Lords Sitting of 5 June 1856

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1a Sherburn Hospital; Endowed School at Moulton; Magdalen Hospital (Bath); Stoke Poges Hospital; Judicial Procedure, &c. (Scotland).
2a Hay and Straw Trade.
3a Peace Preservation (Ireland); Reformatory Schools (Scotland); National Gallery.
ROYAL ASSENT—Annuities (No. 2); Bankers' Compositions; Fire Insurances.

RELATIONS WITH THE UNITED STATES —REPORTED DISMISSAL OF THE BRITISH MINISTER.
THE EARL OF HARDWICKEsaid, that their Lordships were aware that a public journal, which was supposed to possess the confidence of Government, had stated that Mr. Crampton, Her Majesty's Minister at Washington, had been summarily dismissed from the country to which he was accredited. He was sure the Government could not for a moment suppose that such an announcement would be heard in this country without affecting the minds of every one. He begged to ask whether Her Majesty's Government would confirm the statement that Mr. Crampton was on his passage home?
EARL GRANVILLE: My Lords, in reply to the noble Earl, I can only say that I have not seen the statement in the papers to which he refers, and I am not
950
aware that any official information to that effect has reached Her Majesty's Government.

THE LIMITED LIABILITY BILL— PETITION.
LORD OVERSTONE presented a petition from the Manchester Commercial Association for the repeal of the Limited Liability Bill, as being a measure which would lead to excessive speculation, which would damage the commercial character of the country, and which contained no provision against reckless trading on the part of the managers of companies which might be formed under the Act.
LORD DENMANsaid, as the noble Lord was in his place, he wished to contradict a statement made by him some time since, that the supporters of the first Limited Liability Bill had been none but Members of this House connected with Her Majesty's Government. He begged to say that he had given an independent vote, and had agreed to some of the Amendments proposed in the Bill, which he had partly supported, because he thought it would be injurious to the country for it to be known that Her Majesty's Government, when engaged in war, were defeated on almost the only measure of internal improvement which they had attempted to carry. He believed that the Bill, with those restrictions, would be a very good Bill; and he regretted that more time had not been taken for it—but that was impossible; and he begged to repeat it, that he would not be the servile adherent of this or any other Administration.

THE APPELLATE JURISDICTION (HOUSE OF LORDS) BILL.
Amendment reported, according to order.
THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, it had been suggested in Committee that an Amendment should be made to enable persons who had filled the office of Lord Chancellor to be appointed Deputy Speakers under this Act, although they had not held judicial appointments for five years.
LORD REDESDALEobjected to the Amendment. He thought it was important for the House to retain the services of the independent law Lords who now attended the hearing of the appeals. The new Deputy Speakers were intended to assist them, and supply their unavoidable

951
absence, and not as a substitute for them.
The Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF MINTOobjected to certain portions of the 6th clause, on the ground that they were calculated to limit unduly the prerogative of the Crown, moved a series of verbal amendments with the view of obviating his objections; and to add the following new proviso:—
"Provided always that nothing herein contained shall be construed as restricting or otherwise affecting the exercise of the Royal Prerogative, such as it existed prior to the passing of this Act."
EARL GRANVILLEdid not believe that the House of Lords had a right by itself, or by any mere Resolution of its; own, to decide the question of prerogative. Nevertheless, practically the House did decide it, because if their Lordships resolved not to admit a life Peer, a life Peer could not be forced upon the House. Such being the anomalous state of affairs, it appeared to him that the best thing to be done was for the three powers of the realm to come to a unanimous decision as to what the practice should be for the future. It could not be denied that the Crown had abandoned a portion of its prerogative in consenting to the introduction of the present Bill. At the same time the House had made a great concession, after declaring that life Peerages were unconstitutional, in admitting that a limited number should sit in that House. Such a mutual arrangement having been arrived at it would be undesirable to disturb it.
LORD CAMPBELLexpressed his satisfaction at what had just fallen from the President of the Council, and observed that it was no more than he had expected from the high an honourable character of the noble Earl.
THE EARL OF WICKLOWsaid, that there were many things which astonished him with regard to this Bill. He had heard, for example, that a compromise had been entered into in regard to it; but by whom, he asked, had that compromise been made? for certainly that House had never entered into any compromise. The effect of the Bill would be to cut down and impair the prerogative of the Crown. The noble Marquess, who was not now present (the Marquess of Lansdowne), had stated on a previous evening that no consideration should induce him to support this Bill if in any manner it infringed the prerogative of the
952
Crown. The noble and learned Lord on the woolsack had stated upon the same occasion that it would In no way affect the prerogative; but now they were told by the noble Earl the President of the Council that it was intended to limit the prerogative of the Crown. It appeared, therefore, that they were now about to pass a Bill which, though intended, no doubt, for a good and important purpose, contained provisions of great stringency, as to the effect of which different members of the Government held views utterly at variance with one another. He reminded their Lordships that they were about to launch this Bill on the stormy sea of the House of Commons; and it behoved them thoroughly to understand its nature and purport before sending it down to that House. He trusted that the noble Earl would persevere in the Amendments which he had proposed.
THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, the arguments of others had been imputed to him as his own in the course of the debates upon that subject. It would be recollected that a proviso had been proposed that nothing should be introduced into the Bill that would affect the prerogative of the Crown. It was then said by certain noble Lords that if there was no prerogative upon that point, the proviso would not affect it. But he (the Lord Chancellor) had never said there was no prerogative; on the contrary, he believed there was until that Bill should have passed. He could not say, therefore, that the proviso would be useless; but he thought that fair dealing required that the Bill should pass in its present form.
LORD DENMANsaid, he must remark that noble Lords spoke of law peerages as if they were to be obtained by lawyers as easily as blackberries from every hedge; but even the late Lord Tenterden was nine years Lord Chief Justice of England before he was made a Peer, and he did not believe that his opinions were less regarded in their Lordships' House during those nine years than in the five subsequent years, in which he was a Peer. With regard to Lord Wensleydale's title, he hoped it would be fully understood that it was the reward for past services and not a gage for future exertions. With regard to his father, he knew how highly he valued the honour of a peerage, and the magnanimity of the Monarch who conferred it upon him, and he should be

953
happy at once to show the correspondence upon the subject to any noble Lord interested in it, though not to read it for general publication at present. His father had considered it the greatest honour which it was in the power of the Crown to bestow. With regard to the present measure, he was so convinced that it would satisfy no one, that he would move it be next considered or read a third time that day three months.
THE LORD CHANCELLORobserved that such a Motion could not be made on bringing up the Report.
LORD DENMANsaid, he would move on the debate, as to the third reading—that it be read a third time that day three months and divide the House upon it.
Amendment withdrawn.
Bill to be read 3a To-morrow.

BURIAL-GROUND, BLANDFORD—NON-CONSECRATION OF BURIAL GROUNDS.
THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURY presented a petition of Parishioners of Blandford Forum complaining of the non-consecration of the new burial-ground by the Bishop of the Diocese, and praying for the amendment of the 32nd section of the 15 & 16 Vict. c. 85. The noble Earl said that the present case might not in itself be one of great importance, but it became a matter of serious consideration when they bore in mind that there were many more cemeteries which had been erected in the same circumstances and under the authority of the same Act with that of Blandford, and it was therefore necessary some decision should be come to in order to avoid a great deal of inconvenience and public scandal. Their Lordships would recollect some years ago, in consequence of some apprehensions which existed on the subject of intramural interments, an Act was passed with the view of providing a remedy for the evils that prevailed. By that Act power was given to the Government to close, by an Order in Council, existing burying-grounds, and the persons who had the charge of those burying-grounds were required to construct other graveyards and to build chapels within which might be celebrated the burial-service according to the rites of the Church of England, provision also being made for the service being conducted according to the views of the Nonconformists. The petitioners now before their Lordships stated that they had complied with all the requirements of the Act—that they had
954
formed a graveyard and constructed a chapel for the purpose of having performed in it a burial-service according to the rites of the Church of England, the old graveyard of the parish having been closed by an Order in Council. They complained, however, that the diocesan refused to consecrate the new ground because a communion table had not been set up in the chapel for the celebration of the Lord's Supper. Now, their Lordships would observe that these cemetery chapels were entirely the creatures of the Act to which he had referred, the 15 & 16 Vict., c. 85, having had no existence before, and were scarcely known to the civil or ecclesiastical law; and therefore they were to be dealt with within the four corners of the statute which created them; and it appeared to him that the refusal of the Bishop to consecrate in this case arose from a complete misapprehension of the law. In the first place, it would be found, on reference to the rubric, that there was no necessity for a chapel at all for the performance of the burial-service; these chapels had been constructed for purposes of decency and convenience and to afford shelter during inclement weather. By the 16th and 17th sections of the Act it was provided—
"It shall be lawful for any burial-board to build on any land to be purchased or appropriated for a burial-ground, under this act, and according to a plan to be approved of by the Bishop of the diocess, a chapel for the performance of the burial-service according to the rites of the United Church of England and Ireland; and such burial-ground may be consecrated by the bishop of the diocess, when the same shall appear to him to be in a fit and proper condition for the purpose of interment according to the rites of the United Church."
The Act was precise in limiting the purpose of the chapel to the performance of the burial-service according to the rites of the United Church of England and Ireland, and it provided that the ground might be consecrated by the Bishop when such should appear to him to be in a fit condition for the purpose of interment with such rites. It said nothing about consecrating the chapel, but only the burying-ground, when approved by the Bishop. Now, to show the intention of the Legislature, and that this was no haphazard arrangement, but designed to exclude these chapels from consecration, he would shortly state the history of the Act. In 1850 he was a Member of the Board of Health, which presented a very long Report, recommending the construction of

955
cemeteries, and the erection of chapels in these cemeteries for the performance of the funeral service. The Board, however, made one recommendation which the Legislature did not approve. They said,—
"We recommend that in every cemetery there be a part consecrated, … and that in the consecrated part there be erected a church adapted to the purpose, and fitted also for full service according to the doctrine and discipline of the Church of England."
The intention of the Board was that in each of the new cemeteries a chapel should be erected in which the full and complete service of the Church of England, including the administration of the sacraments, could be performed. The Government of the day adopted the recommendation of the Board on that subject, aud the 8th clause of the Bill which was proposed provided:—
"It shall be lawful for the said Board to build in every such burial-ground a chapel for the performance of service according to the rites of the United Church of England and Ireland."
The House of Commons took great offence at that proposition, and some hon. Gentlemen declared that it contemplated a system of church extension under the pretence of carrying out the views of the Board. The Bill was committed pro formâ, to receive amendments, and the following clause was introduced:—
"It shall be lawful to build in every such burial-ground a suitable chapel for the performance of burial-service according to the rites of the Church of England and Ireland."
Their Lordships would observe that, although provision was made for the erection of chapels, not a word was said about their consecration; and he thought, therefore, it was evidently the intention of the Legislature that these chapels should be used simply and solely for the performance of the burial-service, and that they should not receive consecration which would fit them for the performance of all the rites and ordinances of the Established Church. If the cemetery chapels were consecrated according to the existing forms of consecration, the provisions of the statute would be directly violated, because by the terms of the statute those chapels were excluded from consecration, which ceremony was to apply simply to the burial-grounds. He thought it was perfectly clear from the consecration service now used, that that service was only intended for buildings in which the full services of the Church of
956
England were to be performed. In 1712 a form of consecration was drawn up by the Upper House of Convocation; it was sent down to the Lower House, and, although it never received the Royal assent, it was, according to Burns' Ecclesiastical Law, the form in general use. That form, however, provided for the administration of the Communion, and it was evidently intended to be used only for the consecration of churches or chapels in which the full services of the Church of England were to be performed. In 1712 a separate service was appointed for the consecration of graveyards, in which no mention of the Lord's Supper occurred, but it was simply said, "The ordinary service for the day shall be read at the church, except when it is otherwise ordered," and then a few additions were prescribed. He was aware it might be said that a Bishop in drawing up a form of consecration could adopt any form he chose; but that discretion applied only to buildings which were intended for the full performance of the rites and ceremonials of the Church of England, and not to the mode of consecrating graveyards. In 1712 the Upper House of Convocation recommended a form for the "consecration of a churchyard singly," apart from the church, and that form, as he had stated, did not contain a word about the administration of the Lord's Supper. The Act of Parliament provided that the graveyards should be consecrated, but excluded the cemetery chapels from consecration; and it was evident that, when the form of consecration of 1712—which was the basis of all forms now used—was drawn up, the administration of the Lord's Supper at the consecration of a graveyard was not contemplated. What, then, could be the use of setting up in cemetery chapels communion tables at which the Lord's Supper could be administered only once? He understood that the burial-board and the parishioners of Blandford were ready to comply with the wish of the Bishop for the erection of a communion table in the cemetery chapel, as a matter of request; but they protested against being called upon to submit to an episcopal mandate for the erection of a communion table for which they saw no necessity:—they said that if they yielded in this matter they did not know to what lengths they might not be asked to go on some future occasion. The petitioners prayed, therefore, that their Lordships would take into consideration

957
the provisions of the Act of Parliament, with the view of relieving them from an episcopal mandate which, in their opinion, was not justified by law.
THE BISHOP OF SALISBURYsaid, he did not rise to address their Lordships for the first time on a matter personal to himself without some embarrassment. He felt deeply concerned that the prayer of the petitioners had been supported by the noble Earl, whom he greatly admired for the interest he took in all good works, and whose sympathy and co-operation—the noble Earl being one of the most influential laymen in his diocese—he was most anxious to obtain. But he (the Bishop of Salisbury) thought he would be able to show the noble Earl and the House, that the petitioners had no cause of complaint against him; but that if there was any ground of complaint it was on his own side. In 1853, an Act of Parliament was passed relating to burials beyond the limits of the metropolis, and with that Act certain provisions of former Acts were incorporated, which gave a power to Bishops with reference to the fitness of burial-grounds for consecration and to the plans of chapels. In this case, no difference whatever had arisen between the burial-board and himself with regard to the burial-ground, although all the arrangements connected with that ground were not precisely what he could have desired; but very great difficulties had occurred with respect to the cemetery chapel. Some persons—and the noble Earl apparently—looked upon such chapels merely as receiving chapels—as buildings intended to afford shelter to the clergymen and mourners during the performance of the burial-service. But he (the Bishop of Salisbury) took a different view of the matter. The words of the Act declared the chapel to be for the celebration of the burial-service of the United Church of England and Ireland; and part of that service had to be performed in the chapel. The question relating to these buildings was undoubtedly a new one, and when he was placed over his diocese he had some difficulty in determining how to deal with them. Lord Coke laid it down distinctly that the law took no cognisance of any church or chapel until it had been consecrated. The edifices in which the burial-service of the Church was performed were therefore not mere shelters from the blast, but places which required consecration. A difficulty, however, arose as to
958
how they were to be consecrated, there being no form prescribed for the purpose, and the Act of Parliament restricting the use of the chapels to the performance of the burial-service alone. Still, in coming to a decision on the matter, he was not left wholly without precedent. He had for his guide the practice of his venerated predecessor, who was in the habit of including the celebration of the Holy Communion in the form of consecration which he adopted. The form drawn up in 1712, to which the noble Earl had alluded, also comprised the Holy Communion; and that eminent man, Bishop Andrewes, invariably treated that rite as an essential part of the ceremonial of consecration. Moreover, according to the canon law, it was a grave question whether the solemnisation of the Lord's Supper was not of the substance of the act of consecration. In the first place, then, he held that these chapels ought to be consecrated, and next, that in their consecration the Holy Communion should be celebrated. In the exercise of the discretion reposed in him as Bishop, he had made this principle the rule in his diocess. That being so, it was obvious that a communion table was indispensable for these buildings. He had had twelve other cases like the present to deal with, in none of which had the slightest unkindly or jarring feeling been excited between him and the burial-boards; and he might therefore appeal to their Lordships, whether he was a likely person to dispose of matters of this kind in an overbearing or dictatorial spirit. Several letters had passed between him and the burial-board of Blandford and the noble Lord (Lord Portman) on the subject, and these letters, he thought, would prove that he had acted in no such spirit in this matter. A communication having been made to his secretary last year, to the effect that the plans of the Blandford burial-board were prepared, he immediately replied that there ought to be a table in the chapel to enable the rite of consecration to be duly performed. The answer sent to this by the secretary of the burial-board was, that there would be no difficulty in meeting the wishes of the Bishop. Subsequently, however, his secretary received from the board the copy of a resolution which it had agreed to. The petitioners had complained of his conduct towards them; yet their own resolution was hardly so courteous, or, he might say, so dutiful towards their Bishop as it ought to have been. They remonstrated with him for

959
imposing heavy additional expenses on the ratepayers by his plan, especially as the chapel was intended for such limited uses, and not for Divine service generally. This was the way in which his simple requisition for the means of duly performing the act of consecration according to the dictates of his judgment and conscience as a Bishop of the Church was met by the burial-board. On the 17th of September he received a letter from a noble Lord (Lord Portman), accusing him of creating disturbance where there had always been harmony, and of pursuing a course calculated to increase the growing tendency to disparage episcopal consecration. The letter also pointed out that a persistance in his plan might interfere with the noble Lord's rights as patron of a neighbouring living, and it concluded by entreating him to reconsider his proposal.
The right rev. Prelate then read extracts from the correspondence between himself and the noble Lord. In his reply, he (the Bishop of Salisbury) defended the view he took of the nature of consecration; maintaining that his recommendation to the burial-board in regard to the fitting of the chapel, was moderate and reasonable; promising to seek advice on certain of the points raised by the noble Lord; and expressing a hope that the noble Lord would, on a fuller consideration of the case, be induced to place his powerful local influence on the side of episcopal authority. The noble Lord had a case drawn up and submitted to legal opinion; and the noble Lord's own legal advisers advised him that, inasmuch as the ceremony of consecration contemplated that the chapel should be limited to burial-service, they were satisfied that the precise form of the consecration could not give to the ceremony a more extended application. This being the case, he had indulged a hope that the controversy would then terminate, and that the whole matter in dispute would be amicably arranged. This expectation was unfortunately falsified by the event. A meeting, at which the noble Lord (Lord Portman) delivered a very irritating speech, was held at Blandford, and resulted in a resolution that a request should again be made to him (the Bishop of Salisbury) to consecrate the ground in another form than that which he believed in his conscience to be the right one, and without the celebration of Holy Communion. To that application he could not assent, and his reasons for declining to do so he explained most fully
960
in a letter which he addressed to the Secretary of the Blandford burial-board. That letter was written in the month of February; and shortly after its receipt another proposal was made to him, to the effect that, cutting off the large portion of the ground in which the building stood, he should consecrate the remainder. To that request, also, he was unable to accede, because the parish church was so far from the cemetery that it Would be impossible to perform that portion of the burial-service which was required to be performed in a church or chapel, and considerable dissatisfaction would not fail to be occasioned by the feeling that the funeral ceremony had been celebrated in an incomplete and defective manner. This unfortunate controversy had caused him deep pain, but he had been influenced throughout by the purest motives, and had acted from first to last under the conscientious conviction, which he still retained, that chapels, even though they should be strictly limited to the uses and purposes of the burial service, ought to be consecrated, and that the proper method of consecrating them was by administering the Holy Communion within their walls. This conviction furnished the main motive of his conduct; but he frankly owned that there was another consideration which, though not a matter of principle, had had some influence in forming his judgment on this subject. All Churchmen, having suffered a great loss by the separation of their church-yards from their parish churches, were naturally desirous that, in committing the bodies of their friends to the earth, the ceremony should be surrounded as much as possible by the circumstances ordinarily characteristic of the burial-service prescribed by their religion, and that the sacred edifice in which such service was performed should not look like a meetinghouse, but rather resemble a chapel of the Church of England. There was another view of the question which ought not to be disregarded. Though by the sentence of consecration these chapels were limited to the uses of the burial-service, it might become desirable that, should they become the centres of large populations (and he had already heard of two such instances), with the consent of the burial-board, and under the licence of the Bishop, a clergyman might hereafter perform in them all the services of the Established Church. Very probably such a circumstance would not arise in Blandford; but he had himself

961
received applications from the clergymen of cemetery chapels elsewhere, praying to be allowed to use the chapels for the accommodation of the populations which were already springing up around the cemeteries. In contemplation of such a contingency, it was manifestly desirable that the architectural arrangements of the chapel should be such as to allow the building to be applied to such purposes without incurring the necessity of making alterations. Since he had entered the House that evening, he had been informed by the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Shaftesbury) that if he would only address to the Blandford burial-board a request that they would accede to his views, they would at once do so. This was the first time that he had received any such intimation, and as he was not struggling for any point of personal dignity, but simply for that which he regarded as a question of principle, he would not hesitate to say that he was perfectly ready to make such a request. He had never wished to dictate to the board. He had desired to act towards them with perfect courtesy; and, as a man and a Christian minister, he should have been ashamed if all this discord had been created by the mere tone of his correspondence. He would leave it to their Lordships to say whether that correspondence was at all discourteous. For himself, he could only say that he had intended it to be quite the reverse. He had no objection to write again to the burial-board, as the noble Earl had suggested, asking them to accede to his request; and he hoped this would lead to a satisfactory termination of the matter. With him, this was no question of church ornament, but one affecting a vital principle—the testimony of the whole of Christendom to the right method of a Bishop discharging his duties. He had no objection to be the servant of all men; but he must remember that he had a higher duty to perform. With this assurance he trusted that the controversy would terminate, and that peace and good will would be restored.
LORD PORTMANsaid, he regretted that the right rev. Prelate should have unfortunately introduced a matter of personal, and somewhat local interest into the discussion of the question then under the consideration of the House. The question is one of grave importance, as it is in truth whether the Bishop is to interpret a law in a way that no lawyer can do, and
962
to found on such view, a question of conscience which the law did not contemplate as possible to arise under the enactment. But he must be excused for saying that the statements of the right rev. Prelate had not taken any persons by surprise who had heard or read the charge which he had lately delivered to the clergy of his diocese, in which he had alluded in a very high tone to the duties and prerogatives of the Bishops; and he regretted to find that the right rev. Prelate seemed disposed to carry out the views he had therein expressed by overt acts.
THE BISHOP OF SALISBURYrequested the noble Lord to point out the views of his to which he referred.
LORD PORTMANsaid, that the question had been regarded by the petitioners, the inhabitants of Blandford, not so much as a question of law and expediency as an attempt to exercise that extreme episcopal authority asserted by the right rev. Prelate. The right rev. Prelate, in a portion of his charge, said that he was about to take certain means which he would recommend to his clergy for improving the training of the clergy, and of bringing the laity to consider the true bearing of Church questions; in other words, to subject the laity to a tyranny which he would impose through the medium of his Rural Deans. Again, he says "he will not leave the music and spiritual songs in his diocese in their present unauthorised state, but is preparing a Hymnal of his own"—so that even in melody he will interfere with his authority. Again, he says, he hopes the Holy Ghost may give him that inflexibilis obstinatio which characterised the First Christians. He quotes "a great Bishop" who is in the note named, "St. Bernard," who was no Bishop at all, but the celebrated Abbot of Clairvaux, so the accuracy of the right rev. Prelate is not to be depended upon. Another sentence from the charge lately delivered by the right rev. Prelate to the clergy of his diocese had weighed strongly with the inhabitants of Blandford in the course they had taken, and, coupled with other parts of this charge, might, perhaps, justify the laity in regarding the movements of the right rev. Prelate with great and anxious suspicion. After stating that he considered his office to be "Ministratio, non dominatio," he said:—
"Such maxims, indeed, carry me up to our Lord's commission to His Apostles, and make me feel that the blood of the Apostles (so to speak)

963
is in my veins, and that by it I have been ennobled,"
Now, they had heard a good deal about the power and spirit of the Apostles, but as far as he (Lord Portman) knew they had never before heard that any Bishops had the blood of the Apostles; and it seemed so strange to the laity of the diocese of Salisbury that they should at last have in that diocese a Prelate who bore the blood of the Apostles in his veins, that it made them view the acts of the right rev. Prelate with perhaps a little more anxiety than they would have been disposed to view them under other circumstances. They felt, that though it was, perhaps, scarcely worth while to raise any question about such a matter as a communion table, the Bishop might ask something a great deal more objectionable; and, as the discretion of giving or refusing consecration was invested in him, and in no one else, they resolved to petition Parliament against the continuance of that irresponsible power, or at all events, to ask that there should be an appeal to the Archbishop from the Bishop's decision. Now, he believed, that the form of consecration insisted on by the right rev. Prelate, in regard to this place at Blandford was not insisted on by any other Bishop; so that it appeared that this act of consecration was to be enforced as a sort of new Test Act upon the laity; and a new form of service was established, which the right rev. Prelate had thought proper to adopt by his own will, and not to adopt that advised by the old Convocation to which Lord Shaftesbury had referred, for places of this kind. This was not in accordance with the rule of any other Bishop. He (Lord Portman) had been informed, that only a short time ago, at Woolwich, a cemetery chapel had been consecrated by another right rev. Prelate (the Bishop of Oxford) without any communion table at all. The right rev. Prelate said that he had a strong feeling on this subject, but it seemed to be almost confined to himself. In the dioceses of London and Winchester, the Holy Communion was not administered for the purposes of consecration; and, in point of fact, this was an individual rule of an individual Bishop, and it was a practice contrary to that observed in every other diocese in the kingdom. The expressions of the right rev. Prelate contained in his charge were such as rendered it not remarkable that the laity should look with
964
some jealousy upon a regulation of this kind; and when they found that the authority the right rev. Prelate sought to exercise on this occasion was not founded on law, they very naturally endeavoured to induce him to follow the course of his excellent predecessor, who, when he found that by insisting on the observance of this rule at a place near Blandford he was doing more harm than good, very wisely yielded the point. The right rev. Prelate had himself at no distant period of time consecrated an additional churchyard, near Blandford, attached to the old churchyard, and in that case he said nothing about administering the Holy Communion. The evil complained of, however, rested with Parliament, who gave power to the Bishop to use his discretion with regard to consecration or non-consecration; and, what was wished for was, that Parliament would alter this law—would consider whether they should vest with the Bishop an irresponsible power, without the possibility of appeal from his decision. It would probably be said, "Why can't you go to the Court of Queen's Bench, and get a mandamus?" Now, he held it to be as wrong to try and force the Bishop to do that which, in his conscience, he believed wrong, as it was for the Bishop to attempt to force others to do that which they believed they ought not to do. But a mandamus would not lie, for this reason—that there was no law, except the new Cemetery Act, which required consecration. Consecration was, he believed, a matter of modern invention, certainly since the Reformation. It was a question whether the greater part of the churchyards throughout the kingdom which existed before the Reformation, and which were said to be consecrated, had ever been consecrated at all. Under the Roman Catholic system the churches were dedicated; the ground around the churchyards was never consecrated, the practice being, he was assured on high authority, for the priest, in a few words at the time of burial, to hallow the particular portion of ground in which the corpse was deposited. It was probable, therefore, that the churches and churchyards which they had received from the hands of the Roman Catholics had never been consecrated at all. The judgment of Lord Stowell, in the case of Gilbert v. Buzzard, 3 Phill. 348, is worth a careful study on the point; so is the work of Dr. John Ayliffe, called Parergon Juris Anglicani. The

965
Queen's Bench could not compel the Bishop to do that which the law did not require, neither would the court compel the burial-board to comply with any whims of any Bishop, provided the burial-ground was fit for the interment of the dead, according to the ritual of the United Church of England and Ireland. Until that evening they had been unable to discover why the right rev. Prelate wanted to consecrate this building. The law merely required that there should be a mortuary chapel attached to the cemetery; and the right rev. Prelate required that it should be a Church of England chapel. That was the advantage of bringing these matters before the House, where they could speak out, face to face, in a straightforward manner, and get at the truth. And what was his reason? Why, that he conceived he had the authority to do that which both Houses of Parliament had refused to do—namely, to provide additional churches and chapels in connection with the Church of England. Though this chapel was intended to be limited to the services for the burial of the dead, he thought he could make it a place for the celebration of all the services of the Church, and appoint a clergyman to officiate there. The parties who had opposed the right rev. Prelate strongly suspected that he contemplated such an object; but he had not, until that evening, made any avowal which confirmed that suspicion; on the contrary, he had promised in a letter not to allow any such proceeding to be adopted, lest the rights of the patrons and rectors of the parishes should be injured. That was one of the advantages of the discussion. Another advantage was, that they would be able to guard themselves against any further proceedings in this direction. It was desirable that the general principle should be established, that a Bishop should endeavour to carry out the law, and not that he should go beyond the law, and as, in the present case, refuse to consecrate the burial-ground, with or without a mortuary chapel, and thus deprive the inhabitants of the form of burial to which they had been accustomed. The right rev. Prelate might, under the same power as that enjoyed by other Bishops, have licensed the rector of the parish to perform funerals for such time as he might think fit; but he had refused to grant that licence. Instead of so doing, he had made another innovation, for he had suggested that it might be expedient that the burials should
966
take place in any adjoining parish. Now, if that suggestion were acted upon, the adjoining parishes would soon have to provide themselves with additional burial-grounds, and then the new form of consecration would have the same effect as it had in the other parish, and thus his scheme would be carried out, far and wide, and would end in the so-called sacrament for the dead. One reason why the parties felt so strongly on this subject was, that other Bishops had adopted the very course which the right rev. Prelate was asked, but refused to follow. Bishop Kaye, a most eminent and distinguished man, and one who was looked up to with respect by all, had consecrated a cemetery in Blandford, without any communion table, in the mortuary chapel, or taking the Holy Communion, or saying one word upon the subject; and the people, no doubt might, with great justice, rely upon the opinion of that distinguished man, and might fairly consider it a hardship to be compelled to obey a mandate, not in accordance with the opinion of the whole Bench of Bishops, or, indeed, with that of the majority of them. The complaint, in this case was, the parishioners were called upon to obey an episcopal mandate, which was not in accordance with the feelings of the great majority of the Bench of Bishops. He felt, however, bound to say that no one could accuse the right rev. Prelate of being overbearing in manner upon this question; and now, after so much serious irritation, a hope of peace was held out to them, and he was sure that, if the right rev. Prelate left the House in the same spirit in which he had concluded his speech, he believed that he would allow what had been a mandate to be put in the form of a request; and if that were done, and if the assurance were given by the right rev. Prelate that he had no ulterior objects with regard to those chapels, he believed that, in conjunction with his noble Friend (Lord Shaftesbury), he would be able to persuade the parishioners to act upon the views of the right rev. Prelate. There was at present a Bill upon the subject of burials before the other House of Parliament, and he trusted that his noble and learned Friend (the Lord Chancellor) would take care that provisions were introduced into it by which the power of interference in these matters would no longer be vested in one man, who might, if he had autocratic notions, act entirely upon his own whims and fancies, and put a stop

967
to an important sanitary object because it did not happen to square with his own particular ecclesiastical views; and he would take that opportunity of giving notice that, if the noble and learned Lord did not introduce such a provision, he should feel it to be his duty to do so when that measure came under their Lordships' consideration. The great evil is the permission to the Bishops to act under the statute without any control or any responsibility. No man man can be trusted with powers without appeal, and, least of all, a Bishop, who can set up his conscience, and by some strange want of regard for the feelings of others, insist upon his opinion, and oblige the community to yield to him, or to revert to burial in unconsecrated ground. The consequences of the course taken by the right rev. Prelate is simply that the laity escape the expense of consecration fees, and must be buried either by a Dissenting minister or by a layman, but the clergy lose their burial fees, and cannot bury the dead in the unconsecrated ground, not, however, because there is any law or canon to prevent them, but because, after so doing, the Bishop may, by his monition, prevent a repetition of what he may call an offence, and so bring the clergyman under the penalty for disobedience to the order of the Bishop. This course does no harm to the laity, though it may hurt the feelings of those who think there is a value in the act of consecration. It does injure the clergy, and disturbs the usual course in the parish. He (Lord Portman) hoped that the law would soon he amended, and the laity be no longer left subject to the whims and fancies of any autocratic, irresponsible Bishop.
THE BISHOP OF SALISBURYexplained, that, in reference to licensing clergymen to celebrate the usual services of the Church in these cemetery chapels, he had never contemplated any such proceeding in opposition to the wishes of the board intrusted with their management—nor, indeed, could he do so. He could assure the noble Lord that he was animated by an earnest desire to avoid every possible cause of quarrel with the people of his diocese.
LORD REDESDALEsaid, he quite agreed with the noble Lord that it was desirable to put an end to disputes of this nature; but he thought that if any distinct legislation took place, it should be in accordance with the views of the right rev. Prelate, and not with those of the
968
noble Lord. Surely nothing could be more natural than that chapels in consecrated burial-grounds should have the look, and be fitted up like chapels belonging to the Church of England, and he could not understand a chapel without a communion table. Chapels even in private houses had communion tables provided. Every one must see the importance of preventing the disputes that occasionally arose between the burial-boards and the Bishops; but as far as he could see, they were more generally owing to the boards than the Bishops; and he had no doubt that if the right rev. Prelate had in this case conceded the communion table, some other concession would have immediately been demanded. He thought that these chapels ought to be made in all respects district chapels, suitable to the performance of the service—whatever that service may be—which was to be performed in them. There was a reason, apart from all considerations of ecclesiastical propriety, which made him (Lord Redesdale) think that cemetery chapels should have the piece of furniture objected to at Blandford. He could imagine the different members of a family ordinarily separated from each other, and some perhaps estranged, assembling together to commit a near relative to the earth. What could be more proper than that the minister should be enabled, if desired, to administer to that family the holy communion on a sad and solemn occasion, which might, perhaps, form the last time on which they would meet on earth?
THE BISHOP OF OXFORDwould not have risen but for the pointed allusion which had been made to him by the noble Lord on his right (Lord Portman). The noble Lord would apparently draw a distinction in favour of his (the Bishop of Oxford's) liberality—between his practice and that of his right rev. Friend; but as no such distinction in fact existed he could not consent to accept a commendation to which he was not entitled, or to hear his right rev. Friend blamed at his expense. In point of fact he (the Bishop of Oxford) did insist upon their being a communion table in cemetery chapels. He wished to say a single word upon one or two points of law. In opening the question the noble Earl (the Earl of Shaftesbury) said, that, inasmuch as all the services of the Church of England were not to be used in these cemetery chapels, but only the burial-service, therefore those chapels were not subjects

969
for consecration. He begged to ask the noble Earl where he found any authority whatever for making such a distinction? Why were any buildings which were set apart for the services of the Church of England consecrated? Simply because they were set apart for the worship of Almighty God, separated from all common and profane uses whatsoever, that prayer might be offered up in them, God's Word read in them, and God honoured in them. Prayer was offered at the burial service, God's Word was read at it, a special part of the service was required to be read in the Church, and not out of it, and what difference there could be, therefore, between these and other chapels he was at a loss to imagine. He could not himself appreciate the slightest distinction between the two; and against the authority of the noble Earl—whatever might be its weight in that House in matters ecclesiastical—he had no hesitation in citing the example of that great master in all ecclesiastical law, Bishop Gibson, who in the great work upon which his fame rested, distinctly laid down that the same service, mutatis mutandis, was to be used in consecrating cemetery chapels as in others. With regard to the importance of a communion table, the canon law laid it down that consecration was not complete until Holy Communion had been celebrated in the church; and the custom was, in all cases and in all dioceses where Communion was not celebrated at the time of consecration, to give notice that it would be celebrated on the following Sunday. That, however, was a modern abuse, and had been resorted to in order to shorten the service; it was, therefore, a "whim," not, as had been represented, to insist on the celebration at the time of the consecration, but to postpone it. The consecration of a chapel, in the sense in which the Church of England used the phrase, was the setting of it apart by a solemn service for the worship of God. Then, why, he asked, was not a cemetery chapel, in which God was to be worshipped, to be consecrated as much as any other chapel? He very much regretted to hear the noble Lord (Lord Portman) insinuate that his right rev. Brother (the Bishop of Salisbury) intended to resort to the subtle dishonesty of hereafter converting these cemetery chapels into ordinary chapels for the performing of Divine Service. There was no man whose conduct had less provoked such a comment
970
than his right rev. Brother. But the noble Lord (Lord Portman) had dwelt upon that supposition, knowing well the effect which it was calculated to have upon their Lordships; because, no doubt, if the slightest power were gained by the course taken by his right rev. Friend to divert these chapels from their legitimate use, it would be a strong argument against that course. His right rev. Friend, however, had said nothing to warrant such a supposition. All that his right rev. Friend had said was, that possibly these chapels might hereafter be used as places in which other services might be performed, and he wished to provide for that possibility by having them built in the same fashion as other chapels; but he had not intimated that he would have the slightest power over that chapel when consecrated, more than over any other building in the parish. On the contrary, the Bishop had less power over a chapel than over any other building, inasmuch as he could not license any chapel in a parish against the will of the incumbent or to the injury of his interests; and in this case he would moreover have to obtain the consent of the burial-board. Instead, therefore, of smoothing the way to an act of dishonesty such as that implied against his right rev. Brother, the latter had in reality placed difficulties in the way of perpetrating the dishonesty which had been insinuated against him. And this would show the value of the gross insinuation thrown out by the noble Lord against his right rev. Brother, of whom he would say, that his whole public life was such as ought to have made him the last man to be exposed to so unworthy a suspicion. But what was the result of the whole question? The law laid it down that if a cemetery was constructed the burial-board might build a chapel on the ground, which chapel was to be for the performance of the burial-service according to the rites of the Church of England. Now, if this was to be a chapel for performing the service according to the rites of the Church of England, the question was, what did the Church of England mean by a chapel? [Lord PORTMAN: The words are, "may build" a chapel.] If the burial-board built a chapel. [Lord PORTMAN: "May build" a chapel.] If his noble Friend would have but one grain of that inestimable quality, patience—a quality so peculiarly necessary to the judicial mind and to the just settlement of all controverted

971
questions—he would endeavour to state as briefly and clearly as he could the argument he meant to adduce, and his noble Friend would, perhaps, then be better able to comprehend it. Did a chapel mean a consecrated or an unconsecrated building, a place set apart for the worship of God, or did it not? It would be observed that the Act provided for the ground being consecrated by the Bishop, when it was found by him to be in a proper condition for the purpose of interment, according to the rites of the United Church of England and Ireland. Then it was to be a chapel in the sense in which the Church of England understood that word, and they knew that as a rule every place in which the rites of the Church of England were performed must be a consecrated place. It was clearly the intention of the Act that this was to be one of those buildings, and his right rev. Friend in standing up for the rite of consecration was only doing that which the Act intended, and which the law of the Church of England required. The speech of his right rev. Brother had been one of conciliation from beginning to end, and he must say that after such a speech, and considering, too, the character of his right rev. Brother, it was not without surprise and indignation he had heard the noble Lord express the hope that in future legislation on this question care would be taken to prevent the "whims and fancies" of any one man being interposed in opposition to the wishes of others. Perhaps the noble Lord might think it matter of vaunting, and might be flattered by its going down to Blandford, that, in his place in the House of Lords, he had charged his right rev. Brother with authoritatively insisting on his "whims and fancies" in opposition to the people of that parish. He was sure, however, that in such a charge the noble Lord did not carry with him the sympathies or support of their Lordships. He had always understood that where an Act of Parliament said a public functionary might do a certain thing he might be called on to appear in the Court of Queen's Bench by a mandamus to answer for not performing the act; and, therefore, when the law in the present instance said the Bishop "may consecrate" the chapel, it was competent to the Court of Queen's Bench to entertain an application for a mandamus should the Bishop decline to do so. If the Bishops
972
of the Church did insist on their own "whims and fancies," contrary to the clear statements of the law, then by all means let future legislation be such as to impose a check on such courses; but it so happened that, in the present case, the course followed by his right rev. Friend was the rule of the Church of England, and therefore the "whim and the fancy" lay in consecrating without a communion table, and not with it. With regard to the alleged absence of a communion table at the consecration of the burial-ground at Woolwich, he begged to inform the noble Lord, as an eye-witness, that when he performed that consecration there was a table in the chapel. He was then not acting for himself, but for his Brother the Bishop of London; and therefore, had there been no table, it would not have been for him, under the circumstances, to object; but he could assure his noble Friend there was a very decent communion-table in use on that occasion. He was bound to say that the noble Earl who introduced this subject had raised fairly and simply the legal question involved in it, and he deeply lamented the tone which the noble Lord (Lord Portman) had imported into the discussion. The noble Lord, not content with the opportunities he had of delivering himself in their Lordships' House, had started up as an orator and employed his great influence to excite upon this question the people of the parish of Blandford. In the speech which he addressed to his fellow-parishioners, however, he seemed to have said little on his own authority. The noble Lord told them that, "if he was rightly informed," so-and-so had happened—that "he believed" and "had heard" that such-and-such was the case; but could any one have credited that on a question of this sort the noble Lord would have proceeded on hearsay information only? He felt confident that if the noble Lord were to apply his powers of peace-making with only half the vigour that he had used in creating division, the difficulties which surrounded this matter would entirely disappear. His right rev. Brother had only asked that the parishioners of Blandford would have regard to his scruples on a matter which, in his eyes, involved a question of duty; but from the first it was regarded by the noble Lord and his friends as a matter of personal offence, a matter of unnecessary suspicion, and the supposition of this was the

973
beginning of a train of evils. If the report of the noble Lord's speech at Blandford, as it appeared in the papers, was correct, the noble Lord must have spoken in a tone of disregard and levity utterly unworthy his high position. He was represented, but probably inaccurately represented, to have said that "they had better take care what they were about, for if they let the communion table in, the next thing demanded would be a picture of St. Peter at the other end." [Lord PORTMAN: Hear, hear!] Then that was a misrepresentation of the noble Lord. He was happy to have this disclaimer; he could not believe such a statement to be correct, especially after the very solemn assurances which the noble Lord had put forth of his desire for peace. The noble Lord was his debtor, therefore, for having been the means of getting this gross misrepresentation corrected in the face of the House. He had put that misrepresentation down as an injury to the feelings of his right rev. Brother, who had only discharged what he thought a sacred duty, and he had been grieved to think what great mischief might be done by a man in the position of the noble Lord sending forth absurd and un-authentic rumours about images of St. Peter. Considering that this question involved such important matters as the interests of peace and harmony, and the unprejudiced administration of the duties of his office by a Bishop, he deeply regretted the sort of scene which had that night been unfolded in the representations made by the noble Lord, and he earnestly trusted that, as his right rev. Brother had shown a spirit of perfect forbearance and straightforwardness in the course he had taken, he would have the sympathy and support—as, indeed, had already been extended to him—of every part of their Lordships' House.
LORD PORTMANsaid, that the right rev. Prelate had gone somewhat too far in assuming that he had intended by his cheer to deny the fact of having made an allusion to the picture of St. Peter. What he did say on that subject was, that he considered the present proceeding of the right rev. Prelate (the Bishop of Salisbury) to be only the beginning of a course which, if suffered to pass unchecked, might lead to greater demands, and that the right rev. Prelate might, by and bye, if he thought proper, ask for liberty to put a picture of St. Peter in his chapel. Why did he say
974
this? His reason for saying so was to be found in the charge of that right rev. Prelate, a passage of which he read to the House—and in which the right rev. Prelate claimed to be a descendant of the Apostles. Having read that extract, the observation he made upon it was, that it was quite natural that any man should wish to have a picture of his ancestors about him.
THE MARQUESS OF BATHsaid, he had the honour of belonging to the diocese of the right rev. Prelate to whom reference had been made. The noble Baron (Lord Portman) had left their Lordships to infer that there was a strong feeling of opposition to that right rev. Prelate, and that the whole of the laity in his diocese were opposed to him.
LORD PORTMAN: I never said anything of the kind.
THE MARQUESS OF BATHhad heard of no opposition against the right rev. Prelate, nor was he aware of any necessity of any party feeling existing on one side or the other. He knew that the object of the right rev. Prelate had always been to produce peace and quietness in the town with which he (the Marquess of Bath) was more immediately connected.
THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTHsaid, he had given notice of his intention to present a petition of a similar character to the one under discussion, but he wished to postpone doing so for the present. It was highly desirable that something should be done to settle the dispute in this respect. The proceedings in some of these cemeteries were most disgraceful. Funerals by clerks and sextons were not uncommon in the West; and nothing could be more degrading to the Church of England than that such proceedings should be possible.
VISCOUNT DUNGANNONsaid he thought the requirements of the right rev. Prelate (the Bishop of Salisbury) were no more than were reasonable, for it was only proper that the chapels in cemeteries should be regarded as sacred edifices; and to that end they should be consecrated. He thought the right rev. Prelate had only done his duty in this case, and that he had throughout pursued a conciliatory and Christian course in strict conformity with the rules of the Church of which he was a minister; and he (Viscount Dungannon) regretted that in the heat of debate some observations which he thought were entirely

975
uncalled for had been applied to the right rev. Prelate by a noble Lord opposite.
LORD PORTMAN, in explanation, was understood to say that after the speech of the right rev. Prelate (the Bishop of Oxford) who had just spoken, nothing would induce him, as a layman, to budge further in the matter.
THE BISHOP OF ST. ASAPHexpressed a hope that the noble Lord would act; but that he would think before he acted. He besought the noble Lord, as an old friend, to think well before he refused to take any step in the matter.
LORD PORTMAN: I shall not act at all.
THE BISHOP OF ST. ASAPH: Oh, but do act.
Petition to lie on the Table.

AFFAIRS OF ITALY.
THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDEsaid, it was not necessary to enter into any lengthened discussion of Italian affairs in putting to the Secretary of State (the Earl of Clarendon) the question of which he had given notice, though at an earlier hour of the evening and in a fuller House he might have been tempted to go at some little length into the events that had produced them. The subject of that question was of very considerable importance, for it was notorious that events of great gravity, which had more than once been adverted to in Parliament, had taken place in the north of Italy. Those events did not merely affect the happiness and tranquillity of the States in which they had occurred, but they also touched the honour and interests of this country, inasmuch as they were connected with the general condition of Europe and with treaty engagements to which Great Britain was a party. The circumstances to which he referred had been distinctly brought under the notice of France and England by the Ministers Plenipotentiary who represented Sardinia at the late Congress at Paris. Two notes had been presented by them to the Governments of France and England, as the Ministers of the country, which from its geographical position and its political associations felt itself deeply concerned in the matter, for the purpose of drawing attention to the State of Italy and of pointing out its bearings upon the other European Powers. With these documents their Lordships and the public in
976
general wore already acquainted; for versions of them, no doubt sufficiently accurate, had already been published; but he thought it was right that an authentic copy of such communications should be furnished to Parliament There might have been reasons for delaying their production, but, considering the time which had elapsed since the communication took place, he did not think there could be any reluctance on the part of Her Majesty's Government to lay upon the table copies of the notes and of the replies which had been given to them. He deemed it most important that Parliament should be acquainted with the tone and attitude of the Government of this country upon a subject of so much gravity, and whether or not a discussion of the question might be desirable in Parliament would depend in a great measure upon the course pursued by Her Majesty's Government and the nature of their replies. He hoped the necessity for any discussion on this subject in Parliament might be avoided, but undoubtedly, unless affairs assumed a more satisfactory aspect, it would be desirable that they should be considered before the close of the Session. He begged to ask if Her Majesty's Government were prepared to lay upon the table the Notes of the 22nd of March and the 16th of April, presented by the Sardinian Plenipotentiaries at Paris to the English and French Plenipotentiaries, together with the answers which may have been given, to those Notes?
THE EARL OF CLARENDON: My Lords, I feel that I owe your Lordships some apology for not having sooner laid upon the table the Notes to which the noble Marquess refers. Perhaps, as they had appeared in the newspapers, I did not attach to them so much importance as my noble Friend seems to do. With respect to answers to those Notes, acting with the French Plenipotentiaries, we came to an agreement that, as we had so fully and entirely discussed the whole question vivâ voce, and at repeated interviews, with the Sardinian Plenipotentiaries at Paris, it was not necessary to send any written answer. The first of the Notes was, in fact, a request, on the part of the Sardinian Plenipotentiaries, that the question of Italy should be brought before the Congress; and the best answer we could give was the answer we did give by doing what the Sardinian Plenipotentiaries asked—as

977
your Lordships are aware the affairs of Italy were brought before the Congress. The second Note intimated that a satisfactory conclusion had not been arrived at by the Congress upon the Italian question, and asked for further discussion. It was of course necessary that the Sirdinian Plenipotentiaries should place on record something which would satisfy the Chambers and the people of Sardinia that they had called attention to the subject; and as Count Cavour understood that certain measures would be adopted for carrying out some of the objects he had in view, it did not appear necessary to send a written answer to this Note. However, after I returned home it came to my knowledge that it would be agreeable to the Sardinian Government to have some written record of the opinions of Her Majesty's Government with regard to the foreign occupation of Italy and the desirability of its ceasing. I could not have the least hesitation in complying with that wish, as I could only repeat on paper, and in the name of Her Majesty's Government, what I had said at Paris. I therefore wrote an answer, which I now lay upon your Lordships' table, together with the two Notes. It certainly may be necessary, before Parliament separates, to have a fuller discussion upon Italian affairs; but such a discussion might be injurious at the present moment, for it must be remembered that we are not the principal Powers interested in the question. The armies now occupying the Italian territory do not belong to us. It is only Austria and France who can take measures for withdrawing those troops; and after having so long occupied the territory, and created a state of things which exists under the shelter and protection of foreign troops, those two Powers are bound to take care, before they withdraw their forces, that they can be withdrawn without danger. I believe, I may say without impropriety, that both those Governments are sincerely desirous of withdrawing their armies, and are at this moment actively preparing to adopt that course.
House adjourned till To-morrow.