Lords Sitting of 14 July 1873

MINUTES.
PUBLIc BILLS—Fist Reading—Public Records (Ireland) Act (1867) Amendment* (209); Steam Threshing-Machines* (210).
Second Reading—Public Schools (Eton College Property)(204)*.
Report—Colonial Church* (208).
Third Reading—Tithe Commutation Acts Amendment* (171); Indian Railways Registration (164); National Debt Commissioners (Annuities)* (191); Slave Trade (Consolidation)* (188); Prison Officers Superannuation (Ireland)* (192), and passed.

AFRICA—WEST COAST SETTLEMENTS—THE ASHANTEE INVASION.
THE DUKE OF BUCKINGHAMsaid—seeing the noble Earl the Secretary for the Colonies in his place—that after what appeared in the newspapers that morning, any information which the noble Earl could give their Lordships on the subject of the hostilities between our forces at Elmina and the Ashantees would be listened to with interest.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, he was much obliged to the noble Duke for giving him an opportunity of stating what had occurred. The summary of news that had appeared in the papers was generally correct. The date of the last despatch received from Cape Coast Castle was the 16th of June. Immediately before that despatch was written the engagement at Elmina referred to in the public papers had been fought between Her Majesty's military and naval forces and a body of Ashantees, in which the latter were repulsed. The forces on that occasion were commanded, the land force by Lieutenant-Colonel resting, and the naval by Captain Fremantle, and both branches of the service conducted themselves with the greatest gallantry, and were led with the greatest skill and prudence. The Ashantees were repulsed with great loss, leaving not fewer than 200 men dead on the field, besides a great number of wounded. Our loss in that engagement and a slight skirmish which had occurred previously was two killed and seven wounded. Our regular troops were assisted by a body of Houssas, whose bravery was spoken of in the highest terms. The despatch of Lieutenant-Colonel Festing addressed to the War Office, and that of Captain Fremantle addressed to the Admiralty, which gave all the details of the engagement, would be published to-morrow, and therefore he need not enter into details in replying to the Question of the noble Duke. Another operation had been carried out previously. He alluded to the destruction of a portion of the town of Elmina—only a portion of it had been destroyed, because the other parts had remained loyal. That operation was undertaken in consequence of the disaffection of the inhabitants of a portion of the town, who showed a disposition to give 'aid to the Ashantees. Full notice was given to the inhabitants
268
of that part of the town which was destroyed to remove, and Colonel Harley stated that owing to that precaution no life was lost. It was to be regretted that such a step should have become necessary, although there was strong ground for suspicion; but he might mention that the removal of the buildings which had been destroyed was not only necessary for the safety of the garrison but was also attended with sanitary advantages as they approached so close to the fort that proper steps would not be taken for the health of the forces. As regarded the probability of an attack on Cape Coast Castle, it was true that deserters from the enemy had informed the authorities that a force of Ashantees encamped at a distance of about 15 miles from Cape Coast Castle and Elmina respectively intended to make such an attack, and that in furtherance of that object scouts had advanced within seven miles of Cape Coast Castle; but Colonel Harley and the officers engaged in dealing with the Ashantees expressed no doubt as to the result of such an attack. As to stores and provisions, their Lordships might remember that on a former occasion he mentioned that two steamers on their way to Cape Coast had been lost, and apprehensions were entertained that a considerable supply of stores had been lost in them. After full inquiry, it had been ascertained that scarcely any military stores were in either of those ships. The whole of the military stores which he had supposed to have been on those steamers had been received at Cape Coast, and they were amply sufficient for all the wants of the troops. He believed the only loss experienced was that of a number of boots and great-coats; though it was possible that some military stores might have been put on board those steamers at Sierra Leone. If this was the case, such stores were lost; but none had been sent in those steamers from this country. A large supply of provisions had been sent out already, and much more was about to follow, in the shape of maize, rice, and other food suitable to the population.
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALEobserved that the statement of the noble Earl the Secretary for the Colonies was satisfactory as far as it went; but he ventured again to suggest that the

269
natives should be armed and drilled for the purpose of service against the enemy in the interior. He understood that intelligence had been received up to the 23rd of June, and at that time there was a demand on the part of the colonists for gunboats to secure the safety of tribes under our protection.

CHURCH ASSOCIATION—CONFESSION IN THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND.

  MOTION FOR A SELECT COMMITTEE.
  LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE,in calling attention to this subject, said, the only reason he brought forward so important, so very difficult a question, was because no Member of the House more entitled and more capable had done so, and because he believed, with the Archbishops, not only that our national institutions for the maintenance of religion were endangered, but that those institutions were unjustly perverted to teaching antagonistic to them. He thought measures should be taken to stay this course of teaching within our Church, and that this branch of the Legislature, where the heads of the Church and the laity met together, was the most appropriate place to consider what measures should be taken towards that end. As to the reply of the Archbishops to the Church Association, he must say that he rejoiced that at last the efforts of that association were acknowledged as beneficial, and that, however tardily, their Graces had condemned Confession as having no place in our Church. It was acknowledged that the Petition of the 480 clergymen to Convocation expressed the views of a much larger number of the clergy than those signing. The Archbishop of Canterbury so stated in the Debate in Convocation, an eminent Member of the Church -Union had stated to him they could easily have obtained tell times as many. This Petition asked for Sacramental Confession, the reservation of the Eucharist, the use of Unction in baptism, in confirmation, and in the visitation of the sick, the consecration of oils by the Bishop, and the administration of Holy Communion at burials and at other commemorations of the dead; also a proper preface for the feasts of the Blessed Virgin. The petitioners claimed these developments because other irregular developments had been already sanctioned by the Bishops. The
  270
  clergy of this school and the Church Union, who were their representatives, prayed, as in the case of the Purchas judgment, the Bishops to ignore the decisions of the Privy Council when such decisions were displeasing to them—that was, the clergy of the Established Church who held their position and emoluments only under the law, claimed a position above or independent of the law. All these developments which, if not Roman Catholic, were ultra-Catholic, and contrary to all the principles of our Established Church, were already carried out by special services published in a book called The Priest's Prayer Book. The preface to this thanked the Bishops and theologians who had corrected the proofs; and that this book was much used in spite of the Clerical Subscription Act, which required the use of the Common Prayer and no other, was shown by the edition he held in his hand being the fifth. Besides the points prayed for in the Petition, there were services for the Life Profession of Brothers and Sisters, a Litany for the Dead, an Office for Unmarried Women after Childbirth, &c. On the acceptance of these practices and these doctrines, Archbishop Manning, Dr. Newman, and no fewer than 200 or 300 clergymen of the Church of England had felt themselves bound to join the Church of Rome. While we regretted that their convictions led them to take this course, we must respect their honesty, which brought out in painful contrast the conduct of those clergymen who, holding these ultra-Catholic views, still held also their emoluments and position as clergymen of the Established Church. Did they do evil that good might come? Did they remain in our Church to educate her people in these ultra-Catholic doctrines and practices, looking for Disestablishment and their share of the £90,000,000 which the Premier had stated would then accrue to time Disestablished Church of England? It was quite certain the right hon. Gentleman would not refuse them their share on account of their Catholic proclivities. Could any system be imagined more contrary to that straightforward dealing on which Englishmen used to pride themselves? Could any system more tend to lower the whole tone of public morality than for clergymen, claiming a higher degree of sanctity than their neighbours, to allow themselves to

  271
  be induced by any sophistry or casuistry to adopt a line of action so indefensible? In the debate in the Upper House of Convocation, the Bishops all agreed that Sacramental Confession was contrary to the mind and alien to the practice of the Church of England. They all agreed that the Confessional was now commonly practised in the Church. They all assented to the fact that great peril arose in the Sisterhoods from the Confessional, as well as from young men confessing young women; and that great scandals had arisen from these causes, which the Bishops had no power to prevent. Yet the right rev. Bench expressed sympathy for sonic kind of Confession, which evidently went beyond that intended by the Prayer Book. He did not know what kind of Confessional they wished, but he must refer the House and the public to what it was likely to be, from the instructions which were given to a priest in a book called The Priest in Absolution, &c. This book was published by Joseph Masters; it was Part I. and the second edition. On applying for the second Part, the publisher said he could not give it without the consent of the author, the Rev. J. C. Chambers, who replied that the second Part was reserved for Priests specially recommended. What Part II. was he could not say, but he could not understand how it could be a more filthy production than Part I. He had not read it through, and he would not abuse the Privileges of the House by reading extracts, for if he read them elsewhere he would assuredly be liable to imprisonment under Lord Campbell's Act, for its contents were in great measure the same as The Confessional Unmasked, being in great part a copy of Dens' Theology, explaining. how a confessor was to act in questioning with regard not only to every natural and unnatural crime that could be committed, but as to every foul thought which could be suggested by the foulest imagination. Should any noble Lord doubt his accuracy he would lay the book on the Table, and refer him to pages 24 and 64. but he could not advise their perusal. A most distinguished Member of the right rev. Bench (the Bishop of Peterborough) had "denounced the Confessional as an outrage on decency and common sense." He said —"I maintain that taking God's place without God's attributes it is impossible, however prudent a priest may be, to
  272
  avoid instilling vice by the Confessional." So much for the Confessional in our Church But it had been alleged as more advantageous to accept all Roman Catholic doctrines into our Church than that those holding them should leave it. Let us learn the results; from the Catholic Register of February, 1873, it appeared that in London alone 2,000 perverts had joined the Roman Catholic Church. The Register stated that "a regular stream came from the different Sisterhoods and Ritualistic congregations." Let us see how dispassionate lookers on view this movement. The Allgemeine Zeitung spoke of England as the El Dorado of Popery—that while it was opposed in every other country in Europe, it met with every encouragement in England, where to become a Catholic had among the aristocracy and upper ten thousand, especially among the ladies, come to be a mark of distingué fashion, against which the arguments of common sense were as little availing as against any of the other freaks of the reigning mode—as crinoline yesterday, chignon to-day. But the question was, what remedy would you apply? First, he would ask the Bishops, "Do you exercise the powers you undoubtedly possess to repress and discourage the different practices of the High Church party?" They could inhibit clergy belonging to other dioceses from preaching in theirs. Well, the Bishop of this diocese allowed Mr. Bennett and Dr. Littledale, the extremest members of the Ritualistic clergy, to preach in London. Indeed, the only case of inhibition he had heard of was by the right rev. Prelate on the front benches (the Bishop of Winchester), who inhibited a clergyman of the diocese of London from giving Protestant lectures in Lambeth, though the same lectures had been given with the approbation of two successive Bishops of London, and this in spite of the 66th canon, which specially directed Bishop and clergy to preach to Popish recusants. The right rev. Prelate smiled; but he would like to hear some explanation from the right rev. Prelate. Would not the practice complained of be discouraged if this canon were not laid aside? Then, the Bishops had large patronage, but it was stated a right rev. Prelate (the Bishop of Peterborough) had given half the patronage in his gift to the clergy who

  273
  signed the protest on the Purchas judgment. Then the Bishops could revoke licences of curates. Half the signatures to the petition to Convocation were by curates. He doubted not they should hear excellent reasons why their licences were not revoked. Was it true that one of them was curate to the Examining Chaplain of a distinguished member of the right rev. Bench (the Bishop of Winchester)? If he remained in that position, would the public think that the Examining Chaplain disapproved the prayer of the petition? and if the right rev. Prelate continued his Examining Chaplain with a curate holding these views, it would be difficult to convince the public that the right rev. Prelate disapproved them. Then, though no layman could take action against a clergyman without the consent of the Bishops—after the Church Association had at great expense proved what was the law of the Church—yet he believed there was no case at present of any Member of the right rev. Bench taking proceedings to stay illegal practices, though a right rev. Prelate had in Convocation alleged that no Church in the universe was in so great a state of disorder as the Church of England. Then, if the Bishops wanted new powers, why did they not come to Parliament and ask for them? The right rev. Prelate (the Bishop of Peterborough) in a debate on a Bill proposed by the noble Earl (the Earl of shaftesbury), said that a Bishop was in the position of a Commander-in-Chief of an Army. He would ask him what would be said of a Commander-in-Chief who, with mutiny in his camp and his Army dwindling away by desertion, looked on and did nothing? Doubtless, the difficulties were great, as was the responsibility; but he believed if they had been faced in a courageous spirit they might never have existed, and that even now, by earnestness and vigour, they could be at least stayed. If not stayed, they would be constantly increasing; for, if not discouraged, ambition would make all the younger clergy join the Ultra-Catholic party, and through the churches and schools and pulpits of the Ritualistic party these doctrines were being daily propagated. In the upper classes he thought they were fools playing with edge tools, but they had their choice of schools and churches; not so the poor in rural parishes. It
  274
  was to them the wrong was done—a grievous wrong it was; for in many such parishes they chose between the parish school and church or none at all. They would not allow a Roman Catholic priest to cross their threshold, but they received the clergyman of the parish as their natural guide, and did not the Legislature and the Bishops do the poor a great wrong if a minister of the Established Church only led them to accept Roman Catholic teaching, thus becoming a propaganda of Rome? But many would think that the Established Church was safe because Mr. Miall's Motion was rejected by so large a majority; but let them consider how entirely Protestant in their feelings were the electors who returned that majority. Their minds were, it was true, at present far more occupied with the pursuit of material comforts than religious questions; but they had shown their Protestant convictions for though they had returned Jews, they would not return a single Roman Catholic to represent them. He firmly believed they held to the saving that the Established Church was neither high nor low, but broad—not high enough to include Roman Catholics or Ultra-Catholics, not low enough to include sceptics or infidels, but broad enough to include within its pale all Protestants who accepted an Episcopal form of Church Government, and which extended its countenance and support to all Bible Christians whatever the form of Church government they selected. It was on these principles that the Church of England had till of late retained the sympathy and Support she had secured during the three centuries of her existence; she had been regarded as the great centre round which all Protestants revolved, and if she were false to her Protestant character her knell was already sounded. It was his intention to take the opinion of the House on the Motion of which he had given Notice, perhaps not with a view to appoint a Committee at this late period of the Session, but as a declaration that some action was necessary to stay the advance of those dangers which threatened our Church.
  Moved that a Select Committee be appointed to consider by what legislation or other means the danger apprehended of a considerable minority of the clergy and laity desiring to subvert the principles of the Reformation may be averted.—(The Lord Oranmore and Browne.)
  THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, I do not know whether the noble Lord will divide your Lordships' House on the Motion for the appointment of a Select Committee to consider how a danger which he considers to threaten the Church may be averted. If he should think it right to do so, I for one will throw no difficulty in the way—though I doubt very much whether, in the present aspect of the House, your Lordships will be likely to acquiesce in such a course. I have nothing to complain of in the speech of the noble Lord, though perhaps he expects much more from the right rev. Bench than we can comply with. He stated fairly enough the difficulties which surrounded the question, and suggested two courses, either of which the Bishops might adopt. This is not the first time I have heard them proposed, but I cannot say that they have much approved themselves to my understanding. The noble Lord found fault with my right rev. Brother (the Bishop of Winchester) for the course pursued by him in having inhibited a clergyman of whose proceedings he did not approve; but then the noble Lord advises us as a body to inhibit all the clergymen whose proceedings we do not approve. I very much doubt whether your Lordships or the country would sanction such a course. Again, the noble Lord recommends us in the case of curates to adopt the summary process of taking away their licences. But the noble Lord is aware that every curate whose licence is taken away has the right of appeal. It is true the appeal is to me or my most rev. Brother who presides over the arch-diocese of York; but in hearing those appeals we sit as Judges with the benefit often of the presence of gentlemen of the legal profession; and certainly I should refuse to take proceedings beforehand which would make those appeals a farce. Of course, if a curate does anything that is contrary to the law, or that shows him to be otherwise unfit for his post, it is only just that his licence should be cancelled. He has his appeal, and if on appeal it is found that he has deserved to lose his licence, he will be removed; but each case must be judged on its own merits. My Lords, I am not surprised that this subject should attract great attention. It is only right and natural that anything affecting the Established
  276
  Church should attract the attention of your Lordships and of the other branch of the Legislature. I am not surprised, therefore, at the Questions which have been asked elsewhere, and at the Questions which the noble Lord has asked to-night. There can be no doubt of the fact that whatever affects the Established Church has to do with great and important social considerations; what affects that Church does really affect our own families. Now, my Lords, if the noble Lord wishes an expression of opinion from me as to whether I think there is cause for alarm in the practices to which he has referred, I can only refer him to that Paper to which he has alluded in which my most rev. Brother and myself express our opinion that there is real cause for alarm. True, the petition which drew forth that expression of opinion from us is not so important a document as, at first sight, one might be led to suppose it to be. At the same time, I do not. wish to at all undervalue its importance, though from letters which have been published since it was signed, it would appear that some of the petitioners did not know what they were signing. One of them has actually said in print that he thought he was signing a. petition against what is known as the Burials Bill. I do not know whether those who signed it without knowing what they were signing, or those who signed it knowing what they were signing, are most to blame; but I have no doubt that there is a really important question before the country and the Church at the present moment. I, for my own part, certainly attach more importance to another petition which was brought before Convocation. No doubt, the number of names to the petition to which the noble Lord has been referring is considerable, but I do not think the names are of great weight. In my opinion, the other petition to which I have now referred and in disapproval of which I have spoken elsewhere, has a far more dangerous aspect, inasmuch as it was one chiefly, I believe, from undergraduates at Oxford, but included, among the signatures, those of four out of six Professors of Theology. When I see men whose duty it is to teach the doctrines of the Reformed Church to young men who are to be her ministers encouraging such a petition as I have

  277
  referred to, I am led to ask who is responsible for the appointment of these Professors? I do not mean to say that those who advise Her Majesty now, or who may have done so at any other time, have not exercised a conscientious judgment in selecting those Professors to be the trainers of young men about to enter the ministry of the Church; but, as we are in times of great difficulty and danger, I may express a hope that in future more thought will be given to such selections—that there may be more consultation with those who by their position may be supposed to know what are the qualifications requisite for persons appointed to such positions at the present time. My Lords, I believe that for various reasons the difficulties now presenting themselves are very great. Those difficulties are not confined to the Church of which most of your Lordships are members—they are shared by every Church in Europe and every religious communion. There is at the present time much that unsettles men's opinions, and I think your Lordships must know that this unsettled state of opinion is by no means on one side only. It requires great care, attention, and wisdom on the part of those who have to guide the Church of England if they are to guide it clear of the dangers which seem to threaten it on the one side and on the other. There are dangers on both sides. There are the dangers arising from the spirit of infidelity as well as those which arise from what we may call the Ultramontane spirit, and it is the duty of those who guide the Church to consider with care all the circumstances of the times. I do not complain of the noble Lord (Lord Oranmore and Browne) or of anyone else for speaking out to the Bishops. What is the use of Bishops if they are not to be spoken to? My noble Friends who sit on the Treasury bench know that in political matters when there is nobody else to blame, it is not unusual to throw the blame on Her Majesty's Ministers; so in matters ecclesiastical, if there is no one else to be blamed, the cry is, "Blame the Bishops." I am sorry the noble Earl who usually sits opposite (the Earl of Shaftesbury) is not here this evening. I should like to state in his presence that strength of language is not always proof of a strong cause; and to have expressed
  278
  to him personally the opinion which I now express in his absence—naively, that if the Bishops use mild language in this matter, they have not learned it from those who complain of their want of action. My Lords, I should be very glad if your Lordships' House and the other House of Parliament should think fit to increase the power of the Bishops so as to enable them to encounter the dangers which now excite alarm. We do not desire, like the Bishops of another Church, to have the clergy completely in our hands, so as to be able to destroy their influence in their parishes by a simple act of ours. We are anxious that the freedom of the clergy should still be maintained as it always has been in our reformed Protestant Church; but if it is found that the law cannot be upheld unless larger powers are given to the officers intrusted with the Government of the Church, I trust your Lordships and the other House of Parliament will not hesitate to devise some means by which the law may be upheld. It is impossible that during the short remainder of this Session anything can be done in that way; but let me point out what can be done even under the existing system. My Lords, there is no Church in which the laity have so much power as they have in the Established Church of England. Who appoints those who sit on the Episcopal Bench? Do we not owe our nomination to laymen? Then who sent into their positions in the Church the young men who have signed the petition in question? I should be surprised if the great majority of these petitioners who have benefices have not been nominated by lay patrons. I think that in this matter at least the Church must assign a share of the responsibility to the laity. Again, I am anxious to remind those who complain of existing practices that there is an institution in our Church which gives the laity very considerable power. Are there not in every parish two laymen appointed to be the Bishop's officers—one named by the clergyman and the other elected by the laity? I may appeal to my right rev. Brethren for confirmation of what I say when I state that in very few cases indeed do we find there is a determination so to fulfil the duty of churchwarden as to keep such a watch over changes in ritual as

  279
  we, the Bishops, desire to see kept. One other point I wish to mention for your Lordships' consideration. Of late times there has been one great obstacle to the establishment of these objectionable practices among us, and that is the existence of the High Court of Appeal, which in almost every instance has ordered these illegal practices to be discontinued. I beg, therefore, that if your Lordships in your wisdom shall substitute another Court for the Court of Appeal, which for a long time past has pronounced its opinions upon this subject, you will see that the new tribunal is thoroughly able to enter into the whole of these difficult questions, and that nothing is done to encourage certain persons calling themselves the English Church Union, who have placed in my hands a paper in which they declare to your Lordships and the whole country that they consider the decision of lay Courts in these matters possesses no spiritual or ecclesiastical validity. These persons call upon the Bishops not to pay any attention to the decisions of the highest Court of Appeal, because they would thus give a spiritual validity to these decisions. I think it is worth your Lordships' while to consider whether you ought not in every way to strengthen the hands of those who desire to see that the law of the land and of the Church is obeyed in these matters. It is a most unfortunate thing, as I have said, that any Professors of Theology in one of our great Universities should have expressed themselves against that which is pronounced to be the law of the Church. I consider it also a great misfortune that certain clergy connected with the cathedral of this metropolis should publish their determination to violate the law of the Church and of the land; and I cannot but think that a great responsibility rests upon those who appoint to posts of influence in the Church to see that they nominate persons who are perfectly loyal, not only to the general principles of the Church of England, but also to the law of the land and of the Church, as interpreted by the highest of our Courts.
  THE BISHOP OF WINCHESTER: My Lords, I wish to say a word or two upon one part of the speech of the noble Lord who has made this Motion. He has stated that I, because I differ from the opinion of a certain clergyman, in-
  280
  hibited him from coming to my diocese and preaching in it, and that this was the more wrong because two right rev. Prelates of the diocese of London had in succession given him permission to deliver the very lectures which I inhibited him from delivering. Now, I certainly smiled when this was said by the noble Lord; but I smiled simply because of the tissue of mis-statements made by the noble Lord. First, I did not inhibit the rev. gentleman; secondly, I did not differ from that which he wished to deliver; thirdly, no Bishop of London ever did licence the delivery of those lectures. These being the real facts, I hope I did not do very wrong in smiling. The case lies in a nutshell. A clergyman in the diocese of London, who in his own church—not with any licence from the Bishop, but from his own natural authority as incumbent—had delivered certain lectures, proposed to deliver in St. Saviour's Southwark, in my diocese, in which he had no cure, a set of lectures against the Roman Catholic Church, which may have been the same lectures as he had delivered in his own church. The churchwarden of St. Saviour's came to me and said there was a general objection to these controversial subjects being brought in this way into the church by a stranger to the diocese. St. Saviour's is a peculiar church, for it has two conjoint vicars, one of whom had given his permission to the delivery of the lectures, while the other sent the churchwarden to me to say he objected. Therefore I did not inhibit the rev. gentleman, but wrote to him a private letter, telling hint that, under these circumstances, I could not let him deliver the lectures; that from all I had heard of his preaching I should rejoice to have him preach on my side of the water; and that, though, under the circumstances, I could not allow these controversial lectures to be delivered in St. Saviour's Church, I should be very glad, after he had sent me a syllabus of the lectures, to hear them delivered to the young men of Southwark in any of the many halls that were available for such a purpose there. I do not think that in this matter I showed myself tyrannical or overbearing. It certainly was never my wish to silence one for whom I have a very great respect, and who, I believe, judging from his letters, has a kind feeling towards me. I think I could say

  281
  exactly who gave the noble Lord his brief; but he has been misled, for, as I have said, I inhibited no one; I did not differ from the rev. gentleman in opinion on the subject of his lectures—I was ready to welcome him to my diocese; but, upon the objection of the other vicar and the churchwarden, I certainly did object to the delivery of the lecture in that particular church. I am not going to enter upon the wide subject which has been introduced to us by the noble Lord; but I cannot pass over another charge, brought against the Rev. Dr. Woodford, my examining chaplain, because a curate of his is said to have signed this foolish address. It may have been so; and the curate may have been the very man who, in signing the address, thought he was petitioning against the Burials Bill; but Dr. Woodford would not have fallen into such a mistake, and, being in no danger of making such a blunder, he is just as far from the still greater danger of understanding what the address was about and then signing it.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I am not one to under-rate the gravity of the duties of the most rev. Prelate, but I feel bound to protest in one respect against the manner in which he has thought fit to perform them. I cannot think that it is either convenient for the conduct of your Lordships' debates, or just to individuals, that the most rev. Prelate should select this opportunity for uttering condemnations of a strong and grave character against persons who are not present, and whom he would have other opportunities of censuring if he thought fit. I do not know what petition he refers to; but I do know that if a Member of the Government had referred to some Paper which was not upon your Lordships' Table—especially if it affected the conduct of individuals—we should at once have interfered and called him to Order, requesting him first to lay the Paper before the House. I do not think it is fair to apply to these Professors language so very grave as the most rev. Prelate has used, imputing to them a dereliction of duty, in reference to a Paper which is not in our hands, and from which, therefore, it is impossible to select any passages which might, in our opinion, show that the most rev. Prelate has done the Professors injustice or has misunderstood the course
  282
  they have taken. I must make a similar protest as to his allusion to particular clergymen. If a clergyman has done wrong, let a Bishop exercise his episcopal authority in correcting him; but do not let any Bishop who thinks a clergyman has done wrong attack him in an Assembly where he cannot defend himself.
  THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: I alluded to no particular clergymen.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The most rev. Prelate alluded to certain clergymen who had signed the petition, and therefore, of course, they were all included in his condemnation. It is a grave thing to tell four or five gentlemen that they have committed a breach of the law; and their answer may well be that they take a different view of what the law is, and do not consciously disobey it. If censure is thought necessary, it should be pronounced in another place and after proper investigation. I am not venturing to pronounce an opinion upon the conduct of the Professors. I am only protesting against a course which seems to me contrary to the spirit of equity and of fairness to individuals which always characterizes your Lordships' deliberations. Some other observations made by the most rev. Prelate also seem to me open to objection as being out of Order. The most rev. Prelate canvassed certain alterations made in the constitution of the Final Court of Appeal by the Bill which is now in "another place." I will only say with respect to his remarks on that point that, however grievous may be the language which, in his judgment has been used by the President of the English Church Union, that misconduct has occurred under the existing system, during the continuance of the present admirable Court of Appeal, and, therefore, forms no argument against attempting to reform that Court. I earnestly trust, with the most rev. Prelate, that in making any change in the constitution of that Court your Lordships will be careful that persons thoroughly qualified to interpret the law of England are placed there; and I think that no persons can be better qualified than such as have been trained in the study and practice of the law. The question which the noble Lord on the cross-benches (Lord Oran-more) has raised is, no doubt, a most important one. I am sure, however, he will feel that whatever we may think of

  283
  his opinions it would be absolutely impossible for us at this period of the Session to adopt the course he has suggested. The general judgment of the public and the emphatic expression of your Lordships opinion on the subject will no doubt have their clue effect upon those few persons who incline to these objectionable practices. Among the English people generally—among thinking men—there is no difference of opinion upon this question of "habitual confession." We have seen it tried in other countries—it was tried in olden time in our own—we know that besides its being unfavourable to that which we believe to be Christian truth, in its results it has been injurious to the moral independence and virility of the nation to an extent to which probably it has been given to no other institution to affect the character of mankind. I believe that if there are men in this country who think they will over persuade the English people to adopt the practice of 'habitual confession.' they are proposing the most chimerical and the wildest scheme that ever entered into the heads of any men. No doubt our Church does not encourage habitual confession,' and the practice is opposed to the religious convictions of the English people. But it is not only a religious question. It so happens that this practice is deeply opposed to the peculiarities and idiosyncrasies which have been developed among the English people over since they became a free people. The English people are specially jealous of putting unrestricted power into the hands of a single man. More than any other system the practice of 'habitual confession' does put unrestricted and irresponsible power into the hands of a single man. An Englishman values and cherishes as a precious treasure the privacy of his family life—he looks with abhorrence upon any system that introduces another power into that family life, that introduces a third person between father and daughter and husband and wife. I believe that these reasons, apart from religious doctrine, have such powerful influence upon the English people that it would require the very strongest convictions of a positive revelation to induce them to conform to a practice which is so utterly opposed to their habits and feelings. Under such circumstances, and with this
  284
  opinion of the convictions of the nation on the subject, is it not, I ask, a natural inference, that we—that some of us—are giving way to an undignified panic? If a few clergymen have signed, consciously or unconsciously, the Memorial in question, there are 20,000 clergymen in England; and a percentage of 2½ of folly is but a small proportion among so large a body of men. I doubt whether the two Houses of Parliament, if tested, would escape with a much lighter weight of folly. The grown-up male population of this country will never confess—there is not the slightest danger of the introduction of that practice among them. I venture to say if an account were obtained of the number of middle-aged men who confess it would convey very important information. That number, I believe, would be shown to be so small that no fear need be entertained of the introduction of 'habitual confession' among the husbands or fathers in this country; and the authority and influence of husbands and fathers in this country is not so low as to give us any cause for fear lest the practice should be introduced into their families. If this be the case, surely there is no reason for the vehement language or the expression of such fears by the noble Lord, nor for the indiscriminate censure which the most rev. Prelate has thought it right to utter. In a matter of such importance the people of England may be left to take care of themselves. I should be deeply grieved if any large proportion of the clergy betook themselves to the practice of 'habitual confession;' but, as I am quite sure the laity will never surrender themselves to the practice, I cannot see that we have grounds for any great alarm.
  THE EARL OF HARROWBYsaid, he had listened with the greatest satisfaction to the denunciation of the practice of systematic Confession which had fallen from the noble Marquess, his noble Friend behind him, and he hoped it might be useful in many quarters; but he could not concur with him in the estimate which he had formed of the extent of the evil, or think with him that it might safely be neglected. He could not think that because as yet perhaps few men of middle age could be found to practise it, therefore it was safe to wish to ignore its existence among women and among the young of

  285
  both sexes, among whom undoubtedly it prevailed to a great extent, and among whom every effort was made to extend it, not by a few scattered clergymen here and there, but by a body of men organized for the purpose, some of them placed, as we have heard from the most rev. Prelate, in positions of honour and influence by the Crown, and he (the Earl of Harrowby) would add also, by Bishops themselves, as well as by many private persons. He (the Earl of Harrowby) held in his hand a paper, reprinted from The Rock, containing the names and whole organization of this body, and it was fearful to observe the influence which they were enabled to exercise in the future destiny of the country. Was it a matter of indifference, however safe they might feel themselves, to what fearful influences their wives, their daughters—aye, and their sons, too — were exposed? The real question, after all, was—What was the remedy? He (the Earl of Harrowby) was afraid that it was not easy. The disease could scarcely be met by simple legislation or by the enforcement of law. The practice could not in itself be forbidden, like certain Ritual practices in Churches, because in itself Confession was lawful in our Church, if not systematic, or enforced upon the conscience. Perhaps their Lordships would allow him (the Earl of Harrowby) to quote upon this point the solemn saying of a deceased Friend of his, the late Bishop of Lichfield. On the last day of his life, he (the Bishop of Lichfield) was attending a public meeting on behalf of a public school, the system of which, rightly or wrongly, had been suspected of encouraging the practice of Confession. The question arose from the meeting—"What about Confession?" The Bishop rose, much agitated, from his seat, and said—
  "If Auricular Confession is alluded to, that belongs to the Church of Rome, and I could have nothing to do with it; the Church of England does not encourage Confession. It only permits it on certain occasions."
  Having said this, he sat down, and they were the last words he spoke in public, for he died that evening. Well, the question still remained—What was the remedy? I can well understand the difficulty which the Bishops have in meeting evils of this kind by process of law; the expenses, the uncertainty, the odium
  286
  attached to the prosecution of individuals, some, at least, of whom are men of known piety and learning, and many of, at least, activity in their parishes, whether wisely exercised or not. The odium, I say; for it is the habit of Englishmen to be very zealous in the prosecution of a criminal, but, as soon as the prosecution is successful, to be equally zealous to get him off. There are 50 reasons by which a Bishop may be deterred from entering on a course of prosecutions, and nothing but a course of prosecutions is allowed to be effectual in the modern ethics of the Ritual clergy. But there are doors of influence still open to a Bishop, more effective in meeting an evil like this of Confession, than any prosecution. In their Charges, in their Ordinations, by private admonitions, and, above all, in their patronage, and in their support of institutions, they must show their sense of the danger and of the enormity of the evil. The remonstrances of the laity in regard to Romanizing practices must not be met by the cold shoulder, so often presented to them on such occasions, by representations of the value of peace and quietness, and by the representations that they had better look to their own deficiencies than be watchful over the excesses of others. Let the opinions of the Bishops, individually or collectively, in a matter of this kind be never left in doubt, so that everyone may know, that if practices of this nature are pursued, they are pursued in defiance of the wishes or authority of their superiors, and not as a school of thought within the Church, which may safely be looked upon with toleration, if not with indulgence. If such were the tone of our Bishops, the laity would willingly entrust them with some power, if necessary, for the protection of their families and congregations. Meanwhile, let them use the means of influence which they now possess, and which have been, in many cases, so far, very imperfectly employed, and let the Crown do its part by not placing in positions of influence those who cannot be entrusted with the faith and morals of the nation. Then might we hope that some check would be placed to the extension of these pernicious practices, dangerous as the Church of Rome acknowledged them to be, and therefore fenced round by her within her pale with many securities and

  287
  precautions, but doubly dangerous within our own National Church, because such precautions were not possible, even if it were desirable to admit them.
  THE ARCHBISHOP OF YORK: My Lords, yielding to the fashion of the moment which seems to be that when anything goes wrong Archbishops must bear the blame, the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Salisbury) has been very severe on the most Rev. Prelate for presuming to allude in this debate to the change in the Ecclesiastical Courts. The noble Marquess forgets that he was the first offender in this respect, when, the other night, in the midst of another subject, he suddenly told us with unconcealed glee that a change in the Ecclesiastical Courts had just been adopted in "another place." I am not going to follow that example—to discuss a subject with which at present we have nothing to do. The noble Marquess is very zealous that questions of pure law should be decided by lawyers. Questions of ritual observance, of inspiration, of the real Presence in the Sacrament, may be questions of pure law, and only to be understood by lawyers. But the people of this country understand the matter much better than the noble Marquess supposes. They will not be led away by his epigrammatic sentences. They are aware that the change in this Court has not been striven for merely to vindicate the rights of lawyers over questions of pure law. And now, turning to the subject before your Lordships, I will ask you to remember that it is not a difficulty of yesterday's growth. On the 1st of April, 1851, Sir George Grey sent to the Archbishop of Canterbury, by command of the Queen, an Address signed by nearly 250,000 churchmen, against changes and innovations in divine worship, with a letter recommending the Archbishop to take measures for giving effect to the prayer of the Memorial. Twenty-two years have elapsed—a whole generation of the clergy. And now the noble Lord brings before this House exactly the same complaint, but against a different generation of men. It is all very well to charge the Bishops with this condition of things; but if we look a little deeper we see that no amount of supineness on the part of the Bishops would account for the fact that in the face of a fear existing a generation ago, patrons of benefices and dignities have placed in
  288
  those positions the men of whose extreme opinions and irregular acts the noble Lord is now complaining. The Bishops are not the patrons who have done this. In 1851, the attitude of the Crown was adverse to such practices. It is now alleged by the most rev. Prelate that at Oxford and in the Cathedral church of this diocese irregularities take place; but the places to which this applies are all in the patronage of the Crown. If the laity are in earnest as to the repression of unauthorized alterations in our ritual, the remedy is in their own hands, so far as they are patrons, or can bring any influence to bear upon patrons. But the truth is that by the action of patrons, whose power is very great, the evil not only remains but has increased. It seems to follow that the laity are not at one, or are not in earnest, in the demand which the noble Lord presses on us to-night. It could be no real cure for the evil that the Bishops should be obliged continually to resist at law the action of lay patrons. Nor does the noble Lord seem to recommend this. Indeed, the remedies that are actually suggested are either inadequate or futile. We are called on to express our opinions of these things. We have done it over and over again. We are asked to refuse to licence curates, over whom we have greater control. But is that a satisfactory position for the Bishops? That being unable at present to resist what is unlawful when done by incumbents, they are to punish it in the persons of the more defenceless curates? in short, the present condition of opinion has deeper roots than would be supposed from this debate; and the cure for it—if cure is to be found—is to be looked for not from the Archbishops alone, not from the Bishops alone, not from any one class, but from the formation of truer and sounder opinion in the whole body of the Church. I do not despair of that change. In the mean time it is better that we should recognize the true extent of the difficulty, and should admit that without the cooperation of all classes the state of the ecclesiastical law is such that it would be impossible for the Bishops to accomplish what the noble Lord expects of them. The true remedy, it must be repeated, is that we should all endeavour to assist the formation of truer and sounder opinions in every class in the Church.
  VISCOUNT MIDLETONsaid, that the petition on this subject which had been presented, by a number of petitioners unexpectedly large to Convocation had been received by that body in a paltry and trifling spirit, unworthy of its importance; and the subsequent remonstrance addressed to the most rev. Prelates had drawn forth the replies now before the House. It was no part of the duty, neither was it in the power of laymen, to repress the tendencies towards the confessional. No churchwarden, even though he should discharge his duties with the utmost efficiency could have the slightest effect upon the subject. The Bishops had the power and he should be prepared to increase that power, if necessary, to take certain steps to repress the practices in question. They had power to inhibit the curates who had signed the memorial from preaching, and in the case of incumbents they had power to inhibit them from preaching in any other diocese than their own, even if they could not prevent them from preaching in their own parishes. He was not, however, urging the adoption of extreme measures. He had much more confidence in the power of moral suasion than in any legislative enactment. He doubted whether to refer the question to a Committee was, on the whole, advisable—it was, at the same time, in his opinion, absolutely certain that the Episcopal Bench should give no uncertain sound, but that they should speak out frankly and fully the views which they entertained on the subject. Had they done so 15 years ago he believed the matter would not have been heard of now, and he trusted they would not now hesitate to exert their great influence not only in public but in private wherever it could be brought to bear. Otherwise, the very vitals of the Church would be torn. He was not speaking on the present occasion of the merits or demerits of the confessional. He relied on the broad ground that it was entirely uncongenial and repulsive to the feelings of the people of England, and that unless the recognized organs of the Church discouraged its use a large number of those who were now attached and devoted members of the Church would drift away to some other Communion—a result which he should most earnestly deprecate. He hoped the Bishops would use whatever means they possessed short of legal measures to
  290
  discourage the practice, which he knew from personal observation had grown up in many congregations, of inflicting upon the young the practice of confession as a condition precedent to confirmation. He could say from two instances which came within his own knowledge within the last few weeks, that the country was in the presence of a real and serious evil, and he trusted the evil was one which the right rev. Bench would do everything in its power to remove.
  On Question, Resolved in the Negative.

PERSIAN GOVERNMENT—CONCESSION TO BARON DE REUTER.

  ADDRESS FOR CORRESPONDENCE.
  THE EARL OF CARNARVONin calling attention to the concession recently made by the Persian Government to Baron de Reuter, and to move for Correspondence between Her Majesty's Government and Baron de Reuter on the subject, said, their Lordships must have been startled by the intelligence on the subject which appeared in the newspapers a short time ago. The concession appeared to him one of the most remarkable things that had occurred in the history of the world. He had not seen the text, but he found a summary of the document in The Times newspaper, which he took for granted was substantially correct. It appeared—he should refer only to the main points of the concession —that the Persian Government had authorized Baron de Reuter to establish a company for the purpose of giving effect to certain privileges which it proposed to confer upon him. It gave him further power to construct a railway between the Caspian Sea and the Persian Gulf, and in all other parts of Persia. It proceeded to guarantee to the new company any lands or buildings which might be necessary to carry out the object for which it was to be established. It exempted from all duties, tolls, customs, or excise, the materials employed in the work. It granted—with these exceptions, mines of gold, silver, and precious stones—the right of working any mines situated not only on lands belonging to the Government, but on those of private individuals. It made over all the forests to Baron de Reuter, as well as the control over canals, wells, and all natural and artificial water-courses throughout the country. It, moreover,

  291
  empowered him to raise a capital of not less than £6,000,000, and it guaranteed interest at the rate of 5 per cent on all the moneys raised by the company. It further handed over to Baron de Reuter the whole management of the Customs for a period not less than 25 years; and gave him preferential rights for the supply of gas, the making of roads, telegraphs, mills, forges, and so forth. The concession lastly provided that the rights thus conferred might not only be enjoyed by him, but that they might be transferred by him to others. The House would see, therefore, that in the whole history of dealings between States and individuals there had never been so extraordinary a series of privileges conferred on any person. The whole thing reminded one rather of passages in The Arabian Nights than of anything that had ever occurred in real life. It might be said that all these privileges might be found worthless, as it was in the power of an arbitrary Government like that of Persia to put a stop to them at any moment. But as a matter of fact, concessions granted by Oriental Powers to Europeans were generally carried out. In the present case, the concessions might turn out to be the source not only of great wealth but of Sovereignty and Empire. But the concession having been granted, the next question which arose was how it could be worked. He did not believe it to be possible for any single individual unsupported by some powerful Government sanction to give it practical effect. Now, there were in the East but two Governments who could give such support. The one was our own, the other was that of Russia. He had reason to believe that concession had been placed before Her Majesty's Government, and that an offer—so far as he might use the expression—had been made to them to impose whatever conditions they pleased on the practical working of the concession. He believed those proposals had come before Her Majesty's Government in more ways than one, and perhaps he should say through more than one channel. He would ask his noble Friend to explain to the House what the answer of the Government had been on the subject. Had that offer been accepted, or was it still pending, or had it been declined? Had the Government refused to have any connection with the scheme, because
  292
  they felt that by doing so they would be placing themselves and this country under engagements of an embarrassing nature and under heavy pecuniary liability? If so, although he should like to hear what the grounds and reasons for their decisions were, yet he should be the last person to find severe fault with them. But, on the other hand, if Her Majesty's Government had declined because they were opposed to the fair exercise of our commercial influence on that country, if they were going out of their way to "find lions in the path" and throw obstacles in the way of a scheme which, after all, was mainly of a commercial character, then he thought they had done wrong. A statement had gone the round of the papers that our Foreign Secretary had written a despatch or note expressing the intention of the Government absolutely to take no concern whatever in anything which might arise out of that concession. He hoped that was not true. If it were, he should say it certainly was gratuitous, and more than a great mistake on the part of the Government to have volunteered, as it were, that abnegation of their national duties and obligations. He now only desired that the House should know the exact state of the case, that they should not on that most grave and important question awake, as they had done on some former occasions, to the consciousness and the regret that things might have been otherwise if they had been only known and discussed by Parliament in time. Supposing the Government had declined all connection and concern with that matter, he said nothing of the obvious and most striking contrast between such a line of conduct and the reception which a few days ago it had been thought worth while publicly and privately to give to the Shah. What he would rather point out was that the state of Persia materially and socially was at this moment very bad indeed. For many years past that country had been falling deeper and deeper into distress and dis-organization. The only chance that seemed to present itself to the more intelligent minds of Persia was the enlistment of English capital and enterprise in that country. To that he thought they might attribute this concession to Baron de Reuter. It had been the fashion to speak of it as a most senseless and. irrational act; but if he

  293
  was right in the light he had now ventured to throw upon it, their Lordships would see that a wise statesman in Persia, anxious for his country's welfare, might feel that in the enlistment of English capital and enterprise lay the greatest and perhaps the sole chance of her regeneration. To that fact, in a great measure, was due the recent visit of the Shah to England; and he was afraid that those Persians who had come here had left us mortified to a certain extent by the feeling that that concession, which might have been worked by English companies and English capital, would in consequence of the course taken by the Government not be so worked. If that were so, and if the concession was not worked by English companies, the only alternative was, he feared, that they probably would be worked by companies of that nation who had the next greatest interest in that part of the world—namely, Russia; and moreover, while the companies working it would be Russian, the capital would, no doubt, be found in the English market. He doubted whether that would be altogether a satisfactory state of things. Any man would be perfectly blind to the known history of the case, and almost senseless, if he did not see that it had been not only the irresistible tendency but the set policy and purpose for years and years past on the part of Russia to enlarge the area of her dominions in that part of the globe. Let them consider the marvellous system of railways gradually being laid out over the whole of the Russian Empire on the highest strategical principle, connecting St. Petersburg with the extreme East and South—let them remember the lines of military forts which connected one position with another, and how completely, in a great measure, the Black Sea, the Caspian, and the Sea of Aral were now connected for military purposes. Who, then, he asked, did not perceive the vast advantage which the Russian Government would obtain if that concession—which included a railway front the Caspian to the Persian Gulf—were carried out under Russian auspices? From that moment there would be a direct line of railway and navigation exclusively in the hands of Russia from St. Petersburg to the Persian Gulf. Every Power must be the judge of its own responsibilities and its own strength. He was quite aware
  294
  how great was the strength of our Indian Empire. He knew well the view which had obtained among many of the most able and competent authorities, that the defence of India against whatever enemy was to be found rather by concentrating our strength within ourselves than by travelling beyond our frontiers to meet danger. He knew that within the last few years that great Empire had grown, so to speak, far more compact and concentrated in itself, and that by our own system of railways our position on our frontiers had assumed a very different character from what it wore some 20 years ago. On the other hand, nothing that could affect the condition of neighbouring States could ever be indifferent to us; and of all the neighbouring States around our Indian possessions, none could be held to be of greater importance to us than the kingdom of Persia. Her people were, probably, the most intelligent of Easterns, and she had a cohesion which was wanting in every other country in those regions. Her resources, however reduced, were still considerable. Moreover, Persia and the Porte were the only two Powers in the East which filled the Native mind, as it were, with the idea of Sovereignty. Persia lay as a wedge between Turkey and India, and the master of Persia would necessarily be in a great degree the arbiter of those two countries. Afghanistan had often been spoken of as vitally important to us, and Persia was no less so. We were bound in every act and word—words, perhaps, being as important as acts—not to hinder the extension of the commercial influence and enterprise of a country—still less so that of a country with vast resources, which, if brought to some degree of civilization, would be a blessing to its neighbours. A cautious and waiting policy had great recommendations; but had England always been excessively cautious her history would have been very different. It was desirable not to endanger good relations with our great neighbour in the East, and it was to the interests of both that the frontiers of the two Powers should not be conterminous. He preferred, however, to rest the case on the possible development of Persian resources were such concessions taken up by an English company and fairly worked for the good of the country, and on the commercial influence which Eng-

  295
  land might naturally claim, as it had done under similar circumstances. These were critical times in the East, deserving the attention of this country. The cancelling of the Treaty of Paris as regarded the Black Sea, the rumoured change in the relations between the Porte and Egypt, and the fall of Khiva, were events of more importance to the East than any that had happened within a century. We could not be indifferent spectators; and while he readily admitted that the wider range of our present Empire imposed more caution and prudential reserve than our forefathers knew or practised, nothing could free us from the responsibilities and traditions of our Eastern Empire.
  Moved that an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty for, Copy of correspondence between Her Majesty's Government and Baron de neuter on the subject of the concession recently made by the Persian Government to him.— (The Earl of Carnarvon.)
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYsaid, their Lordships and the country had reason to be satisfied with the skill the noble Earl the Secretary for Foreign Affairs had shown in conducting the negotiations as to Central Asia, and believed the country would look to him more than to any other Member of the Government for a wise policy in all these matters. It would be wrong to neglect this opportunity of promoting the prosperity of Persia by means of railroads, and it would be a great national inconsistency whilst British merchants and the British Press in China were complaining of the Chinese Government and wishing for pressure to be put upon it, because it would not allow them to construct railways in China, for the British Government to refuse to assist the Persian Government to construct railways. It was true that railways would pay better in China because it was more populous, whilst Persia had just been devastated by famine; but Persia was a country which had had more ups and downs than any other, and a country in which periods of abasement had been rapidly succeeded by others of grandeur and prosperity. He understood Baron de Reuter to solicit the moral support of this country, and he would want men to carry out his plans. Now, this was a good opportunity of utilizing the services of the numerous officers, some of them Engineers, whom the amal-
  296
  gamation of the East India Company's with the Queen's Army had discontented by placing them in a position of pay without work. Not only the Mussulmans, but the Hindus would rejoice to see us helping Persia in this way, for the leading Hindu papers had recently complained of the supineness of the Government in not counteracting the Russian advance in the East. Of late years the Foreign Office had neglected Persia, and this might be the last opportunity of doing what ought to have been done many years ago. He trusted that the Government, if they had not already done so, would come to a decision in the interests of England, and that should anything in the form of guarantee have been rejected, some alternative measure which might answer Baron de Reuter's purpose as well would be adopted.
  EARL GRANVILLEthanked the noble Lord (Lord Stanley of Alderley) for the compliment he had paid to himself, and, without offering an opinion on the practical character of his suggestion, felt bound to say that he had been more definite in his advice than the noble Earl who introduced the subject. The latter always gave a good deal of excellent advice as to "a spirited policy worthy of a great country"; but in this case he had failed to perceive the exact line which the noble Earl thought the Government should adopt. He had been surprised to hear the noble Earl express astonishment at the concession, for he believed it was the topic of all the papers during last autumn. He himself had more right to feel astounded when first informed by Baron de Router last September that he had received a concession giving large powers as to railways, irrigation, and other public works, and that it had not only been signed, but ratified by the Shah. Baron de Reuter asked him to recognize the validity of the concession and for a promise to protect his rights as a British subject in the performance of it. After due consideration of the subject and consultation with his Colleagues, the answer he gave the Baron was that it would give Her Majesty's Government great satisfaction to see the resources of Persia developed by means of railways and roads, but that it was altogether out of our usual course to protect officially a commercial undertaking of that sort. The noble Earl alluded to some information

  297
  he had received in reference to this matter, and which very much resembled the contents of a letter which had been handed to him (Earl Granville) since he entered the House. Then the noble Earl stated that His Majesty the Shah, who had been so well received in this country, had gone away entertaining a feeling of great disatisfaction towards Her Majesty's Government. All he could say was that he was not aware that His Majesty entertained any such feelings, and he should be very sorry to believe anything so contrary to the professions which up to the last moment had been made on his Majesty's behalf. Not only had he received the most cordial assurances to the opposite effect from the principal Ministers of the Shah, but, he might also say, from his Majesty himself, and he might add that he had very recently received similar assurances from Paris. On the subject of the concession, he held the same language—entirely in conformity with the views of his Colleagues—to all who had spoken to him in reference to it. To the Persian Envoy and to Baron de Reuter, what he said was this—that Her Majesty's Government entertained the strongest wish for the prosperity of Persia, and believed that that prosperity would be developed by material improvement in the means of communication; that an arrangement might, perhaps, be arrived at such as was contemplated, which would be mutually beneficial to Persia on the one hand and to the capitalists concerned on the other; but that it was impossible that Her Majesty's Government could give to either the one party or the other any advice with reference to the terms of such a commercial agreement. They could not give it material support; and with regard to moral support, of which he had heard so much, he confessed he had never been able to find out what was meant by those who used the term. It would, of course, be enormous moral support to the capitalists if Her Majesty's Government were to tell them they would hold the Shah bound by every word of the concession. On the other hand, it would be great moral support to the Shah if they assured His Majesty that the capitalists would execute the works in question in the best and cheapest manner. But when he asked what was meant by the term, "moral support," he could never get a definition
  298
  of what that support was to be. With respect to the Motion, he had no objection to produce the Correspondence which had taken place between Baron de Reuter and Her Majesty's Government. In conclusion, he had only to say that he was not aware of having ever given the slightest opposition to the scheme referred to; nor had he observed the "lions in the path" which the noble Earl said it was his custom to see. Some caution was, however, he thought, due to the Persian Government and to capitalists at home, and therefore it was that he had made the communication in reference to the views of Her Majesty's Government which he had stated to their Lordships.
  LORD NAPIER AND ETTRICKsaid, he had not one word to say against the legitimate development of railways and other public works in Persia; but at the same time he believed that the selfish interests of England would be best served if the railways in question and the other public works the subject of the concession were not made. They ought not, however, to arrest the progress of material improvement on account of their supposed self-interest—to do so would be wholly unworthy of this great country, and he believed that the magnanimity and generosity of this country would never allow such a course to be taken. His opinion, however, was that when the railways in question were constructed the stream of British commerce would probably be diverted from the Black Sea and from Turkish territory, where no transit dues were paid, to Russian territory, where dues, the amount of which they could not now foresee, would be charged. He could not see that, in a. political point of view, or, in the first instance, in a commercial point of view, England would be at all benefited by the establishment of those railways and other public works; but he could not help thinking that it would be an unworthy policy on the part of this country to oppose them. He desired it to be understood that in any observation he made he was not actuated by any feeling of jealousy towards Russia. From her history, her interests, and her geographical position, it was impossible but that Russia should exercise a considerable influence in Persia, and he was far from saying that that influence had up to the present been exercised in an

  299
  unworthy manner. On the contrary, he was free to admit that the operations of the Russian troops in the Khanate, which had resulted in the fall of Khiva, had conferred a great benefit upon Persia by protecting her borders from invasion by barbarous hordes. It was not, therefore, jealousy of Russia which made him say it was for the interest of England that Persia should be strong, independent, and self-governed. That was a well-recognized fact. How did the concession in question consist with the interests of Persia in that point of view? The circumstance should not be lost sight of that the great concession in question contained no reservation whatsoever as to transfer. Baron de Reuter could at any moment transfer the concession and all the rights derived under it to any Company or to any Government he pleased. He had the honour of knowing the Baron, and entertained a sincere esteem for his character. As a great financier and speculator, he had, of course, his own interests to serve, but, he believed Baron de Reuter was not exclusively nor even chiefly, influenced by pecuniary considerations. There was something of an aspiring character in the man; and he believed that in obtaining those concessions he was prompted by a desire to do something useful—something which would reflect glory upon himself and would do good to others. But what security had they that the concessions would be administered by him? He might die; the concessions might—as he said—be transferred to a foreign association or to a foreign Government. What position, he asked, would this country be in if the immense power were placed in the hands of Russia? Again, there was no condition laid down as to the gauge of the railways or their direction—both very important considerations in a military point of view. It was important for the commercial interests of Persia that her rulers should be able to exercise some option upon these and other matters; and it would be unsatisfactory to Great Britain if the railways in the south of Persia, which were of importance to us as regarded India, should be indefinitely postponed, while the railways in the north of Persia, which were of importance to Russia, should be immediately executed. He did not say there was any danger of such an occurrence while
  300
  Baron de Reuter retained the concession; but such a danger might arise if these powers fell into other hands. A word or two now as to the economical aspect of this question. Persia had granted to Baron de Reuter all the forests. Now, if there was a country in the world in which we should expect the Government to prescribe care and economy in the management of the forests it was Persia. In the north of Persia there were forests of great extent and value, and these were useful in developing the resources of the country, besides being of value in their influence upon climate. But under the concession those forests might be entirely destroyed. Again, in no country in the world was irrigation more important than in Persia, and you would naturally expect the Government to retain some control over the management of works of irrigation. Not only, however, was absolute authority given to Baron de Reuter in reference to irrigation, but the irrigated soil was to pass into the possession of the concessionaires, who might there establish colonies of any nationality. The establishment of agricultural colonies composed of foreigners upon the soil of an Eastern country was likely to create serious complication and to bring the colony into collision with the Government. He only mentioned these facts to show that concessions of a very large and, indeed, unprecedented nature had been made, which hereafter might prove embarrassing or even dangerous, and that the Persian Government in its anxiety to promote the material welfare of the country had not surrounded these concessions with the guarantees and the precautions which a Government was bound to provide for its own dignity and for the welfare of the people. It was very strange that in this matter the Persian Government should not have consulted the Governments of England and Russia. Both these Governments were seriously interested in all that concerned Persia, and if the Government of Teheran had submitted the proposed concessions to the judgment of their allies, precautions would probably have been suggested which might have been safely adopted without the loss of any—at all events without the loss of many—of the material benefits which were expected. But by what might be called a generous imprudence, without regard to poli-

  301
  tical consideration, or the advice of their natural allies, the Government of Persia had put themselves, this country, and Baron de Reuter in a very difficult and embarrassing position. He hoped that at some later period, when these concessions were transferred to some company, they might be so modified as to render them more consistent with the independence of Persia and with the good relations which ought to exist between that country and the Governments of Russia and England.
  Motion agreed to.

  STEAM THRESHING MACHINES BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill to provide for fencing the drums of steam threshing machines—Was presented by The Earl of MORLEY; read 1a.(No. 210.)
  House adjourned at a quarter past Eight o'clock, till To-morrow, Eleven o'clock.