Lords Sitting of 28 June 1861

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—2a Courts of Justice Building; Piers and Harbours.
Royal Assent.—Excise and Stamps; East India Loan.

DEATH OF THE SULTAN OF TURKEY.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  VISCOUNT STRATFORD DE REDCLIFFEsaid, that seeing on the bench below him his noble Friend who represented the Foreign Department in that House (Lord Wodehouse), he wished to take the opportunity of asking a question with respect to the recent important event which had occurred at Constantinople. The death of one Sultan and the accession of another were occurrences which could not fail to attract their Lordships' attention, and to interest them by their bearing on the policy which they had reason to expect from the new ruler. These events had occurred at a crisis of considerable moment, to which the attention of this country, in common with the other
  2

  Powers of Europe, might well be directed. Whatever might be the circumstances to which they must look forward—whether satisfactory or not—whether progressive or reactionary—still very great interests, both of this country and of Europe, were involved in them; and he thought it right that the earliest opportunity should be taken, at least to draw the attention of Parliament to such important subjects. He ventured to do so, not at all in the spirit of any want of confidence in Her Majesty's Government, but for the purpose of calling the attention of the country and of Parliament to a subject which involved interests of vast importance. The history of Turkey during the last two reigns had presented features of great interest, not only to Turkey but to Europe. The reforms so necessary for the Empire were commenced by Sultan Mahmoud. That Sultan showed great qualities of courage and perseverance in adopting those reforms for the benefit of his country which anterior circumstances showed to be desirable. He had the good fortune—if it might be so called—to put down that body of Janissaries who interfered with the interests and good government of the country. He

  3
  put them down with a hand red with blood, and with a sanguinary determination; but, perhaps, as in other instances in ancient and modern times, it was an act of necessary severity. He also laid the foundation of great reforms in religion; and, in general, his reign was marked by the recovery of that Imperial power so necessary for the administration of affairs in Turkey. But, at the same time, he was unfortunate enough to have to make great sacrifices of territory to a neighbouring Power; he had the misfortune to lose a great portion of his navy, and in that branch of the service under his reign there was a great diminution of the power of the Ottoman Empire. He was compelled by circumstances to admit the establishment of the monarchy of Greece, and he was obliged also to leave Egypt in the possession of a rebellious subject. Carrying on their view to the next reign, it was but just to the late Sultan, Abdul Medjid, to say that, notwithstanding the faults which he was free to say marked his character, instead of losing territory, he recovered part of that which his father had lost; that he carried out that great system of reforms which his father had begun; and that, in general, he showed a protecting and benevolent spirit towards all the subjects of his Empire and particularly towards the Christians; he placed the Protestants of the Empire on the footing of the old established religious communities in his dominions, and he proclaimed unlimited liberty of conscience in religious matters throughout the whole extent of his empire. Many other things he did in a similar spirit; for instance, he abolished torture, and other salutary and humane measures were adopted under his reign—all certainly calculated to soften the impression which might be entertained by those who knew only the less brilliant parts of his character, which he must admit had certainly affected the state of affairs in Turkey. In looking to the character of the present, who, he presumed from unofficial reports, was the brother of the late Sultan, and according to the Oriental custom his heir, it was, of course, of great interest to know how far the policy of the country might be affected by the change. In an arbitrary system of Government the personal character of the Sovereign was of course of great importance. For himself he had no personal knowledge of the present Sultan, as it would have been a great breach of prudence on the part of a foreign representa-
  4
  tive, especially of the representative of this country, to have interfered in any way during the lifetime of the late Sultan with that system of reserve and retirement to which all the Princes of the Imperial family were subjected. If we were to listen, however, to public report we might perhaps be led to entertain some anxiety on the subject. The new Sultan had been represented as a man of decided and also of a rather violent character; and he was supposed to be surrounded by persons who would willingly see a reactionary system adopted. At the same time it would be well, in entering on this new reign, if foreign Powers, more especially Her Majesty's Government, were to give him credit for good intentions, and to encourage him if he were disposed rather to carry out the system which had been adopted for some time in Turkey than to place himself at the head of a reactionary party, which would not only prove injurious to him and what remained of his empire, but would also put him at variance with those friendly Powers whose assistance in time of need would be of such importance to him. At the same time, no better moment could be chosen for giving, in a friendly tone and with that moderation which the circumstances demanded, advice which might assist in keeping him steady to those good purposes if he entertained them, or might lead him to a more salutary frame of mind if that were not the case. And it appeared to him that from no quarter could that advice proceed so well as from Her Majesty's Government, acting as it did with other Powers of Europe, who had pledged themselves to maintain, so long as was possible, the independence and integrity of the Turkish Empire, and being at the same time free from any of those suspicions which might attach to the policy of those Powers, who, being neighbours of Turkey, might be supposed to be actuated by interested motives—he said that under these circumstances advice proceeding from the British Government was more likely to recommend itself to the new Sultan's mind than advice proceeding from any other quarter. As he had already said, a change of Sovereigns in Turkey was an event which might very seriously affect the future state of the empire, and, consequently, its relations with this country; and it was in this spirit that he had risen to put his Question to his noble Friend which he was sure he would answer without difficulty. It was of great consequence

  5
  that the new Sovereign of the Turkish Empire should be led to believe and to understand that this great country took a real and systematic interest in maintaining his power in so far as it was wielded for good purposes. Not only had we an interest in a general point of view in leading the Sultan's mind to a right course of policy, but we were under obligations to Turkey, which, if we were called on to carry them out, must have the effect of entailing great sacrifices upon us, and put us in a position of great anxiety and danger. Without the policy which it was so desirable to recommend to the Sultan, it was impossible, in his humble opinion, that we could escape from those dangers. It was only by taking up the subject in time, and by pressing upon the Sultan those reforms which had been recommended for so many years, which the Sovereign of Turkey himself had adopted, and which he had proclaimed and recorded in public documents, that we could stave off and avoid these dangers. In the present state of Europe and in the uncertainties which prevailed as to the feeling of other Powers which were interested in that part of the world, and which were likely to be called into activity if England did not at once take a decided line—if England did not take up a proper attitude and show herself prepared to carry out her engagements, and to stand by that empire, her responsibility would be great and she would have to repent of her negligence. He trusted he was not trespassing too much upon the House, but it must be remembered that he had himself been a personal witness of all that had taken place in that country for many years, and without pretending to any superior judgment his personal experience must necessarily give him a stronger impression on these subjects than would be entertained by those who had only viewed the matter at a distance. He did not pretend to enter into the general question of the policy of this country, as to how far in other respects it might be necessary to act with regard to Turkey; but he saw in the strongest point of view the dangers to which we were exposed by any degree of neglect in this country, and that it was the bounden duty of the Government to consider this question in all its bearings, and to do everything in their power, consistent with the interests of the country in other respects, to give effect to those improvements which had been so often discussed, and towards which many import-
  6
  ant steps had been taken. We had engaged to maintain the integrity and independence of the Turkish Empire, and it was not only the right but the bounden duty of our Government to call upon the Government of Turkey to carry into practical and early effect those reforms which had been adopted and proclaimed throughout the Sultan's dominions, and to the value of which he had heard the strongest testimony given by some of the late Sultan's Ministers. Any neglect on the part of Her Majesty's Government must necessarily carry with it a heavy responsibility, not only on their own consciences but towards the country at large. He wished to ask his noble Friend whether the Government had received any official intelligence or announcement of the accession of the Sultan Abdul Aziz to his brother's throne, and whether any indication had been given of the line of policy which might be expected to be followed under the new reign? There was another point which he wished to mention before sitting down. According to the invariable custom and policy of Constantinople the present Sultan had, during his brother's lifetime, been completely at his brother's mercy; and so the children of the late Sultan would, in like manner, be entirely at the disposal of the reigning Sovereign. He hoped that the present Sovereign, having experienced the kindness of his brother, would, in the same spirit, extend to his children that treatment which the interests of the country and humanity required at his hands.
  LORD WODEHOUSEsaid, he was not surprised at the anxiety displayed by his noble Friend respecting the state of affairs at Constantinople, in consequence of the death of the late Sultan, and the accession of a new one. Such events were of great importance in every country, but especially must they be important in a country like Turkey, where the personal character of the Sovereign was of such consequence. He believed that the account given by the noble Lord from his personal knowledge of the amiable qualities of the late Sultan was perfectly accurate, but he could himself add nothing to that subject. With regard to the new Sultan, who, as his noble Friend observed, was the brother of the late Sultan, and was entitled by the law of Turkey to the succession, the Government had received an authoritative announcement of his accession to the throne, and had also received assurances that it was his intention to pursue the same foreign

  7
  policy as had been pursued by his predecessor, and, as to the internal affairs of Turkey, that he would inaugurate useful and salutary reforms. At the same time the Turkish Ambassador told his noble Friend the Foreign Secretary, that an Imperial Hatti-Scheriff would shortly be issued, in which a full statement would be made respecting the policy of Sultan Aziz in regard to the internal affairs of Turkey. He would not attempt to draw the horroscope of the new Sultan, but hoped His Majesty would have a fortunate reign, entirely agreeing, however, with his noble Friend as to the extreme necessity of immediate and important reforms being made in the Turkish administration, and especially in relation to its finances. He was confident that if the new Sultan followed the advice which would be disinterestedly given him by his allies, and sought to develope the great resources of his empire, introducing regularity into his finances and selecting and supporting honest men under him, so that their measures might be fairly carried out, it was not yet too late for the Turkish Empire to enter into an era of prosperity.
  THE EARL OF HARDWICKEsaid, their Lordships would, perhaps, think it extraordinary that he should venture to join in a discussion on foreign policy, but having in early life passed a great many years in Turkey, and watched the course of British policy towards that empire, he had imbibed a strong opinion on this subject. To his mind no policy was more calculated to weaken the power of any nation than the policy of interference which had been pursued by Great Britain towards Turkey, and which, as he gathered from the speech of the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs, it was intended to continue. If they wished to make Turkey strong, they must govern her according to Turkish law. It was idle for a Christian nation to suppose that its advice could ever tally with the tenets of the Koran. The Turkish was a theocratic Government; its laws were supposed to be of Divine origin; and to force the advice of a Christian Government upon the Sultan was to weaken his hands instead of strengthening them—to make him looked upon as a "Giaour" by his own people—as one who was neither Christian nor Turk, but infidel. Such a policy, if continued, would not add to the strength of the Turkish Empire, but would rather bring it to destruction. There was now an opportunity under a new Sultan of in-
  8
  augurating a new policy. Let the Sultan govern by Turkish law, and according to the wishes and the feelings of the Turkish people; or on the other hand to overturn his Government at once and Christianize his empire. There must not be an attempt to thrust upon Turkey laws which might suit English tastes and English policy, but were quite inconsistent with the customs, habits, and religion of a Mahommedan people. No doubt our laws were infinitely better than theirs, but before those laws could be usefully transplanted into Turkey, and could be of any use for the support of the empire, the Turks must be made Christians.
  VISCOUNT STRATEFORD DE REDCLIFFEsaid, he should take the earliest opportunity of bringing this subject before the House by a Motion for papers. Without questioning the sincerity of the opinions of his noble Friend (the Earl of Hardwicke) he must say that the doctrines he had just heard from his noble Friend with regard to Turkey were at variance with his own experience there, and with the policy which of both sides of the House had for the last twenty years been adopted towards that country—doctrines, he believed, as fraught with mischief as could well be imagined.

  SAVOY AND SWITZERLAND.
  THE EARL OF CARNARVONrose pursuant to notice, to call attention to the prolonged occupation of Northern Savoy by France; and to inquire if any and what arrangements have been made, in accordance with Her Majesty's most gracious Speech from the Throne of August last, with a view to give continued force to the engagements of the Treaty of Vienna, in connection with the assumed obligations of the Second Article of the Treaty of Turin, and to secure an effective guarantee for the maintenance of the inviolability and independence of Switzerland? The noble Earl said, there was a twofold question in connection with this subject—first, as to the general annexation of Nice and Savoy; and, secondly, a special and more limited question, with which alone he should trouble the House, respecting the annexation of that northern part of Savoy which had been declared neutral by the Treaties of Vienna, for the purpose of giving Switzerland a good defensive military position. He would not attempt to trace out the devious course of diplomacy by which the annexation of Nice and Savoy had been preceded; he would not even go into the ge-

  9
  neral question respecting that annexation, because, though undoubtedly it was accomplished in violation of treaties, the spirit rather than the letter of those treaties had been broken. But the occupation of Northern Savoy vitally affected the interests of Switzerland. It was not merely that it had been a part of the traditional policy of Europe to commit the passes of the Alps, the keys of Northern Italy, to the hands of a Power strong enough to hold them, but not strong enough to abuse them, but that the possession by Switzerland in time of war of these Northern districts of Savoy had been repeatedly declared by the highest political and military authorities to be both a sufficient and a necessary barrier against foreign aggression. This if it did not actually give them Switzerland a material guarantee for its freedom and independence against any great systematic attack of a large military empire, yet with her spirited population was such that she might for awhile hold her enemies at bay until she could receive the succour which Europe was pledged to afford to her. On the other hand, if these districts were taken away, Switzerland lost her military frontier, and from that moment was open to the first invasion, and perfectly defenceless. It was with a view to these circumstances, and to prevent such a calamity, that in the Treaty of Vienna, the integrity of Switzerland had been declared to be one of the highest objects of policy to the Sovereigns assembled there, and that the contracting Powers agreed that this district should be neutralized, and remain for the time being in the hands of the King of Sardinia. It was in violation of this treaty that the cession had been made by Sardinia to France, and the cession was admitted by France herself to be illegal. The noble Lord the Secretary for Foreign Affairs, had over and over again declared that it was the object of Her Majesty's Government to maintain this policy as to the independence of Switzerland. It was perfectly true that there had been a great deal of controversy as to the neutralization of this district. France contended that this neutralization was imposed on Switzerland as a burden and an obligation. Sardinia had endeavoured to show that the neutralization had been effected in her interests; whilst Switzerland had uniformly contended, and proved by the undoubted history of the past, that this military frontier was a protection and a privilege; and the Secre-
  10
  tary for Foreign Affairs (Lord John Russell) had always endorsed that view. Till last year this district was attached to Sardinia, as neutral territory, and thus gave Switzerland a guarantee for her independence. At the close of last Session the words of the Royal Speech were—
  "Her Majesty trusts that, in any Negotiations which may take place, full and adequate Arrangements will be made for securing, in Accordance with the Spirit and Letter of the Treaty of Vienna of 1815, the Neutrality and Independence of the Swiss Confederation."
  This was the language of the Speech from the Throne on the 28th of August last, proving that the Government felt the importance of the subject of guaranteeing the integrity of Switzerland, and that some arrangements were absolutely necessary for replacing the broken law of Europe. The language of the Government in its despatches was even stronger. Lord John Russell, in writing to Lord Cowley, said the Treaty of Turin could not be considered as part of the public law of Europe, and as such it had not received any formal acknowledgement. By the speech, therefore, of Her Majesty, and by the language of the Government he was justified in saying that the occupation of Northern Savoy where it was not competent for Sardinia to cede or for France to accept that territory unacknowledged and protested against by England remained to this hour a standing breach of the constitutional and public law of Europe. Now, was there no mode of extrication from this difficulty? Italy having had her share in the recent bargain was practically precluded from having any voice in the matter. France claimed the district as her territory. Of late years—he might say it without offence to the French Government—it had, to the exclusion of other objects—almost to the exclusion of literature and science—been imbued more and more with military feeling. Military honours and distinctions were the great objects of public life, and the Emperor, as embodying this feeling, did an act not wholly unpopular, when he drew a prize from this lottery. Still, the position of France was not satisfactory; France herself admitted that the position required an alteration, that she ought to exchange the illegal occupation for one more in unison with public treaties and public law. Though we could not altogether forgive what had passed, yet it might be condoned, provided that the past was, as far as possible, remedied and that the recent annexation was not

  11
  made a precedent. They required that in spirit, if not in the letter, the public treaties guaranteeing the neutrality of this territory should be maintained. The Treaty of Turin, under which Sardinia ceded it, had broken that settlement. But in that treaty there was one article, by which the Emperor, in accepting the treaty, accepted the obligations imposed in respect of the territory by former treaties, and it provided that France should come to an understanding both with the Swiss Confederation and the other Powers of Europe, for giving fresh securities for the independence and integrity of Switzerland. It ought not to be forgotten that the French Government had not only offered to neutralize the province, but in the earlier stages of the question, had actually offered to abandon to Switzerland Chablais and Faucigny. That was not an isolated promise. The same assurance was given by the French Consul at Geneva, and subsequently M. Thouvenel expressed to Lord Cowley the opinion of the French Government that it was desirable that Chablais and Faucigny should be permanently united to Switzerland. These promises, so clearly and explicitly made, were subsequently modified and withdrawn; but still the French Government continued to express sympathy with Switzerland, and a friendly interest in her affairs. In April M. Thouvenel proposed to this country a plan by which the neutrality of Switzerland should be secured; and, about a month afterwards, he laid down three bases by which the two countries of England and France might unite in securing that independence. He quoted these words in order to show that, though in the first instance the French Government had withdrawn its promises, yet, if any reliance was to be placed in words, there was every disposition to come to an agreement with this country in some equitable arrangement by which the independence of Switzerland might be secured. In the next place, it was highly desirable that the present illegal occupation should as soon as possible be converted into one that was more in unison with the public law of Europe. In the third place, their Lordships must bear in mind that Switzerland desired a military frontier, and not a mere diplomatic guarantee. It was obvious that there was not a single point of comparison between the possession of Northern Savoy by France, and its possession by Sardinia—by the greatest military empire in the world, or a kingdom
  12
  which only last year was but a third-class Power in Europe. What constituted a sufficiently valid guarantee under the trusteeship of Sardinia was no guarantee at all when it passed under the dominion of France. He had now gone through most of those points which he desired to bring before their Lordships—very imperfectly and briefly he knew; but he trusted he had indicated enough to draw their Lordships' attention to the matter. He should be sorry if the House were to feel that he had brought forward this question merely as a matter of debate, or on light and theoretical grounds—he had done so from a strong conviction of the effect of these events upon the peace of Europe. Every one at all cognizant of the affairs of Switzerland were of opinion that great dangers were now menacing that country. He need hardly remind their Lordships that the natural consequence of a wrongful act was to repeat itself in fresh wrongs; that the wrong-doer was unable to stop in his career, and was impelled forward, step by step, by the agency of causes which, though he was the first to set in motion, he was utterly unable to check. The noble Lord the Foreign Secretary last year expressed most forcibly and truly the dangers which would menace Switzerland if Northern Savoy were annexed to France. That annexation had taken place; and he was bound to say that every one of the dangers forcibly and truly set forth in the noble Lord's despatches had been fully realized. At this moment France had pierced the frontier of Switzerland and overlapped her territory. She was politically and strategically the mistress of the mountains. Chambery was for all practical purposes brought close to the gates of Lyons, and French troops were within a few hours' march of the Lake of Geneva. French agents—he said not from whence they came or by whom they were sent—were trafficking in Switzerland, and Swiss soldiers were negotiating at Paris. In every part of Switzerland there was great fear and apprehension, and a consciousness of the overwhelming force and irresistible influence of France unless they were upheld by the public opinion of other countries. The condition of affairs was now materially changed. Last year there was a French population of 20,000 resident in Geneva, but that was balanced by a population of 20,000 Savoyards. But now those Savoyards no longer owed allegiance to the King of

  13
  Sardinia, they were the subjects of the Emperor of France; so that, practically, there was now a population of 40,000 Frenchmen in Geneva. Let it not be thought that this was a chimerical objection; for though the Savoyards had been most reluctantly annexed to France, yet now, when the King of Sardinia had east away the loyalty of 800 years, by a natural revulsion of feeling which their Lordships could understand, however they might regret it, the Savoyards were determined that, as far as lay in their power, if Savoy could not be attached to Geneva, Geneva should be attached to Savoy. But it was not this or any other particular danger that was on the horizon. The whole atmosphere of Switzerland was charged with dangerous influences. What conclusions were they to draw from the recent visit of Prince Napoleon to Geneva?—a visit associated in the public mind with some impending change or territorial aggression. What inferences were they to draw from the rumours that were in circulation throughout Switzerland respecting annexations and redistributions of territory—rumours similar to those that heralded the annexation of Savoy—passing from local journals into the higher circles—then denied, then affirmed, then denied again, and latterly by the Ministers of both Governments; until at last it was consummated? What inferences were they to draw from the fact that the wisest, most moderate, and liberal statesmen of Switzerland were filled with apprehension at the present state of things? In the occupation of Northern Savoy by France there was to be seen overwhelming strength on the one hand and utter weakness on the other. The railways converging on Switzerland might, in the event of hostilities, bring 20,000 troops into that country within twenty-four hours. The fortresses of Switzerland and her military stores were practically unguarded, because, although they recognized the danger, they feared to take those measures of defence which might be construed into a cause of offence. Surely in such a condition Switzerland deserved the sympathy of the Parliament of this free country. She had borne her trials with unexampled constancy; she had fully appreciated her position; she was proof against the most seductive offers; she was proof against taunts that could not be mistaken and threats that were not disguised. She had impartially held on her way, maintaining her rights and vindicating the
  14
  duties which the treaties of the last fifty years had imposed on her. Europe had laid on her the obligation of neutrality, that there might be one spot in central Europe where the oppressed might find refuge, and whose very neutrality in the heat of a general war might be an argument for, and a pledge of future peace. My Lords, continued the noble Earl, no one ever enjoyed more largely the benefits of Switzerland's neutrality than the present Emperor of the French. I believe that that great Sovereign, since his accession to prosperity and power, has never shown himself oblivious of any acts of personal kindness and friendship which he experienced in the days of his adversity and exile. I hope, therefore, that the generous return which the Emperor has known how to make to individuals will not be denied by him to the country which once afforded him its protection. And when I remember the firmness with which Switzerland in his cause maintained, even at the risk of war, the inviolability of her asylum for political refugees, I cannot bring myself to think until I am, indeed, obliged to do so, that all sense of gratitude is banished from the Imperial Court of France. The noble Lord concluded by putting the question.
  LORD WODEHOUSE:My Lords, I do not at all complain of my noble Friend for having brought this subject under discussion; but having listened very attentively to his speech, I must say, I am altogether unable to discover to what practical conclusion he would lead your Lordships. My noble Friend has accurately stated the effect of the despatches written by Lord John Russell, and laid on your Lordships table during last year, and which informed your Lordships of the exact position in which this matter then stood. In point of fact, that position, as far as I am aware, has in no way changed since those despatches were written. In the month of July last my noble Friend Lord John Russell accepted the proposal of the French Government of a Conference to take into consideration how the 92nd Article of the Treaty of Vienna should be reconciled with the 2nd Article of the Treaty of Turin. The despatch in which he accepted that proposal was laid upon the table. Subsequently, however, objections were made by the Governments of Russia, Prussia, and Austria to an immediate meeting of such a Conference, and in consequence of those objections the Conference was postponed.

  15
  My noble Friend Lord John Russell, in stating that Her Majesty's Government acquiesced in that postponement, added that he did so on the understanding that the present occupation of Savoy by France should not be regarded as forming a portion of the public law of Europe. In that position the matter has remained ever since; and my noble Friend opposite, in pointing out, as he has done, in very forcible language, the inconvenience of that occupation, which has not been sanctioned by the public law of Europe, has altogether failed to suggest any means by which Her Majesty's Government could bring about the sanction of it in a manner that would be consonant with their opinions of how the Treaty of Vienna should be upheld. The treaty out of which has arisen the whole of the present controversy was signed, not by England only, but by all the other great Powers of Europe; and, if those other Powers do not think it necessary that negotiations should take place in order that the recent Treaty of Turin should be reconciled with the Treaty of Vienna, it is impossible for Her Majesty's Government, by any act of its own, to bring about any such reconciliation. My noble Friend opposite went at some length into the various questions which were raised in the course of the many discussions that occurred last year, and in much that he said I entirely agree. But it is neither requisite not convenient that I should now enter again into those various questions and restate our objections to the course pursued by the French Government, which objections Her Majesty's Government not only did not conceal, but which they stated at the proper time in the clearest and plainest manner, and which were set forth in the despatches laid upon your Lordship's table, and also formed the subject of consideration throughout Europe. Indeed, I conceive that, as far as protesting and stating objections went, Her Majesty's Government did all that could have been demanded of them by the strongest opponents of the annexation of Savoy. More than that, I believe nobody ever proposed anything should be done in the matter by this country. That being so, it seems to me that it would neither be consistent with the dignity of England, not wise and politic, to continue or revive a discussion that can have no practical end, and which we have no power to bring to any useful conclusion. Such a course must tend to prejudice those relations which on every ground we desire
  16
  should retain their friendly character, and I must say those discussions were entirely exhausted during the last year. I deplore, as much as my noble Friend opposite deplores, that Switzerland should remain in a position which may, undoubtedly, be called an uncomfortable one with respect to this question. It is not only extremely inconvenient that there should be upon her frontier a territory the exact position of which is not defined by the public law of Europe—I mean not recognized by all the great European Powers; but it is, likewise, well known that it is the opinion of Her Majesty's Government that that position is not one that should be recognized. If Switzerland should be able to find any means by which these differences might be reconciled—if she could discover any mode of inducing the French Government to make such concessions to her as she thinks requisite for her security, and as would allay the fears she entertains—none would rejoice more than I should, and I am sure that Her Majesty's Government would do everything in their power to facilitate any such conclusion. My Lords, I feel so unwilling to reiterate objections which are perfectly familiar to all your Lordships or to enter again into a controversy which has been so fully brought forward in the published despatches, that, notwithstanding that may noble Friend may think I give but a slight answer to his remarks, I must ask the House not to pursue this subject further. I will merely repeat that the matter remains in the same position in which it stood during the last summer; that no negotiations have taken place upon it, because the other great Powers have not thought it desirable to enter into such negotiations; that Her Majesty's Government do not feel themselves able to force those negotiations upon the other great European Powers: and that it would not therefore be consistent with the dignity of this country, or wise and politic, to continue discussions that would lead to no practical result.

ROYAL DUBLIN SOCIETY—GLASNEVIN BOTANICAL GARDEN.

  MOTION FOR CORRESPONDENCE.
  THE EARL OF CLANCARTYrose to move for—
  "Copy of any Correspondence between the Science and Art Department of the Committee of Council on Education and the Royal Dublin Society, relative to the Opening of the Glasnevin Botanical Garden to the Public on Sundays; to-

  17
  gether with Copies of any Communications from The Lord Lieutenant of Ireland to the Committee of Council on Education or to the Royal Dublin Society upon the same Subject."
  The noble Lord, in support of the Motion, addressed the House as follows:—My Lords, the correspondence for which I am about to move I think it right should be laid upon the table of the House, inasmuch as it relates to the conduct and character of the most ancient public institution in the kingdom for the promotion of practical science, I mean the Royal Dublin Society, which has for the last century received annual aids from Parliament, but is now threatened with deprival of part the public grant as a penalty for the offence, if offence it can be called, of declining to open the Botanic Gardens on Sundays, as a place for public recreation. To this it is that the correspondence relates, and both the manner in which the society has been called upon by the Science and Art Department of the Committee of Council on Education to act in direct opposition to the known feelings of the great majority of its members, as well as the nature of the requirement itself, render it very important that Parliament should be fully informed of the whole transaction. I have noticed the Royal Dublin Society as the most ancient scientific institution in the kingdom. Founded in 1731, it obtained, in 1749, a Royal charter of incorporation, and, carrying on a work of manifest usefulness to the country, it received its first grant in aid from the Irish Parliament in 1761, just a century ago. The sum then given was £2,000, but from that time, acting under the immediate view of Parliament, it received grants annually increasing in amount till in 1800, the year of the Legislative Union of the two countries, it received as much as £15,500. Since that period it has been less liberally assisted. Such of its patrons as continued to be Members of the Legislature could not exercise in its behalf the same influence in the Imperial as in the local Parliament; and the institution itself lost much of its interest with those of its members whom public duty removed to a distance from it, and who could, therefore, no longer, as when Parliament met in Dublin, take part in its proceedings. Among the citizens of Dublin, however, its efficiency was maintained; and, though the Government ceased to aid it as liberally as before the Union, there can be no doubt that the grants that have been annually made, varying in amount, have
  18
  been given with the object of upholding and encouraging an association of unquestionable public usefulness. It has been the means of developing much native talent in art and manufacture. Its schools, its public lectures in the city and in the provinces, its laboratories, museums, library, and botanic garden, afford aids to education in the cultivation of different branches of science, which are open, almost all, gratuitously to all classes. Its exhibitions of agricultural produce are of acknowledged value, especially its spring shows of pure bred stock, which are the largest and most important in the United Kingdom; and the Lord Lieutenant, as president of the society, has very lately inaugurated the opening of a most interesting exhibition of art and manufacture, affording to the public recreation and improvement, and a valuable stimulus to manufacturing industry. Amongst its members the society includes persons of every party, of every creed, and of every class who take an interest in, and are willing to make an annual contribution of a certain amount towards carrying out, the scientific objects of the association. For such objects, and none other, was the society formed. It does not in any degree partake of the nature of a club. In its reading rooms are found no books or periodicals except such as are connected with science or art; in fact, membership, while involving expense, confers little else than the privilege of co-operating for the public good in the practical development of science. Gentlemen of character and independence so associated, and who for a long series of years have faithfully and efficiently applied themselves, without fee or reward, to the discharge of a public trust, were entitled to be addressed, if not with deference, certainly not in that arrogant and offensive tone of dictation which pervades the letters of the officials of the Committee of Council, by whom they were informed that the Government required that they should take a step with reference to the property they have in charge to which the great majority of them are known to have a religious objection, and to which others, as trustees for the due preservation of the society's property, cannot consent. The requirement on the part of the Government is that because the Commissioners of Woods and Forests have opened Kew and Hampton Court Gardens to the public on Sundays, therefore, the Royal Dublin Society,

  19
  in return for the grants it has received from Parliament, should throw its botanic garden open for Sunday recreation. The correspondence sets forth the grounds, general and special, upon which the society has declined complying with this requirement, which is further objected to as being in violation of a distinct pledge given to the society in 1854, that, "beyond aiding the society in giving the fullest publicity to its labours, their Lordships would not interfere in its general management." I have been given to understand that it is the opinion of the Government that the observance of the Sabbath should be the same in Ireland as in England and Scotland; that in Scotland opinion is very strong and unanimous in its favour; that in England it is much divided; but that in Ireland, as a Roman Catholic country, it must be taken to be altogether the other way. Such a view of the case, my Lords, is most mistaken, and I totally deny that in Ireland there is any greater disregard of the obligations of the Sabbath than in England. The very small minority of the Royal Dublin Society which, upon a recent division, took the anti-Sabbatarian view, may be taken as an index of the state of public opinion among the educated classes of the city of Dublin upon the question of Sabbath observance; for the society includes among its members persons of every religious denomination. But, if further proof be required of the state of public opinion upon the subject in Dublin, it may be gathered from the result of a public meeting lately held in support of the society's views, from which an address, signed by upwards of 6,000 persons, was immediately presented to the Lord Lieutenant, and from which also, I understand, a petition signed by about 8,000 citizens of Dublin will this day be presented to the other House of Parliament. The Government, I hope, will pause before it sets itself further in opposition to public opinion so expressed, or to religious feelings and convictions regarding the Lord's Day, which, though they may deem them exaggerated, are yet entitled to respect, and certainly better calculated to promote the spread of enlightened Christianity than that disregard of the Sabbath which their present views are, I fear, but too likely to produce. But, passing from the question of Sabbath observance, the argument in favour of opening the Society's Botanic Gardens for Sunday recreation, drawn from the supposed analogy of Hampton
  20
  Court and Kew Gardens, does not hold, for the circumstances of the two cases are, in fact, widely different. Kew and Hampton Court are large parks which, though they are partly formed into gardens containing many valuable plants interesting to the botanist, are chiefly laid out, and most tastefully so, for public walks, and their situations are very suitable for the purpose. The Botanic Garden of Glasvenin, on the contrary, is comparatively small, and, though designed with much taste and picturesque effect, is primarily laid out for scientific and educational purposes, and so circumstanced in respect of its situation that it would be impossible to secure the valuable plants it contains without the most stringent regulations, and the employment of a large staff of constables to enforce them. Too many facilities for intoxication exist in the vicinity of the great cemetery that adjoins the garden; and the large number of funerals that, I am informed, take place there on Sundays, commonly followed by crowds making holiday of the occasion, would cause the garden to be at times invaded in a disorderly manner, alike detrimental to the property and unprofitable to the people themselves. Even in St. James's Park, where the grassplots and beds are most carefully fenced with strong iron paling, and numerous constables are employed to preserve order—where, moreover, the same incentives to disorder do not exist as in the vicinity of Glasnevin—I find put up at each of the principal entries, by way of warning to the public, a statement of the number of offences of which persons frequenting the park had been convicted within on fortnight, and of the punishments that had been inflicted. There was one person fined for throwing stones at a constable, two others for separate offences of drunkenness and assaulting constables, two more for separate offences of damaging trees, one for disorderly conduct, and one for stealing the eggs of a valuable aquatic bird. The fines varied from 2s. 6d. to £1, with the alternative in each case of imprisonment. How many other like offences may have been committed within the same fortnight by visitors to the park I know not, but certain I am that the Royal Dublin Society does not possess the means, pecuniary or otherwise, that the Commissioners of Woods and Forests can command for procuring order in the public parks. To provide healthful recreation for the working class is, no doubt, a

  21
  praiseworthy object, and one to which public money may very legitimately be applied, but the Royal Dublin Society does not possess the means of making such provision. Its members are, nevertheless, I believe, animated with sentiments quite as favourable to the interests of the working classes as are those who are styled my Lords of the Committee of Council for Education, and who never until this year raised the question of opening any department of the society to the public on Sundays. The society is, no doubt, desirous that its servants should, as far as possible, enjoy the Sabbath as a day of rest, but on every other day in the week it is their desire and endeavour to make the institution as accessible and as improving to those in humble life as to the middle and upper orders. I believe nobody could better testify to this than the society's president, the Lord Lieutenant, and much as I was surprised at the very unlooked for requirement of the Committee of Council regarding the opening of the Glasnevin Garden on Sundays. I was much more so at finding it represented that it was made at the suggestion of the Lord Lieutenant, for that noble individual, holding the office of President of the society, and in habits of frequent intercourse with its members, as well as with the society itself, never once intimated to them the view attributed to him; yet not only does the correspondence open with the intimation that his Excellency had brought the subject before the Committee of Council, but in their second letter the committee notice expressly a recommendation he had made upon the subject, against which it is most inaccurately stated that the Royal Dublin Society had more than once urged objections, basing its opposition upon the ground of its being a private society. The charge is untrue in every particular. In the first place, as the Lord Lieutenant never made any recommendation to the society upon the subject, his recommendation never had to be combated; and, secondly, the society never has claimed to be a private society, but has, on the contrary, always considered itself as a public body—a trustee for carrying out the public objects for which it was incorporated by Royal charter. And, with reference to the feeling of the society towards the Lord Lieutenant, I must add, that had any recommendation to that body come form Lord Carlisle, whether as the Queen's Viceroy or the society's president, it would
  22
  have received the most respectful and careful consideration. In addition to the correspondence between the Committee of Council and the society, I propose to move for copies of any communications the Lord Lieutenant may have made either to the Committee of Council or to the Royal Dublin Society upon the question at issue between them, as it is important to know upon what grounds rest what is asserted regarding the part taken by the Lord Lieutenant. My Lords, it is with much pain that I make the remarks I have felt it my duty to make regarding the correspondence I am to move for. The Government has not, I conceive, acted in a proper spirit by a society that has done the services to the country that have been rendered by the Royal Dublin Society. The attempt to coerce a society of educated and independent gentlemen associated in the discharge of a public trust to act in opposition to their convictions was not a becoming exercise of the power of the Government. The Government, no doubt, does entertain a very strong opinion, though very suddenly taken up, that the society is not justified in adhering to its practice—now of 100 years' standing, and never before questioned—of allowing every week a Sabbath of rest to its officers and servants, and they, therefore, think they should be deprived of part of the annual grant given by Parliament; but if so, the more manly, straightforward, and constitutional course would have been to have reduced the estimate upon their own responsibility, instead of submitting a vote to the consideration of Parliament that they do not intend to support, and the discussion of which will have the effect of raising an anti-Sabbatarian agitation within the walls of Parliament at the expense of a society which has ever studiously avoided mixing itself up with religious controversy. My Lords, I will now conclude by moving that there be laid upon the table of the House copies of any correspondence that has taken place between the Science and Art Department of the Committee of Council on Education and the Royal Dublin Society about opening the Botanic Gardens at Glasnevin to the public on Sunday, together with copies of any communications from the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland to the said Committee, or to the Royal Dublin Society, upon the same subject.
  LORD TALBOT DE MALAHIDEsaid, that holding the office of Vice President of

  23
  the Royal Dublin Society he felt it his duty to say a few words on this important question. Although he regretted that the Government should feel disposed to withdraw any portion of the grant to that Society, he could not entirely agree in the views stated by the noble Earl opposite. He had himself, at the meetings of the society, frequently advocated the admission of the public to the Glasnevin Gardens on Sunday after Divine service, because he believed there was a large class of artisans who had no other day at their disposal. This society possessed an advantage which all institutions in Ireland did not enjoy, as it was perfectly free from any religious or political bias, and he thought it would be most injudicious to diminish the power of the society to keep up a good botanic garden. The Government were hardly justified in the strong measures which were threatened, and he trusted the Lord President of the Council would give some reassuring statements on the subject.
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, he should regret any want of courtesy in communications with so important a society as the Royal Society of Dublin; but having again looked over the correspondence, which he had no objection to lay on the table, he could not find in it any discourteous expressions. The question of the opening the garden on Sundays having been brought under the attention of the Government by the Lord Lieutenant, they expressed an opinion that as there was a large annual grant of public money the Irish public ought to derive exactly the same advantage as the English public derived, under the sanction of successive Governments, and under the sanction of Parliament, at Kew and Hampton Court. The objection to the opening of the gardens on religious grounds was taken away by the fact that the Society had been in the habit of admitting the Fellows on Sundays to these very gardens, and the whole of the public on payment to another garden in Dublin under their administration.
  THE EARL OF CLANCARTYsaid, the Royal Society had no control over the garden to which the noble Earl alluded.
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, he presumed the noble Earl did not deny that the Fellows of the Society were admitted to the Botanic Gardens on Sundays? With regard to the police question, the fact of a memorial in favour of opening the gardens being signed by all the police magistrates in Dublin was a greater authority than any
  24
  argument which he could use. The same objections which were made now were urged against throwing open Kew and Hampton Court, but the result had shown that the majority of the visitors on Sundays were artisans of this Metropolis and that their behaviour was orderly and unexceptionable. The noble Earl could not wish to make an invidious distinction between the artisans of Dublin and the artisans of London; and he believed that, if they placed confidence in the Irish working people, their confidence would not be misplaced. Since he had been in the House he had been informed by an Irish Peer that when he proposed he throw open his grounds to the public he was warned of the danger of disorder and devastation, but, nothing of the sort had happened, and nothing could be more orderly than the conduct of the population so admitted. A deputation representing fifty-nine Irish constituencies of all creeds and all politics had pressed on the Government in the strongest manner the desirability of opening these gardens on Sunday. They had further requested the Government to withdraw the grant in order to compel the opening of the gardens. The Government had declined to take that course, but they had determined to take the very constitutional course of deferring any proceedings until the subject had been discussed in Parliament, as it would be when the Vote for the society was under the consideration of the other House. A petition, signed by 16,000 persons, including the Corporation of Dublin and the police magistrates to whom he had referred, had been presented in favour of opening the gardens, and there was good evidence that a large majority of the people of Dublin concurred in that view. The Lord Lieutenant entirely agreed in the opinion of the Members of the Government on this side of the water, that the gardens should be opened, subject of course to the usual regulations. The Lord Lieutenant differed only in point of detail, being of opinion that a small money admission should be required; but in that view the Government did not concur. Under all the circumstances he thought the decision of the Government was most in accordance with the general opinion of the public.
  THE EARL OF DONOUGHMOREsaid, that if he had been present at the meeting referred to he should certainly have voted in favour of the gardens being opened on Sundays after Divine service under certain regulations. If these gardens had been

  25
  supported entirely by the private contributions of the members of the Royal Dublin Society, of course it would have been competent for them to take their own course in the matter; but the fact was that the Royal Dublin Society was merely the medium for expending the public grant given to these gardens. No doubt there was a strong feeling in Dublin against the opening of the gardens; but, on the other hand, there was a petition to be presented to the House of Commons from 2,240 electors, and 16,000 artisans of Dublin in favour of their being opened. If Parliament should decide in favour of the opening of these gardens on Sunday, either the Royal Dublin Society must give way, or else notice ought to be given to them by the Government that the administration of the grant would be transferred to other hands.
  THE BISHOP OF CARLISLEprotested against the sanction of the Government being given to the efforts of persons who were endeavouring to break down the sanctity of the Sabbath. The comfort and consciences of those public servants who were condemned to perpetual labour by the opening of these places ought to be considered. The opening of Kew Gardens led to the running of no less than 93 trains of the Lord's Day, and, of course, to the employment of a very large number of guards, drivers, porters, and other officials. Having mixed much with working-men he knew that they looked to the Legislature to protect them against the consequences which would flow from the sanctity of the Sabbath being broken down.
  LORD MONTEAGLEsaid, that he would be as much opposed to the Motion as the right rev. Prelate if he thought that it tended in the remotest degree to break down the sanctity of the Sabbath. The contrary would be found to be the case. It would be a great boon to the poor housekeepers, artizans, and inhabitants of the Liberties of Dublin, that upon this day of happy rest and enjoyment they should have the opportunity of communing with the works of Nature. Such an opportunity tended to improve the hearts and the feelings of those poor people far more than if they were pent up in their close abodes and banished from all innocent enjoyment, because there were some persons who chose to put upon the Lord's Day restrictions which he did not think were to be found in its origin and the divine ordinance on which the Christian Sabbath rested. There was no reason to anticipate that any mischief
  26
  would be done to the Botanic Garden if it were opened to the people on Sundays. What was our experience at Hampton Court or at Kew? What was the conduct of the people in St. James' Park, which was open during the whole Sunday? He saw in that beautiful garden, on Sundays crowds, including some of the most wretched classes from Westminster, who conducted themselves in the most orderly manner; often they were assembled in family groups, and he attached much importance to the union of husband, wife, and children, who were probably separated during the week, meeting in happy communion in that beautiful garden on the Sunday. Depend upon it these persons were not the worse Christians for being thus allowed the contemplation of the beautiful works of God. In conclusion, he thanked the noble Earl (the Earl of Donoughmore) for the manly, sensible, and, he would unhesitatingly, add the religious view which he had taken of this question, and hoped that the managers of these gardens would follow his noble. Friend's advice, and take an opportunity of reconsidering their decision, if they did not, he hoped the House of Commons would be against them as the declared sense of the House of Lords had now shown itself to be.
  THE EARL OF EGLINTONconcurred with almost every noble Earl that had spoken, in thinking that it was expedient to open the Glasnevin Garden on Sundays. The Zoological Gardens in Dublin had been open for some years to the public on that day, and hardly an instance of misconduct had occurred in them; while he believed that their use on Sunday had greatly conduced to the benefit of the people. The interests of religion were best subserved by the promotion of innocent and healthy recreation among the lower classes of the population, instead of leaving them to indulge in the gross vices which prevailed in all great cities. He, however, thought that, as the Royal Society were pledged conscientiously and by opinion to a particular course, the Government should not press them this year to alter their determination, but give them until next year for consideration.
  THE BISHOP OF DOWN AND CONNORsaid, he would in every possible way guard against the desecration of the Sabbath; but care should be taken, while upholding its sanctity, to remember the words of Him who said that "the Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath."

  27
  What could be more becoming than to give to the Christian people of a Christian country the innocent recreation on a Sunday which was denied them on every other day in the week? The upper ranks of society were able to take recreation on all days; but the working classes in every large town were, for the most part, immured in close rooms, breathing a polluted atmosphere, with no possible means of enjoyment; and, that being so, the upper classes, he thought, could hardly reconcile it to themselves on religious grounds to exclude the poor from enjoying the fresh air and the recreation which such gardens as these naturally afforded. He hoped the executive of the Royal Dublin Society would reconsider this question, and would not deny to their poorer brethren means of enjoyment which they possessed themselves. It seemed to him most desirable that those who had the opportunities of reading the will and mind of God in His holy book should also have opportunities of contemplating the works of His hand in the other great book—the book of Nature, remembering that "the earth is the Lord's, and the fulness thereof." He trusted that the Government grant would not be withdrawn, and that the result of a calmer consideration of this question by the Royal Dublin Society would render such a step unnecessary. He admitted it to be an evil that by the opening of holiday places on the Sunday a certain number of officials were employed; but this objection would apply less to the Glasnevin Gardens than to any other, for there was no railway, and only two or three attendants would be required; and, that being so, he thought the conscientious scruples of a few persons should not stand in the way of doing a great public good. When they considered the many evils to which the populations of large towns were exposed on Sundays, they must admit that it was an advantage to remove them as far as possible from those unholy temptations. He must express a hope that public places of this sort would not be closed on that day.
  THE EARL OF CLANCARTYsaid, that those who entertained religious scruples upon that subject were entitled to the greatest respect.
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, he would immediately put himself in communication upon the matter with the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, who had the most friendly feeling towards the Royal Dublin Society, and he hoped that by that means some satis-
  28
  factory settlement of the question would be effected before the Vote came on for discussion in the House of Commons.
  Motion agreed to.
  House adjourned at Eight o'clock, to Monday next, Eleven o'clock.