thank you for the attention with which you have listened to me. Of course, there can be no objection to the returns my noble Friend has moved for, and when they are ready I shall be able to answer any questions to which they may give rise. I hope then to be able to show that, so far as I am concerned, I have done all in my power, as my predecessors have done before me, to find the right men for the right places, independent of private influence and Parliamentary motives.
EARL GRANVILLE: My Lords, shall be very brief in the remarks I am going to make on the present occasion, as they will all be of an entirely personal character. In another place, which it would not be right of me to mention, there was made what may have appeared to be a personal attack on myself, which I was glad to learn was not intentionally made—by a Gentleman from whom I had the advantage of receiving some useful assistance when I was Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. The hon. Gentleman to whom I refer made an attack on the diplomatic and consular service, and stated that he was able to speak of the state of the diplomatic service, for he had himself been in the diplomatic service, and also in the Foreign Office during my administration. One great charge which was made was this—that promotions in the diplomatic service were owing to favouritism; and the obvious inference to be drawn from this—as the hon. Member spoke of his experience having been gained while under me in the Foreign Office—was, that the promotions made by me were made on account of favouritism. I am, however, happy to state that the hon. Member says that it was not his intention to make such a charge against me, for he had no objection to the appointments made by me, as they were excellent. One appointment which I made, and which has been invidiously mentioned in the other House, was that of the son of the noble Marquess—Hubert de Burgh; but I do not think it necessary to apologise either to the country or your Lordships for giving an appointment to the grandson of Mr. Canning. The other appointment which I made was sanctioned by my colleagues, but suggested by me—I allude to Lord Cowley's appointment. I had no political motives in appointing the noble Lord, for he declined giving his proxy to the Government. My acquaintance with him was very short; but I knew the liberal opinions which he held with regard to foreign affairs, and judging from his despatches of his good sense and judgment, I considered him the best man for the appointment. The noble Earl has referred to the title of Lord Cowley, and it appeared to me that it was an advantage that the noble Lord had a title, which was not only gained by diplomatic services, but which was associated in the minds of the majority of Parisians with a character of unblemished honour and great straightforwardness. Then there was another

669
other appointment I made of great importance—that of our Minister to the United States. I was not actuated in this by any political or class feeling when I gave this appointment to the son of an eminent surgeon; but by the opinion I had formed of him from his despatches—by the recommendation of my noble Friend, who did not ask for the appointment as a favour, but recommended the gentleman I allude to as the fittest man for the place. I may mention, before I conclude, that, with regard to the question of administrative reform, we are a little in advance of my Friend Mr. Layard. Some time ago when I found it necessary to communicate with Lord Burlington, who is at the head of the London University, with respect to the educational test to be required of candidates, my opinion on this subject was somewhat, though only slightly, shaken by Mr. Layard, who then objected to any educational test whatsoever. Since last year a plan has been proposed for throwing open the appointments to the civil service to open competition—this plan was proposed by the Gentlemen connected with the Treasury, and sanctioned by the late Chancellor of the Exchequer. This plan, whatever its other defects may be, has the advantage of cutting off all hopes of appointments through favouritism; and I believe that those who have spoken in favour of this are only the noble Duke near me, myself, and the noble Lord who but lately joined the Government. I am glad, however, to see that Mr. Layard has taken up this question, with respect to which we are, as in the rest, a little in advance of him.
THE EARL OF MALMESBURYsaid, that from his experience he could confirm that his noble Friends were fully justified in every word of eulogy they had expressed with reference to those who were engaged in our diplomatic service throughout the world. Mr. Layard was a living proof that the statesmen of the present day, so far as the patronage of the Foreign Office was concerned, did not neglect merit. When Lord Derby came into power, Mr. Layard was about to quit office along with the noble Earl opposite; but the first instructions which he (the Earl of Malmesbury) received from Lord Derby were to invite that Gentleman to remain at his post until some other arrangements were made, coupling that invitation with an assurance that he should then be promoted in the diplomatic profession, to which he had formerly belonged. Therefore, Mr.
670
Layard should be the last man in the world to say that "the right man" was not put in "the right place," so far as the Foreign Office was concerned. During the time that he (the Earl of Malmesbury) held the seals of the Foreign Department he had given some attention to the important subject of education, and a plan of examination for candidates of the diplomatic service had been drawn up in the Foreign Office; but he felt perfectly convinced that, whatever system of examination might be adopted, the Secretary of State ought to be the only person to judge whom he would employ in this or that post. It was impossible for any man to undertake a position of such enormous responsibility without having the power to appoint under him those men whom he thought best qualified for the service. Nothing could be more disheartening to the head of a great department than to have Commissioners appointing his servants independently of him, and yet to be held responsible to Parliament for failure in carrying out his plans, when the instruments appointed to execute them were men not chosen by himself.
THE EARL OF HARDWICKEsaid, that nothing had struck him more forcibly, in reference to the diplomatic service, than the circumstance that, though it was called a profession, yet it was not regarded as a profession. It very frequently occurred that men of rank were taken from the military and naval services, from the ordinary civil service, and, in fact, from no service at all, to be sent on important missions, being thus put into the places that ought to be the legitimate prizes, as they were the legitimate objects, of ambition to the members of the profession properly so called. As a professional man that struck him as being very hard to the members of the diplomatic service. No doubt it was necessary that the Government should have this power, as they might not be able on an occasion to find just the man they wanted for a particular post in the ranks of the diplomatic service. The noble Lords who had preceded him seemed to think that the diplomatic service was entirely free from all party bias; but, in truth, the whole system of our Government was one party. He did not complain of this, for it was natural that the great parties by whom the country was governed should desire to choose their own servants, but he maintained that the profession ought to be kept free from all such considerations. He did not know what might be the case with

671
regard to other professions, but Governments of late years had certainly taken upon themselves to select men by favouritism in the profession to which he belonged—the navy.
Motion agreed to.
Then the EARL OF HARDWICKE Then the EARL OF HARDWICKE moved—
"That there be laid before this House, Copy of a Memorial from the Melbourne Chamber of Commerce, urging on the Postmaster General the Importance of immediately re-establishing Postal Steam Communication with Australia."
Motion agreed to.
House adjourned till To-morrow.