Lords Sitting of 17 June 1864

Preamble
MINUTES.— Sat First in Parliament — The Lord Oriel, after the Death of his Father.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Public and Refreshment Houses (Metropolis, &c.)* (No. 135).
Second Reading—Church Services (Apocrypha) (No. 125) [H.L.], Order for 2R. discharged.
Report—Penal Servitude Acts Amendment (No. 118); Union Assessment Committee Act Amendment* (No. 131); Ecclesiastical Courts and Registries (Ireland)* (No. 132); Improvement of Land Act, 1864* (No. 130).
Withdrawn—County Courts Acts Amendment* (No. 70) [H.L.]; Church Services (Apocrypha) (No. 125); Turnpike Roads* (No. 24).

COUNTERS OF ELGIN AND KINCARDINE.
MESSAGE from The QUEEN respecting The Countess of Elgin and Kincardine— The QUEEN'S Answer to the Address of Monday last on said Message, reported.
SIR ROWLAND HILL, K.C.B.
MESSAGE from The QUEEN respecting Sir Rowland Hill, K.C.B.—The QUEEN'S Answer to the Address of Tuesday last on said Message, reported.

WEST RIDING ASSIZES—HER MAJESTY'S ANSWER TO THE ADDRESS.
"I have received your Address, praying that the late Decision of the Privy Council ordering the Removal of the West Riding Assizes from York to Leeds instead of to Wakefield may be reconsidered."
"I have to inform you, that in pursuance of the Provisions of an Act passed in the Third and Fourth Years of His late Majesty King William the Fourth, intituled 'An Act for the Appointment of convenient Places for the Holding of Assizes in England and Wales,' an Order was made by Me, with the Advice of My Privy Council, on the 10th Instant, ordering and directing that Assizes for the West Riding of Yorkshire shall be held at Leeds, and the 6th Day of August next has been since fixed by My Judges of Assize for the Midland Circuit for holding the next Assizes for the West Riding in. that Town."
"I have directed that a Copy of this Order shall be laid before you. If it should hereafter appear, that with a view to the more cheap, speedy, and effectual Administration of Justice, it may be expedient to appoint some other Place for holding an Assize in the West Riding, the Subject shall again be referred for the Consideration and Advice of My Privy Council."

THE COUNTY COURTS AMENDMENT BILL.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I wish to claim your Lordships' attention while I speak to you a few words conveying the reasons which have induced me to request you to postpone all further consideration of the County Courts Amendment Bill, which I have had the honour to submit to you. It has been represented to me that if the Bill were now to go down to the other House of Parliament it would be impossible to pass it during the present Session, not only from the state of business — which possibly I might get over — but from the circumstance that a Committee is sitting there on the state of the bankruptcy law, with which this Bill is in a great measure connected. That is by no means the argument which has had most weight with me. I am not at all insensible to the opposition which this Bill has met with. Many representations have been made to me from various quarters; and, on the whole, I am desirous of weighing these representations and of re-considering the matter that I may endeavour, if I can, to introduce a Bill, next Session if I live, which will remove many of the objections which have been raised against this Bill. With a measure of this real importance it is hardly to be expected that it can pass through Parliament on its first introduction. It is very desirable to agitate the

1917
subject—to let the country express its opinions, to weigh those opinions, and then after mature consideration to legislate at a future time. That will be my earnest desire, and I shall therefore relieve your Lordships of any further consideration of this Bill at present.
LORD BROUGHAMexpressed his satisfaction at the withdrawal of the Bill, which he thought would not only not have passed this House, but would not have passed the other. He was perfectly confident that imprisonment for debt, which was the main feature of the Bill, and the shutting up of the County Courts, which would have been the immediate consequence, would never be endured by their Lordships or the country.
THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDEhoped that the withdrawal of the Bill would have no effect on the progress of the Irish County Courts Bill, and that some of the indisputably good provisions of this Bill would be introduced into the Irish Bill.

DENMARK AND GERMANY.

  QUESTION.
  THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGHsaid, as the Conference meets to-morrow, and the suspension of arms will terminate in nine days unless a final arrangement is made, this probably is the last opportunity on which it may be possible, with any chance of producing the least good, to bring under your consideration the actual position of the Danish Question. I prefer to consider great questions before any final decision is taken by the Government with respect to them, rather than to wait till that decision has been made, and then, in the event of not approving that decision, to concur in a vote of censure. I had much rather endeavour to do good, and prevent rather than punish evil. Before I put the question, of which I have given notice, to the noble Earl, I hope I may be permitted very shortly to state what is the actual position of the Danish Question and our own. The Treaty of 1852 is not the basis of the arrangement which, as we are told, it is proposed to make. It is but three years since Prince Gortschakoff, unless I am greatly mistaken, considered that treaty—agreed to by almost all the Powers of Europe—to be in the nature of a guarantee of the integrity of the Danish dominions, and, because it was assented to by so large a number of the European
  1918
  Powers, to be more valuable than a particular guarantee by a certain number of Powers, as was proposed by the noble Earl. That treaty was entered into for the purpose of establishing the succession to the throne of Denmark, and with it, and through it, the integrity of the Danish dominions. It was declared in that treaty that it was of the highest importance to the interests of the balance of power in Europe and the peace of Europe that the integrity of the Danish dominions should be maintained. Are there any new views with respect to the balance of power in Europe which have induced those Powers to retire from the obligations of that treaty? My Lords, it appears to me to be a matter of ominous import that a treaty agreed to only twelve years ago should, upon a futile pretence that circumstances have changed, be abandoned now by every one of the Powers by whom it was signed. Are other treaties of more ancient date, where circumstances have indeed altered, to be maintained in their integrity if this recent treaty, where circumstances have not been changed, is to be abandoned? Where is to be the security of the obligations of any treaty if so recent a treaty is to be broken? The circumstances have not changed. Then, as now, the people of Schleswig and Holstein were led by the press of Germany to believe that they would be in a better position if united with Germany; and, through the intrigues of Prussia, they rose in rebellion against their Sovereign. The same circumstances exist now. The people have not gone beyond what they did in 1848, yet the circumstances of the present dispute are relied on as a reason for depriving Denmark of Schleswig and Holstein. What effect must this have oh the security of the small States of Europe? If the great Powers unite to dismember a State by taking from it that which is declared by treaty to be a permanent portion of it, what occurs to-day with respect to Denmark may occur to-morrow with respect to Sweden, with respect to Holland, with respect to Belgium, and with respect to Switzerland, but still more with respect to those medieval curiosities the small States of Germany, which, if this innovation be carried out, probably, will be the very first States to suffer from its further application. My Lords, I expect that when we read the papers which have passed in this Conference we shall find on the part of the noble Earl a very able

  1919
  statement of the reasons why this course should not be adopted. We have all read with a feeling of sympathy that paper which appeared a few days ago stating the views of Denmark with respect to the proposals made at the Conference. Denmark bows to the opinion of the Powers, and consents to adopt the proposal of the noble Earl with respect to the line of demarcation, but with the conditions that her diminished territory shall be preserved to her in independence and autonomy, and that the people whom it is proposed to separate from Denmark shall have the opportunity of expressing their own opinions as to their future government. Now, what are the different lines of demarcation proposed? The German Powers proposed line from Apenrade to Tondern, which would leave the Danes only a very small portion of Schleswig. It is also stated, though not on strictly official authority, that a second line was proposed by Prussia—one from Flensburg to Tondern. This latter would leave the Danes in possession of Alsen, which the Prussians and Austrians have not hitherto been able to take. The first line would take Alsen away from Denmark; but there is this to be observed with respect to both lines—that they would deprive Denmark of every port in the North Sea, and by doing so they would cut off her communication with the other States of Europe in winter, when the Sound cannot be passed. I believe that France as little as England could consent to such an arrangement as that. The noble Earl proposes a different line. He proposes a line that would leave Denmark the Dannewerke, and I believe all the neutral Powers have accepted and supported the noble Earl's proposition. I hold, then, that the noble Earl on the part of this country and the neutral Powers, by the support they have given to his propositions, have practically pledged themselves in honour to maintain that frontier line, and not consent to any other which may be proposed. When, by means of this proposition, they replace the flag of Denmark on the line of the Dannewerke, they incur an obligation in honour to maintain it there. And they could not have selected a frontier more agreeable to good policy. To take from Denmark anything above the Dennewerke would have this effect—that in any future war between Germany and Russia, or between France and Germany, France or Russia would be sure to
  1920
  have the cordial support of Denmark against Germany, and troops could be brought to bear on the right of the German army in a manner that would be well calculated to insure success against Germany. We ought to look to the settlement now proposed as a final one, and no settlement can be final which is not at the same time just and honourable. I can hardly think it possible that Austria can hesitate about accepting the noble Earl's proportion. She must surely admit that the position she has lately taken up of subordinate co-operation with Prussia is one not worth of the place which she has hitherto occupied in Europe. She must feel that the objects which Prussia has in view are not German, but purely Prussian objects, and, therefore, that they are not her own objects. She must see that Prussia is adopting principles which are entirely incompatible with the integrity of any of the States of Europe. And may we not hope that Russia will give her strenuous support to the noble Earl's proposition—Russia, which for ninety year has honourably and generously supported Denmark? It is surely to be expected that, looking back on that long series of years, Russia will not, in the moment of her weakness and difficulty, desert Denmark, whom she has so long supported. And what should be the course of France? Denmark through her long and faithful connection and alliance with France during the revolutionary war, lost Norway. Is it possible to believe France can stand by and see Denmark, her ancient friend and ally, dismembered and disabled by that very State on which she trampled at Jena? Must France not feel that a treaty concluded by her consent which would dismember and destroy Denmark would bring upon herself a dishonor greater than that of the defeat at Rosbach, which at Jena she had redeemed. Then, what are the rights which the German Powers claim in this case? The right of conquest. The conqueror has no right of conquest in an unjust war. He has as little as the house-breaker who enters a dwelling at night to despoil it. But the conqueror in an unjust war, thought he cannot acquire a right can confer one. He confers upon all States the right of intervention to redress a wrong and re-establish rightful possession. Again, my Lords, will any one maintain the broad doctrine that every man who speaks German is to be under a German Sovereign?

  1921
  Why, that is a principle which would dismember every State in Europe. There is no country, including our own, in which there are not thousands of men who speak I a language different from that of the Government under which they live. I do not ask, under present circumstances, what England intends to do; but I Infer that at least the Government will go to this extent, that they will not permit an Austrian fleet to enter the Baltic. I think they will interfere to protect Denmark in the possession of her Islands. But what greater right have the inhabitants of those islands to be protected from Prussian bar barity than have the people of the north of Schleswig and Jutland? Depend upon it, the Prussians would prefer an arrangement of this kind to any peace; they would prefer to be kept out of the Islands if they were allowed to remain in Schleswig mid Jutland; and they would remain find barbarously despoil the inhabitants of those provinces. But is that consistent with the honour of this country and with the honour of the other States of Europe? There is only one way to make Prussia give up its hold on Jutland and North Schleswig, and that is by distinctly intimating that the British Government will not only protect the Islands but will protest Jutland and Schleswig—that they will give the assistance of a British force to blockade the ports of Germany in order to protect Schleswig and Jutland. I certainly have always maintained the opinion that there is no material difference between the moral obligations of a Stale and those of an individual. I cannot understand how that which confers reputation on a man can bring discredit and injury upon a country. I think that no country can greatly err in following the dictates of generosity and of honour in making timely preparations against a great and coming danger, and least of all when innocence and weakness clasp its knees imploringly, in raising its hand to restrain and to strike down the aggressor. It now only remains for me to ask the noble Earl whether measures have been taken by Her Majesty's Government to re-inforce the fleet, so as to make it equal at once to the blockade of the German ports and the defence of the Danish Islands.
  EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, before I reply to the Question of the noble Earl, I must beg leave to make a very few remarks upon the statement which he has just
  1922
  addressed to your Lordships. Of course, I am not going to enter into anything that has taken place in the Conference or into the state of the negotiations at the present moment; but as the noble Earl has referred to the Treaty of 1852, as he is perfectly aware of the nature of that treaty, and as he has had before him the papers which have been laid upon the table of both Houses of Parliament, I must call his attention to some of the circumstances connected with that treaty. My Lords, the Treaty of 1852 was not a treaty of guarantee. I believe it was stated expressly at the time, and this I know from one who negotiated the treaty, that it was then a matter of discussion whether there should be a treaty of guarantee, or only a treaty recognizing the right of the King of Denmark to regulate the succession to the throne, and stating the reasons why the Powers of Europe should agree to the mode proposed by the King of Denmark for regulating that succession. That treaty bound, I think, all the Powers who signed it, to recognize the present Sovereign of Denmark, King Christian IX., both as successor to the throne of Denmark and to that of the Duchies, and thereby he became, at the death of the late King, Duke of Holstein, Duke of Schleswig, and Duke of Lauenburg, as much as he became King of Denmark. That was the obligation of the treaty; but it did not do more than that which I have stated; it did not bind any of the Powers who signed it to guarantee its execution. It was no more than those Treaties of 1815, one of which provided for the union of Belgium with Holland, and another for the possession of Lombardy by the House of Austria. The noble Earl will probably recollect that at the commencement of this discussion in the present year the French Government, in a State paper—which was at all events contained in the newspapers, and which, I think, was laid before Parliament—referred to the Treaty of 1815 with respect to Belgium, as showing that this country, though it did agree to that treaty, and though it might be unwilling to see it disturbed, yet concurred in arrangements differing from that which was provided in 1815. In a similar manner, when there was a question of war for the purpose, among other things, of separating Lombardy from Austria, no person was more emphatic than the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Malmesbury), who then held the office of Foreign Secretary, in advising Austria not

  1923
  to incur the perils of war, and in declaring that this country intended to be neutral in such a contest, and would not feel herself bound to support Austria in the maintenance of her Italian possessions. There are many more papers that those presented to parliament, all to the same effect. I think they do the greatest honour to the noble Earl and that they are conceived in a spirit of wise policy. The noble Earl who introduced this subject (the Earl of Ellenborough) must be aware of the sentiments both of France and Russia with respect to the maintenance of the Treaty of 1852— how explicitly France has stated her determination not to go to war for the purpose of maintaining that treaty, and how, though not so explicitly, Russia clearly let it be perceived that it was not her intention to take up arms to enforce that treaty. Whether that be any justification for the course which the Government of this country has pursued in another question, and it is a question upon which I may hereafter have to address your Lordships. I can assure your Lordships that it is a great inconvenience, as well as a great disadvantage to Her Majesty's Government, that they have not been able hitherto to lay before Parliament an explanation of the course of their policy; and no one will more rejoice that I shall when I am able to lay the protocols of the Conference upon the table of this House, and to explain to you Lordships the course which Her Majesty's Government have pursued. In the meantime, in order to show the sort of misrepresentations which are current with respect to the course pursued by the Government, I may mention that in an article which I believe, was first contained in German journal but which I saw translated into a French paper, and there commented upon, it was stated that Her Majesty's Government had declared that the Duchy of Holstein and any part of Schleswig that might be separated from Denmark ought not to be disposed of without the consent of the British Plenipotentiary and the Government of Great Britain. Now, the declaration of Great Britain. Now, the declaration really was that, whatever might happen, the future destinies of the two countries should not be disposed of without their own consent; and as I suppose that was a very fair and just proposal, those who wish to malign England on every occasion thought it well to pervert the meaning of this expression, and turn the consent of the Duchies themselves into the
  1924
  consent of the British Plenipotentiary. I will not enter any further into this question, but nothing will be more agreeable to the Government than to give a full explanation of the whole course of their policy upon this matter. With regard to the Question asked by the noble Earl, I must say that during a period of negotiation, and while the Conference still continues, it has rather the air of drawing from me a statement as to our preparations for war. I will, therefore, only state, disclaiming any intention of uttering a threat of any kind, that Her majesty's fleet is fully prepared for any service which it may be called upon to render.
  THE EARL OF DERBY: My Lords, concurring, as I do, with a great portion of the observations which have been made by my noble Friend (the Earl of Ellen bourough), and made with his usual force and eloquence, I cannot but say with great respect that I certainly dissent, in some degree, from a proposition which he laid down in commencing his speech, and which appears to me to involve a considerable constitution error. My noble Friend stated that his object was—and there could be no doubt what his object must be—to prevent evil being done and assist in promoting beneficial results rather that to allow matters to take their own course, and then censure those who are responsible. Now, if you could be perfectly certain that the interference of Parliament upon all occasions during the progress of negotiations and during the communications and which are passing between various countries would have the effect of preventing evil, of promoting good, and of giving to Her Majesty's Government the support which they may need under the circumstances of the case, I should say that such intervention by Parliament, although exceptional, might at the same time be justified. But, as a general rule, I lay down a doctrine entirely different from that propounded by my noble friend. I conceive the true principle to be, that while matters are in progress—while the Government are engaged in negotiation— it is not the duty of Parliament, with imperfect information, to interfere by advice or by vote. I am opinion that with Her majesty's Government in all matters of this kind must be left the exclusive responsibility for the course and issue of negotiation; and I hope I may take this opportunity of expressing my earnest anxiety, that if I have refrained during the

  1925
  whole of this Session—as I have refrained — from passing any opinion, from putting any question, from raising any partial discussion—a course which I thought greatly to be deprecated—that abstinence on my part will not be supposed to arise from indifference, still less from approval, of the course pursued by the Government. My Lords, whatever temptations I may hate felt to enter upon partial discussions of that state of Europe—more especially as connected with the Banish Question— which keeps this country in feverish anxiety from day to day, I have laid down for myself a rule from which I have not shrunk and will not shrink—namely, that, while matters are in their present state, I will not afford the slightest excuse for any man to allege that by anything I have said or done I have in the least degree embarrassed or impeded the action of the Government. I will leave to them, according, as I apprehend, to the constitutional fluty of Parliament, the whole and undivided responsibility for the course which they have pursued, and the condition to which they have brought the honour of the country. But, my Lords, I must at the same time say that the time is approaching when this transition state of things cannot long continue—that a few days must decide whether the Conference is to succeed in promoting a peace, and, above all, an honourable peace, for this country. Dearly as I love peace I love honour more, and the time must come when we shall see whether that happy effect is to be produced by the negotiations carried on by Her Majesty's Government, or whether, in the course of a few days, the hopes of Europe will be dashed to the ground, the war recommenced, the negotiations ended, and the whole question left open, as it was previous to the assembling of the Conference. Should that be the case, I say it will not only be the right but the duty of Parliament, without an hour's delay, to call upon the Government for a distinct and specific statement of the policy which they have pursued and the course which they mean to pursue. Nay, more—I say it will be the right and the fluty of Parliament, upon hearing such a statement, to pronounce judgment, "Aye" or "No," upon the policy of the Government and the position in which they have placed the country. We are now advancing to a very late period of the Session, and I think it is of the utmost importance that Parliament should not separate with-
  1926
  out having an opportunity of expressing its opinions before this Conference has come to a determination as to the course which is to be pursued, be it for peace or for war. And notwithstanding what I have said as to not interfering with the course of Her Majesty's Government while negotiations are in progress, I may say that I think Parliament would not—indeed, I think Parliament ought not — patiently to sit by and watch protracted negotiations delayed by postponements and adjournments day after day and week after week, until a time of the year shall arrive when Parliament will not be able to pronounce effectively any opinion of a judicial character upon the conduct of Her Majesty's Ministers. Therefore, while I earnestly hope that by a speedy settlement of this question one way or the other, the lips of Parliament will be opened, and Parliament will be permitted to express its opinion, I think it my duty at the same time to say that if, contrary to my hopes and belief, negotiations should Be carried on from week to week, and from month to month, without leading to any definite issue, that circumstance will entirely alter our position, and it will be competent and justifiable — nay more, will be necessary—that Parliament should take some course to prevent, its voice from being entirely stifled in respect to the great affairs of Europe.
  THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDEsaid, he could not remain silent when he heard such constitutional doctrine as this laid down by the noble Earl. He agreed that it would be indiscreet at the present time, when a Conference was sitting to consider affairs so important, that Parliament should interpose any opinion upon the great questions at issue; but he denied that because negotiations were going on it was necessarily incompetent or injudicious, on the part of Parliament, to seek for information. Such was not the doctrine laid down and acted upon by high authorities upon constitutional procedure, which the noble Earl the Foreign Secretary surely would not hesitate to acknowledge. Had not Earl Grey, Mr. Fox, and others, over and over again moved Resolutions and Addresses to the Throne while negotiations were going on? It was often only when negotiations had commenced that Parliament became aware that questions of peace or war were pending. He maintained that since Parliament had assembled there had been many opportunities when Parliament,

  1927
  without any risk of doing harm and with great prospect doing good, might have considered the course which the honour and interests of this country required to be pursued at the present time. They had been told in the Speech from the Throne, that the Treaty of 1852 was to he upheld. What had, become of that treaty now? No one speaks of it, and it is entirely put on one side. Without saying whether that was right or not, he would ask their Lordships to remark how it had been justified by his noble Friend in reply to the frequent remarks of the 'noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Ellen borough). The noble Earl the Foreign Secretary referred to other treaties which has been Set aside; and alluded to them not as exceptional instances, but rather: as examples, implying that as so many treaties had been disregarded there would be no harm in breaking one or two more. The observations of the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Ellenborough) were, he, thought, most wise and well deserving of their Lordships' consideration; but the question which he had put, and which perhaps it was as well had not been an swered, seemed to be founded upon a. misconception. The noble Earl had jumped at the conclusion, that under some circumstances the Government would be inclined to go to war upon the question. It was hard to see what grounds; the noble Earl had for thinking that, happen what might, the present Government would ever be induced to take up arms in the cause of Denmark. It was a matter of notoriety that propositions for partitioning the kingdom of Denmark had been entertained by our Ministers, and no one could doubt that events were tending towards a total extinction of the kingdom of Denmark, He would not say whether such a result was desirable or not for this country, but there could be no doubt that there was a great probability that within a few years Denmark-would either become a part of the German Empire, or a portion of a Scandinavian kingdom. These things had: been going on and we had not stirred in the matter, and therefore it was difficult to understand how it was that the able Earl assumed that in any case we should go to war for Denmark, If a Vote of Censure were proposed, and Parliament was-left without information, it would be difficult to say in what manner their Lordships would vote. He believed that if Parliament had interfered; in 1853 there
  1928
  would have been, no Russian, war, and he had always regretted that he had not at that time brought, forwards Motion which would have enabled Parliament by an expression of its opinion, to relieve, the country from the misfortunes, of that war.
  EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, in reply to the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Derby) I must render my tribute of thanks to him for the course he has pursued in this matter—a course which is entirely constitutional, fair, to the Government, and creditable to himself. With respect to the noble Earl's remarks as to the silence of the Government may say that I think that in a very, few days either arrangements will have been made for preliminaries of peace, or, the negotiations will have been totally, broken off, and the war will then of course be resumed.

THE BURIAL SERVICE.—QUESTION.
LORD, EBURY, in rising to put, the Question, of which he had given notice as to the probability of legislation this Cession upon the compulsory use of the Burial Service, said, he did not intend to enter upon any discussion of this subject at present. He called the attention of this House last year to the Question, and proposed to address Her, Majesty for, the, issue of, a Royal Commission to inquire into the evils, which were staged to arise from the compulsory and indiscriminate use of the Burial Service. In support of the Motion he referred the House to a petition signed by about 4,000 ministers of the Church of England, and addressed to the heads of the Church, praying that some relief might be afforded to their consciences by removing the grievous, scandals caused by the present, state, of the law. Upon that occasion the most, rev. Primate urged him to withdraw the Motion in order that the representatives of the Church might further consider the subject. He did accordingly withdraw, his Motion. Before doing so, however, his most rev. friend the Primate undertook for himself and his right rev. Brethren that they would give their serious attention to the subject, and ascertain, if possible, the views and feelings of the clergy in reference to it, and, if possible, devise some means of remedying an admitted grievance. At the same time he stated that he would not pledge himself — indeed, he did not, think impracticable to do so during that Sessions. Before the Session terminated he asked his most rev.

1929
Friend whether anything had been done; and the most rev. Primate stated on that occasion that he had already taken some steps in the matter, hut that he would require more time in order to ascertain what, were the sentiments of the clergy on the subject. Since that time the greatest part of a year had elapsed. The present Session was now fast drawing to a close, and he hoped he should not he considered as manifesting any improper impatience if he ventured to ask his most rev. Friend, Whether it was likely that any Legislation will take place this Session to remedy the evils complained of from the compulsory and indiscriminate use of the Burial Service? Should the answer he in the negative, it was his intention on this day fortnight to bring the whole Question again under the notice of the House.
THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURYsaid, his noble Friend had stated very accurately what passed during the last Session of Parliament on the question of the Burial Service. It was quite true that he (the Archbishop of Canterbury) undertook to endeavour to Service some measure which should remedy the grievance Which he acknowledged to exist; but before doing so he stated that he ought to ascertain 'What were the views of his right rev. Brethren, and the views of the clergy of the United Church of England and Ireland. He thought he might say that the majority of his right rev. Brethren were averse to any change in the Burial Service. He had taken great pains to ascertain the view's of the clergy on the subject, and the preponderating majority, amounting to at least three fourths — perhaps four fifths—were also averse to any change in that service. Their feeling was that the remedy would be worse than the disease, and that it would be better to submit to present evil than run the greater risks that might follow from any change. That being the case, he certainly did not feel himself at all prepared to propose any such remedy for the grievance complained of. He should not be justified in doing so contrary, he believed, to the views of the majority of his right rev. Brethren, certainly to the opinion of an immense preponderance of the clergy. His noble Friend had not touched on the merits of the Question, and he should not, therefore, enter upon it on this occasion, hut he should be prepared to meet him when he renewed his Motion.
LORD EBURYthen gave notice that on
1930
this day fortnight he would renew the Motion he made upon this subject last Session.

CHURCH SERVICES (APOCRYPHA) BILL—(No. 125.)

  SECOND READING. BILL WITHDRAWN.
  Order of the Day for the Second Beading read.
  VISCOUNT GAGEmoved the second reading of the Bill, the object of which was to permit clergymen to substitute for the lessons from the Apocrypha, now used on certain days in the Church service, lessons from the canonical books of the Bible. This might seem a slight boon, but slight as it was, it would be no small relief to many clergymen whose consciences revolted at reading the books to which the Bill referred. As to the Books of the Apocrypha, they had never been received in the Church previous to the Council of Trent, and then only because they were found in the Bible.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a—(Viscount Gaffe.)
  THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURYwas certainly not prepared to accept the Bill his noble Friend proposed to read a second time. He thought it extremely objectionable—unwelcome to the laity and unacceptable to the Church—that it should be left to the option of any clergyman to read what lessons he pleased. He therefore moved as an Amendment that the Bill be read a second time this day six months.
  Amendment moved, to leave out ("now") and insert ("this Day Six Months").
  EARL STANHOPEsaid, he would point out to his noble Friend the fact that white the object of the Bill was to take care that no part of the Apocrypha should form part of the service of the Church of England, and while permission was given to substitute canonical lessons for those taken from the Apocrypha, the Bill would not be effectual for its purpose, because there were other portions of the service—the Offertory, for instance—in which portions of the Apocrypha were used.
  LORD EBURYobserved, that the Bill only proposed that violence should not be done to the consciences of those clergymen who were compelled to read lessons from the Aprocrypha fixed for particular days. There were portions of the Apocrypha—such as the story of Susannah and

  1931
  the Elders and Bel and the Dragon— which were totally unfit, he would not say to be read in church, but to form any part of Christian worship. A clergyman had informed him that he would as soon read the story of Jack and, the Bean Stalk as that of Bel and the Dragon. Many clergymen, did substitute other lessons, but unless the law was altered clergymen would still be compelled by law to read these unseemly stories. All that the Bill proposed was, that clergymen might be allowed, without violation of the law, to select lessons out of the Canonical Scriptures, instead of reading those taken from the Apocrypha. It was not to be supposed that any layman would object to that. The laity, he was persuaded, would rather hail it with satisfaction. The first thing which Dissenters and unbelievers charged against the Church of: England was, that it sanctioned the public reading of these objectionable lessons; and that practice had done more harm to the Church than almost anything else in her ordinances. If their Lordships were true friends to that Church of which they were almost all members, they would vote unanimously in favour of the noble Viscount's Motion.
  THE BISHOP OF LONDONsaid, he was afraid there was some danger of the right rev. Bench being misunderstood in that matter. By his own vote he would be exceedingly sorry to be supposed to express an opinion either in favour of the use of the Apocrypha or against it, or an opinion either in favour of the abstract proposition of the noble Viscount, that the clergy should have this liberty, or that they should not have it. What he wished to be understood as saying by the vote he meant to give was, that he thought this grievance, if it was a grievance which required to be remedied, had better be remedied, in some other way. The noble Lord (Lord Ebury) had intimated that he -would call their Lordships' attention to the subject of the Burial Service a fortnight hence. Now, even with regard to that subject he was disposed to think it was not the wisest course to have discussions in that House till such time as they were able to, settle other important questions with which they were at present engaged. The Government had issued a Commission of Inquiry into a very important ecclesiastical matter—namely, the subscriptions of-the clergy at their ordination and their institution to benefices; and he thought he should not he guilty of any
  1932
  breach of confidence in saying that that Commission had been sitting since April last for many hours in each week. And, as the right rev. Prelates who were members of that Commission, and who, he supposed, would also be members of the other Commission, had many important duties to perform, it was perhaps better to take one thing at a time. When the question of clerical subscription had been dealt with, in the proper and constitutional way, they might be able to consider any further improvements which noble Lords had to suggest. As to the Apocrypha, he did not think that everything which might be disliked in the lessons read in Church was contained in the Apocryphal lessons. Some of their greatest divines had prized the Apocrypha. If his memory served him rightly, Bishop Butler's use of the Book of Jesus the Son of Sirach showed certainly that the Apocrypha, as a whole, had not been correctly designated by the noble Lord. But however this might be, it was better to adopt such a course as the Church generally, approved for removing any blemishes which might exist in our ecclesiastical system.
  THE BISHOP OF OXFORDdesired to back up what had been said by his right rev. Brother. Without expressing any opinion on the general proposition of the noble Viscount, he submitted that the Bill ought not to be read the second time, because it was, at all events, a wrong mode of doing what the noble Lord proposed to do. Following all the precedents of the Constitution, the proper mode of attempting such a step as this would be by moving an Address to the Grown, calling on the Crown either by Commission to inquire into it, or by addressing the Crown to bring the matter by its prerogative before the Houses of Convocation; and, the matter having been first considered in a Convocation of the clergy, it might then he proposed that it should be brought before Parliament. That had hitherto been the course adopted, and he thought it would be full of the gravest inconvenience in many ways if that old constitutional method were rudely interfered with by individual Members of the Legislature attempting piecemeal to reform what they might deem little blemishes in the Church services. Another objection to this proposal was, that if this subject were to be considered at all, the question should be, not whether the Apocryphal-lessons could be amended, but whether the lectionary of

  1933
  the Church service could be amended. He ventured to join his own protest to what had fallen from his right rev. Brother as to the exceeding inappositeness of the general and strong censure pronounced by his noble Friend on the Apocryphal Books. He admitted that there were blemishes to be found in them, and parts that were not the best adapted for reading in our churches; but if, instead of listening to clerical correspondents, who were- occasionally not very clerical in their language, the noble Lord would read The Wise Sayings of Jesus the Son of Sirach, the noble Lord would perhaps not be a sadder, bat, by his own confession, would certainly be a wiser man.
  LORD EBURYexplained that he had referred to such books as Susannah and the Elders and Bel and the Dragon.
  LORD LYTTELTONobjected to dealing in the fragmentary manner now proposed with the English Prayer Book without due inquiry, conducted in the regular methods. So far, however, from objecting to the principle in itself of the noble Viscount's Bill, he thougth it might be carried a great deal further. No case could be mentioned of more flagrant faults of omission and commission than that; of the lectionary of the English Church, whether they looked to the Sunday lessons or to the calendar for the weekly services. When the noble Lord spoke of things in the Apocrypha which it was painful to read in the presence of ladies, it should be remembered that a similar objection might be made to some parts of the canonical books of the Old Testament.
  EARL GRANVILLEventured to suggest to the noble Viscount (Viscount Gage) that he should hot divide the House on that occasion. It was quite clear, from what had just taken place, that the House was not prepared to assent to the second reading of the Bill; and he hoped the Motion would not be pressed, as, at the same time, it might be disagreeable to many of their Lordships to vote against it.
  VISCOUNT GAGEsaid, the discussion had convinced him that the proper mode of dealing with the subject was by the appointment of a Commission, and he would not press the second reading of the Bill.
  Amendment, and original Motion (by Leave of the House), withdrawn; and Order of the Day for the Second Reading discharged.

PENAL SERVITUDE ACTS AMENDMENT BILL(No. 66.)—REPORT.
Amendments reported (according to Order).
THE EARL OF AIRLIEsaid, he desired to call attention to the manner in which the Bill was likely to effect the voluntary emigration of convicts released on licence. As regarded this question there were two points of very great interest and importance, which came out strongly in the evidence before the Commissioners—first this extent to which the emigration of ticket-of-leave men had up to the present time been carried; and secondly, the beneficial results which had attended it. Sir Walter Crofton stated, that upwards of 20 per cent of those convicts who were released on licence in Ireland daring the six years ending in 1861, had emigrated. But those figures, large as they were, did mot represent the whole numbers, because Sir Walter Crofton could only speak with, respect to those persons whose movements he had traced. The information with regard to England was not so good, but there could be no doubt that considerable numbers of convicts had emigrated from the country as well as from Ireland. According to the secretary of the Discharged Prisoners' Aid Society that institution, since it came into existence, had assisted about 900 released convicts to emigrate, and that a still larger number would have been assisted had the society's funds permitted; and the same authority stated that a very general disposition to leave this country had been found among ticket-of-leave men. As to the beneficial effects of the emigration there was a concurrence of testimony on the part of all who had given evidence before the Commissioners. Sir Waller Crofton was of opinion that any well-directed system of prison discipline must involve a large voluntary emigration of released convicts; and Mr. Organ declared that the main object of his lectures had been to induce ticket-of-leave men to emigrate. Looking indeed to the large extent to which emigration had gone from Ireland, and looking to the great importance that had been attached to the Irish system, it was not too much to say that the good working of the Irish system might be attributed, in great measure, to the voluntary emigration of convicts released on license. With regard to transportation the Commissioners were sensible of the difficulties of the

1935
question; and to meet those difficulties they recommended a large increase in the emigration to Western, Australia—as large a number as the colony could accommodate. Captain Henderson stated the number at l,000 a year; the Commissioner in their Report estimated the number somewhat larger; but it was known that the average of those transported during the last two years had been between 500 and 600 each year. This was not the time to discuss the question whether the Government were acting rightly or not. He thought they were acting rightly. They had now pledged themselves that no greater number of convicts should be transported to Australia than between 500 and 600, and that pledge, he thought, could not be revoked. What was to be done with the remainder? It appeared to him that it would be acting more in the spirit of the recommendation of the Commission, if they could not carry out those recommendations to the letter, not to throw obstacles in the way of voluntary emigration of convicts who had been released from prison. Now, what would be the position of the Government if the Bill passed in its present form? The Bill provided for a stringent supervision of ticket-of-leave men, who were to report themselves once a month, besides intimating every change of residence. These reports would be sent in the first instance to the directors of convict prisons, and would then be transmitted by them to the Government, who would thus be made responsible for the movements and conduct of all convicts released on licence. It was also important to note what had been the action of other countries, especially of those towards which the tide of emigration usually tended—the United States of America and our Australian colonies. The State of New York had framed a most stringent regulation for the purpose of preventing persons whose term of punishment had not expired from being landed on its shores. They made the shipowner responsible—they visited him with severe penalties if he allowed any of these men to land. Of course, the Government would not deny the right of the United States to make such a regulation a cause of grievance. But in the case of our own colonies it was still stronger. After the concessions which the Government had made to the colonies, he could not believe that they would be so wanting in self-respect as to attempt to smuggle convicts into the colonies. If the Bill were passed as it
1936
stood, it would hamper the Government very greatly in dealing with a large class of our convicts. No doubt the Government might deal in this way with the class of convicts whose term of imprisonment having expired, and who having had a chance of gaining honest employment offered to them here or elsewhere, could be shown to have declined availing themselves of such a chance; but if an impression should ever prevail in the public mind that these men were the victims of a system that would give rise to most dangerous state of feeling—sympathy with the convict class. He had shown that a very considerable emigration of criminals had taken place, that it had been beneficial, and that this Bill would put a stop to it. He hoped the Government, therefore, would consider whether the Bill could not be so modified as to give the Secretary of State power to release convicts, if he thought fit, without imposing any conditions of supervision.
EARL GRANVILLEadmitted that there was an inconsistency between the Bill and the Report of the Commissioners—that the Report of the Commissioners—that the Commissioners had stated that Western Australia was capable of receiving 1,000 convicts a year, whereas the Government were only permitted to send 500 or 600.
EARL GREYsaid, it was impossible to overstate the importance of enabling convicts to leave this country, and he entirely concurred with his noble Friend (the Earl of Airlie), that while it was most desirable that convicts should be enabled to leave the country, it certainly was not desirable that we should send them away in an underhand and stealthy manner. The noble Earl had pointed out that several foreign countries and some of our colonies had passed laws to prevent the immigration of such a class, and he could not help fearing that if Her Majesty's Government pursued their present policy on this subject we should get into serious difficulties, both with our colonies and foreign countries. At present convicts sent to Western Australia had very little chance of making their way to the other Australian colonies; but he had no hesitation in saying that if convicts were released here with tickets-of-leave, but under no conditions which would prevent them making their way to the colonies, the Australian colonies would get a larger importation of this class than if we had continued to send them to Western Aus-

1937
tralia. He dissented altogether from the assertion of the noble Lord that the Government having decided on not sending More than 560 or 600 convicts to Western Australia in each year, this decision of the Government was irrevocable. He never would admit that an unwise decision was to be binding on the wisdom of Parliament to all future time, and he hoped' no long time would elapse before Parliament overrated this unwise and hasty measure.
EARL GRANVILLEsaid, Her Majesty's Government were quite alive to the complaints which our colonies and foreign Governments would have against us if we deluged them with our convict classes.
Clause 4 (Forfeiture of Licence).
THE EARL OF LICHFIELDrose to move aft Amendment the effect of which was to relieve the ticket of-leave men from the obligation of reporting themselves once a month to the police, unless they were required so to do by the conditions of their licence. The mere fact of a man calling upon the police once a month would not give them any further check upon him than the ordinary supervision which they ought under all circumstances to exercise. He contended that it would be impracticable to carry out the clause as it stood, and that it would be hard to deprive the few men who were inclined to earn an honest living from a fair opportunity of doing so, especially as there was nothing to show that the public would be better protected under such a system.
Amendment moved, after ("subsequently") to leave out ("once in each month",) and insert ("if required to do so by the Conditions of his License").
THE EARL OF CARNARVONsaid, that every argument that had been urged by the noble Earl had been urged over and over again on a former evening. If the Amendment was agreed to it would completely reverse1 the deliberate decision arrived at by their Lordship after a full discussion. The objection to supervision was its hardship upon the ticket-of-leave bolder. He was willing to assent to the introduction of a proviso that the personal attendance of the ticket-of-leave holder should not be required after the first occasion, but that a certificate or letter from the Discharged Prisoners' Aid Society, or a clergyman, or an employer, should be received as evidence of the man's continuance in honest courses.
EARL GRANVILLEobserved, that nothing bad been said to show that a monthly reporting would insure a greater amount of supervision on the part of the police, than reporting upon first arrival and upon each change of residence.
Question proposed, That the Words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause, their Lordships divided:—Contants 36; Not-Contents 44: Majority 8.
Resolved in the Affirmative.

CONTENTS.

Richmond, D.

Bolton, L.

Chelmsford, L.

Salisbury, M.

Churston, L.

Colehester, L.

Bandon, E.

Colville of Culross, L.

Carnarvon, E. [Teller.]

Conyers, L.

Chesterfield, E

Dinevor, L.

Manvers, E.

Dunsany, L.

Mayo, E.

Egerton, L.

Nelson, E,

Inchiquin, L.

Orkney, E.

Lyveden, L.

Powis, E.

Polwarth, L.

Romney, E.

Raglah, L.

Tankerville, E.

Silchester, L.(E. Longford).

Wilton, E.

Templemore, L.

Hawarden, V.

Tenterden, L.

Hereford, V.

Thurlow, L.

Tredegar, L.

Blantyre, L.

Wyntord, L. [Teller.]

NOT-CONTENTS.

Westbury, L. (L. Chancellor).

Torringten, V.

Down, &c., Bp.

Armagh, Archbp.

Camoys, L.

Devonshire, D.

Cranworth, L.

Saint Albans, D.

Dartrey, L. (L. Cremorne)

Somerset, D.

De Tabley, L.

Airlie, E.

Foley, L. [Teller.]

Belmore, E.

Houghton, L.

Caithness, E.

Hunsdon, L. (V. Falkland).

Cathcart, E.

Chichester, E.

Leigh, L.

De Grey, E.

Lyttelton, L.

Devon, E.

Methuen, L.

Ducie, E.

Mostyn, L.

Granville, E.

Ponsonby, L. (E. Bessbourough).

Grey, E.

Lichfield, E. [Teller.]

Portman, L.

Russell, E.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Saint Germans, E,

Suridridge, L. (D. Argyll).

Shaftesbury, E.

Shrewsbury, E.

Talbot de Malabide, L.

Truro, L.

Everaley, V.

Wenlock, L.

Falmouth, V.

Wodehouse, L.

Sydney, V.

House adjourned at Eight o'clock, to Tuesday next, Eleven o'clock.