Lords Sitting of 1 May 1882

MINUTES.
SELECT COMMITTEE—Claims of Peerage,&c, The Lord Monck added.
PUBLIC BILL—First Reading—Pluralities Acts Amendment*(74).

STATE OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS—THE IRISH POLICY OF THE GOVERNMENT—THE LORD LIEUTENANCY OF IRELAND.—OBSERVATIONS.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I have waited some minutes in the full expectation that the Leader of the House would have vouchsafed some explanation as to the prodigies which have appeared in the political sky; but, as the noble Earl is silent, I am compelled, according to what I believe is the usage, to ask whether any explanation will be given of the resignation, if it is true, by a Member of your Lordships' House whom we all highly respect, of the highly responsible Office of Lord Lieutenant of Ireland; whether it is true that the Office is to be held in commendam as a subordinate Office of the Lord Presidency of the Council by the noble Lord who now occupies that post; whether such a junction, if it be
1788
a fact, is to be held to indicate that the arrangement is provisional, or that the existence of the Lord Lieutenancy is provisional, or that the existence of the Lord Presidency is provisional; also, whether we are to infer from this change that any change is also about to take place in the policy of Her Majesty's Government in Ireland; and whether they have any new measure or new proposals to announce with respect to the appalling condition into which Ireland has lapsed? But, first of all, and most of all, for what reason it is, if a reason can be given, that the Lord Lieutenant has resigned?
EARL GRANVILLE: My Lords, I have been some time longer than the noble Marquess in this House, and I am not aware of the precedent on which he rests for asking nine Questions without the slightest Notice, either public or private. If the noble Marquess will repeat his nine Questions on Thursday, I will endeavour to give an answer.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I wish to give Notice that I will ask the noble Earl, in order to give him time to ascertain the facts, which, no doubt, he has not had an opportunity of ascertaining, whether Lord Cowper has resigned; whether Lord Spencer is to hold the place, in commendam; and whether Her Majesty's Government have any new policy in regard to Ireland; and what are the reasons for Lord Cowper's resignation? I can perfectly understand that the noble Earl is ignorant on these subjects.
EARL GRANVILLE: My Lords, as the noble Marquess has reduced the number of his Questions from nine to four it will make it easier for me to answer them.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I will ask the Questions to-morrow.

OXFORD AND CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITIES COMMISSION—THE STATUTES—RELIGIOUS TEACHING AND WORSHIP.—OBSERVATIONS.
THE EARL OF CARNARVONrose to call attention to the provision made for religious teaching and worship in the Statutes laid on the Table of the House by the Oxford and Cambridge Universities Commissioners. The noble Earl said, that they were within two days of the time when it would be necessary for their Lordships to express assent to, or

1789
dissent from, the Statutes which lay on the Table of the House; and, therefore, now or never, the House should express its opinion on the subject. Those Statutes, taken in combination with the Acts constituting the powers of the Commissioners, effected a material change in the studies, discipline, worship, and religious instruction of the Universities; but in his observations he should confine himself entirely to the religious question and the University of Oxford. In former years the system of religious instruction and worship in Chapel was a clearly defined system, though different Acts of Parliament had been passed, and had greatly modified that system. First, there was the great University Reform of 1854. Since that time various provisions had been made by the Legislature, the most important of which was the Act of 1871, by which tests were abolished in the Universities. Finally, there was the Act of 1877, upon which the present Commission was appointed. In all those Acts there were very distinct provisions for promoting the designs of the Founders and benefactors of Colleges in our Universities; and the Acts required that the Universities should be mainly what they were in former days—places of religion and learning. In the Preamble of the original Act, to which he had referred, it was laid down that the object in view was to promote the main designs of Founders and donors. The Act of 1871, in its Preamble, defined the Universities as places of learning and religion. In the enacting part it was said that nothing was to interfere with the system of worship and discipline, according to the Established Church. Lastly, provision was made for the performance of religious service in the College Chapels. The Act of 1877 re-affirmed all those principles even more strongly. Clause 14 referred to the designs of Founders and donors; Clause 15 declared that the Commissioners should have regard to the interests of religion; Clause 59 reaffirmed the clause in the original Act of 1871, to which he had called attention. In addition to that, distinct assurances had repeatedly been given to quiet all alarm on the subject. He called attention to these facts, because, partly by direct legislation, partly in consequence of the powers given to the Governing Bodies, all those promises had practically
1790
come to nought; and no such safeguards now existed for religious teaching and discipline as had been promised. He next came to the Statutes themselves, as framed by the University Commission. There was a good deal of difference in the Statutes as regarded the different Colleges. Those Statutes contained provisions—first, regarding Clerical Headships; secondly, regarding Clerical Fellowships; and, thirdly, regarding College Chapels. The question of Clerical Headships he regarded as an important one, and now more important than ever, though he should not discuss it. It had, on former occasions, been much debated, and his opinion remained unaltered. But the case of Clerical Fellowships was even more important, because in the Fellows rested the whole teaching and influencing power in the Universities. He would take the case of Christ Church. In the old days there were 101 students, of whom 97 were in Orders, and four faculty or lay students. Now there were to be only three in Orders, and all the rest would probably be laymen. He mentioned this to show how great was the revolution proposed. Brasenose had formerly six Fellows in Orders; now the number was limited to one. Lastly, as he had said, there were the College Chapels. In old days the Chapels might be described as the Parish Churches of the undergraduates. They had now ceased to have any such character, and attendance at Chapel was now optional. He would observe, also, that, under the old system, all the authorities of Colleges that directed and controlled the Chapel belonged to the Church of England. What were now the Governing Bodies of the Colleges? They were composed partly of resident and partly of non-resident members of the Universities, and these latter had little or no knowledge of the actual state of the Colleges; nor was there any reason whatever why the members of those Governing Bodies should profess any religion at all. Yet those Bodies appointed College Chaplains and dismissed them at pleasure. Further, they had full power to regulate the Services in any fashion they pleased; they could provide how and when the Communion was to be administered, and arrange any detail of the Services. Whatever religious discipline there might be lay with that Body to enforce or not. They had even the very

1791
remarkable power of altering, varying, or abridging Services as they pleased. The result was that the power of regulating the whole religious teaching and discipline of the University had been placed in the hands of men not necessarily professing any religious belief whatever, even in the existence of a Supreme Being. There was thus nothing left of the original purposes of the Founders. In many of the Colleges there had been a complete revolution in religious feeling. The old learning and religion had been absolutely divorced, and the old relations between culture and Christianity had been severed. He should not overstate matters when he said that numbers of young men in recent years had returned from the University with their belief in religion gone, and their faith sapped, in consequence of their connection with their Colleges. It might be said that this had arisen from many other causes, and especially from that atmosphere of doubt which pervaded every department of inquiry in the present day. It was, doubtless, true in part; but the change mainly arose from the legislation which had been pressed on for Party purposes, and in a Party spirit, the results of which had been repeatedly predicted, and were now all but verified. None had been more active, unfortunately, than the Dissenters, and they were already beginning to learn that on them the blow must fall first and heaviest. It might be said that under the old system there was often little real religion, and that the Chapel Service was, in fact, but a mere roll-call. In certain cases he believed that was true; but there was this great difference between the two cases. In former days they had all the machinery for religious life, though often unused; now it was the intention to sweep that machinery entirely away, and to leave all the surrounding influences adverse to religion. The leading objections that he had to the Statutes were, first, that the responsibility on the part of the authorities of the College in religious teaching would cease to exist; secondly, that the machinery of religious influence and teaching had been swept away; thirdly, that the teaching would be taken out of the hands of the Governing Bodies; and, fourthly, that it would be placed where no Clerical Fellow could be got to undertake the instruction, in
1792
the hands of a Clergyman to be appointed for that purpose. This clergyman, who was to be the sole representative of religion in these matters, was in many cases a man receiving an utterly inadequate stipend, and his position would be a feeble one against the great forces arrayed against him. The position of such a clergyman would be very similar to that of a chaplain in the houses of the rich in the 17th century, as described by the great Whig historian of England. He would be a tame Levite, whose first duty it would be to make himself agreeable to the common rooms of the future, and whose religious attributes might easily be limited to his black coat and white necktie. It was not his intention to move to omit these objectionable clauses from the Statutes, as he believed that the Universities needed rest after the long period of Parliamentary agitation through which they had passed; and he would not, therefore, be a party to throwing them back into that state of agitation. He accepted those Statutes simply because he bowed to superior force; but he protested against them, and he distinctly wished it to be understood that he was no consenting party to legislation which he believed to be both dangerous and wrong.
THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURYsaid, that their Lordships would, no doubt, allow him to say a few words on that subject, especially when they knew that he rose to give Notice, on behalf of the right rev. Prelate (the Bishop of Lincoln), that he would, on Friday of next week, move the rejection of the Statutes which had been framed by the Commissioners for Lincoln College. He thanked the noble Earl for the speech which he had just delivered. He did not think, however, that the effect of the Statutes would be to sweep away religious teaching so entirely as the noble Earl seemed to fear, because, inadequate as the arrangements were, they still furnished some means by which, under a happier state of things, the religious life of the University could be maintained. As regarded Lincoln College, however, he thought that there was nothing to be done but to reject the Statutes, in the hope that a better scheme might be prepared and adopted. There was one point to which he would venture to call attention, which was connected with the legal aspect of the whole matter. But he would

1793
pronounce no opinion, because, of course, he was not in a position to decide so difficult and technical a question. Representations had been made to him to the effect that the Commissioners, in making these Statutes, had exceeded the powers which had been conferred upon them by Parliament. That contention, whether right or wrong—and on that he expressed no opinion—involved this further proposition—that no power to remove disabilities or tests was conferred by the Act of 1877, and that in such matters the Commissioners were referred back to the Test Act of 1871. It was further contended that in the Act of 1877 there was a distinct clause that the Test Act of 1871 should be binding upon the Commissioners appointed in 1877. When the Test Act of 1871 was referred back to, certain provisions were found in it, which appeared to apply, in the first instance, merely to a single clause; but, on examination, that clause turned out to be the really governing clause of the whole Act, and was the only one which conferred upon the Commissioners the power of doing away with those tests. That clause was as follows:—
"Nothing in this section "—i.e., the governing section of the Act—"shall render a layman or a person not a member of the Church of England eligible to any office or capable of exercising any right in any of the said Colleges, which office or right under the authority of any Act of Parliament, or of any Statute or Ordinance of such College in force at the time of the passing of this Act, is restricted to persons in Holy Orders, or shall remove any obligation to enter into Holy Orders, which is by such authority attached to any such office."
Rightly or wrongly, it was contended that there was nothing in the subsequent Act repealing that restriction, and that, therefore, the Commissioners, by this wholesale abolition of union of Clerical offices with the Fellowships, had gone beyond the provisions of the Act; and special attention was drawn to the repeated admonitions which were contained in both Acts that regard should be paid to the maintenance of religious instruction and of Chapel Services in the Colleges. For his own part, he should be very glad if this matter were cleared up, because it had left a very unpleasant impression on the minds of those who took an interest in it. He could not himself see in the Act of 1877 any distinct power given for superseding the Act of 1871; on the contrary, it ap-
1794
peared to him that the Act of 1871 was re-enacted and strengthened by certain clauses of the subsequent Act. But, however that might be, there still remained the objection to some of these Statutes, especially when it was remembered that the Commissioners were called upon to use their best endeavours to maintain religious instruction and religious services in the Colleges. What was contended was that the peculiarly unfortunate mode which, in the case of Lincoln College, the Commissioners had selected for securing the continuance of those Services, and of giving that instruction, would lead to utter and entire failure, and that the hiring of two persons at a salary of£100 a-year between them, persons who were to be removable at pleasure, and who would not have the power of speaking with authority to the undergraduates, would end in making the whole religious service and instruction ridiculous and impracticable.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid, that the noble Earl who introduced this subject had uttered a very gloomy prophecy with regard to the Universities, and more especially the University of Oxford. He hoped that the prophecy would not be realized. It was rather unfortunate that the noble Earl did not enter a little more into detail, and point out how the various Colleges had failed so entirely, as he had represented, to fulfil the letter and the spirit of the Act of 1871. Being himself an Oxford man, he (the Earl of Camperdown) had paid more attention to the Statutes of that University. He had taken 10 Colleges, in order to see how the Act was carried out. Those included Brasenose, Balliol, Christ Church, Exeter,&c.; and, in every case he had examined into, the result was that it was necessary to appoint a Fellow in Holy Orders to perform the duties of Divine Service. In every single Statute for every College in the University of Oxford it was expressly stated that Services should be performed, and, he thought, in almost every instance, in the morning and in the evening in the College Chapel. The noble Earl had seemed to propose that the Colleges should revert to the old, exploded practice of appointing to Fellowships only those persons who were in Holy Orders; but such a retrograde step was impracticable in these days, and would hardly commend itself to any-

1795
one. The noble Earl had complained that no provision had been made that the chaplains should be members of the Colleges; but there the noble Earl was again in error, in as much as in the Statutes of a large number of the Colleges it was provided that one or more of the Fellows must be in Holy Orders, and in others that the chaplain should be a Fellow if possible. The abridgment of the Service of which complaint had been made was to be done by the Governing Bodies, with the assent of the Visitor in almost every case. Such was, at all events, the case at Cambridge.
THE EARL OF CARNARVONsaid, he particularly limited his observations to Oxford.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: And, after all, who, he would ask, was more fit to undertake the government of the Colleges than the Governing Bodies? No other mode of government was possible, unless they chose to accept some unknown form of government from outside. For his own part, he did not think it so absolutely essential that the chaplain should be a Fellow of his College. Undergraduates appreciated clearly the distinction between those Fellows who attained to their position by open competition and those who came in by some other door; and it was a mistake to suppose that a Clerical Fellow obtained by virtue of his position any additional influence in the College. He thought it would be undesirable, on the evidence before them, to assume that the Colleges had failed to comply with the Statutes of 1871.
THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, that, as he had at one time been a Commissioner for the University of Oxford, it might, perhaps, be expected that he should say something upon the subjects which the noble Earl had introduced. In the first place, he must shortly Bay that there was no ground for the doubt, which the most rev. Prelate had stated to be felt by some persons, as to the power of the Commissioners to abolish Clerical restrictions on Headships and Fellowships. The 17th section of the Act of 1877 expressly authorized the Commissioners to make provision for altering and regulating the conditions of eligibility to any endowment or office held in, or connected with, a College, and the conditions of tenure thereof. Headships were not within this power,
1796
when the Bill was first introduced by the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Salisbury); but it was made to include them in consequence of great pressure, with, the very object of removing Clerical restrictions, both within the Universities and in the House of Commons. With respect to the provision for religious instruction and Chapel Services, which it was the duty of the Commissioners, under the 59th section of the Act (repeating the enactments for that purpose of the Tests Abolition Act) to make, the Commissioners had, in all Colleges where there were Fellows under the obligation of taking Holy Orders, retained one or more Clerical Fellowships, for those purposes. But there were several Colleges in which no Fellowships were so restricted; and, as to these, the same section prohibited the Commissioners from making, either directly or indirectly, the entering into Holy Orders, or the taking of any test, a condition of the holding of any office or emolument not so restricted at the time of the passing of the Act. In those Colleges, the Commissioners were, therefore, prevented by law from requiring that there should always be one or more Fellows in Holy Orders charged with the duty of religious instruction. At New College, for instance, there were for a long time a certain number of Clerical Fellows; but there being also in the Statutes the power of making alterations, the College, before 1877, obtained the consent of its Visitor to do away with the requirement as to Clerical Fellowships altogether; and, although there always had been, and probably always would be, Clerical Fellows in that noble Foundation fit to undertake the duties of religious instruction and Divine Service, the Commissioners could not require that this should be a condition of election to any Fellowship there. Passing to the observations of the noble Earl with respect to the abolition of Clerical Headships, which the noble Earl stated to have been effected in every College except Christ Church, he pointed out that at Pembroke, at least, this was not the case, a Canonry in Gloucester Cathedral being attached to the Headship of that College. There might be differences of opinion as to whether it was desirable to remove those restrictions; but there could be no question that it was done in accordance with an almost unanimous opinion in the Uni-

1797
versity itself. In every, or nearly every, case, the two Commissioners who were appointed from each College to assist in the consideration of the new Statutes reported the prevailing opinion of their own Society to be against retaining the Clerical qualification, as necessary, for the Headship. Under those circumstances, it could not be a matter of surprise to their Lordships that the Commissioners yielded to such a general desire of the Colleges themselves, and acceded to their request. With regard to the other points, it was invariably provided, for the purpose of religious instruction and for the maintenance of the Chapel Services in those Colleges in which the Commissioners had power so to provide, that there should be at least one Clerical Fellow. At Christ Church there were three, and at Magdalen two such Clerical Fellows. He was himself very strongly impressed with the importance of intrusting these duties to a member of the Governing Body of the College, and not to a stranger to that Body, whenever it could be done; and he knew that the same opinion was entertained, before he became a Commissioner, by one who thoroughly understood the wants of the University, and was a most liberal-minded man, the present Dean of Westminster. The noble Lord was in error in supposing that any of the Statutes gave the Governing Body powers to abridge the Chapel Services. That power was conferred by the Acts of 1871 and 1874, which enabled the Governing Bodies to abridge the morning and evening prayer on any day except Sunday, with the consent of the Visitor. Upon the general question, as to the abolition of Clerical restrictions, except when they were retained for Fellowships having Clerical duties annexed to them, he would only say, that it was not so clear, even from a Churchman's point of view, as to some it might perhaps appear. It might well be doubted whether the maintenance of those Clerical restrictions had in past times tended to increase the influence of religious principles in the Universities. Under the old system gentlemen who had obtained Clerical Fellowships either went away from the Universities to country curacies, or remained long in the University, often without taking part in the work of education, and ultimately accepted College livings. Since that state
1798
of affairs had been changed, appointments to College livings had been made on more satisfactory principles. At the same time, he would point out that there was nothing in the new Statutes, of any College, to prevent the College from electing as many Clerical Fellows as they pleased, or to prevent gentlemen elected to Fellowships from taking Holy Orders if they pleased. He did not think in any case that the new Statutes would prevent the majority of young men in College from remaining subject to very much the same influences as they had always been. They were told that the present state of things as regarded religious instruction and worship was deplorable. He could not but feel that, as to some individual cases of persons now holding College emoluments, there might possibly be some ground for that statement; but he was unwilling to believe that the picture drawn by the noble Earl (the Earl of Carnarvon) represented the general state of things at the Universities, especially among the undergraduates. But, if it were true that there was, at the present time, that general deleterious influence which his noble Friend who introduced the subject had supposed, he would like those who objected to the new Statutes to consider, whether that state of things had come to pass under the new Statutes, which put an end to many of the Clerical restrictions which were previously maintained, or did it come to pass under the system of Clerical restrictions? It came to pass under the system of Clerical restrictions. If influences were now abroad which tended to unsettle men's minds, would it not be a greater evil that such consequences should take place among those who had taken Holy Orders to qualify themselves to hold particular endowments? and was it not better that there should be freedom for those who, unfortunately, were not in a state of mind which would induce them to take Holy Orders from choice? He could not but help thinking that if such influences existed, they had arisen, not out of the removal of Clerical restrictions, but from other causes, which, he hoped, would pass away.
THE BISHOP OF WINCHESTERsaid, that there was a great difference, in regard to the religious instruction of a College, between having that instruction provided for by the Governing Body, and only having it provided for by a

1799
chaplain appointed from without. At Cambridge they had had a certain number of such chaplains in some of the Colleges, and he could say from his own experience that those chaplains exercised no sort or kind of influence over the young men of the College; whereas the Clerical Fellows and Clerical Heads of the Colleges often exercised a very great influence. He entirely agreed with the noble Earl who had spoken first that it would not be desirable to try to oppose the passing of those Statutes, because if those Statutes were thrown out it was possible, considering how rapidly opinion in regard to theology was running in the present direction, they might be left in even a worse position than they were now. It should, however, be remembered that many of the Colleges were founded in old times for the special purpose of giving religious instruction. Out of the five Colleges at Oxford of which he was Visitor, all were founded for that special purpose, and three of them by eminent predecessors of his own. He did not say that religious instruction would not be given after the passing of those Statutes; but the only provision for it was that there was to be one Fellow who might be a clergyman, or there might be a College chaplain appointed from without. Although he was inclined to acquiesce in the recommendations of the Commissioners, with the exception of the case of Lincoln College, he could not but fear that their tendency must be to impair the influence of religious teaching. It was said that the Fellows of Colleges took Holy Orders often merely to obtain Fellowships. That might be so in some instances, but, he said, that a body of Clerical Fellows was almost without exception a body of well-conducted men; and he feared that they would not have the same restraining influences in a body of Lay Fellows.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, he did not desire now to express any opinion with respect to the matter under discussion, because it seemed to him they would have a more convenient opportunity of discussing the question more fully when the Motion, of which Notice had been given by the most rev. Prelate, was before the House. With respect to the general operations of those Statutes, he had only to express his general concurrence and sympathy with his
1800
noble Friend behind him, who introduced the subject. There was, however, one point which he could not pass over, and it was for that reason that he ventured to trouble their Lordships with a very few words. He could not help thinking that the provision by which, in the case of most of the Colleges, a Clerical Fellow was to be appointed, in order to provide for religious instruction, was not a valueless or an unimportant provision. On the contrary, he regarded it as one of the very highest importance. He earnestly regretted that the Commissioners did not see their way to give them more in the same direction. But still the fact that they were, for whatever reason, unable to come to that decision, ought not to blind their Lordships as to the great importance of having among the Governing Body of the College a man whose duty it was to superintend the religious instruction, which it was the duty of the College to give; and such a man, selected, as he would doubtless be, with a due sense of the responsibility of the selection, must exercise a valuable influence over those committed to his charge. It was the importance he attached to that provision which had induced him, for one, to abstain from bringing any of those Statutes under the consideration of their Lordships. If their Lordships had been asked to vote against the Statutes in which that provision existed, and if they had acceded to that suggestion, the result would have been that those Statutes would simply have been swept away; and the old Statutes, in a more or less mutilated condition, would have revived to take their place. The consequence of that would have been to throw the whole legislation of the Universities into the crucible again. As far as he was able to ascertain the opinion of men of all the parties connected with the University, that would not be regarded as a desirable, or even a tolerable possibility. He was bound to look to the probabilities which there were of the substitution of improved provisions for those which, under the hypothesis he had suggested, were to have been repealed. With regard to the appointment of Clerical Fellowships, he was compelled to express his opinion that whatever any of their Lordships might individually think, there had been for many years past, and he was certain

1801
there was now, a very strong and growing feeling against the arrangement which had existed up to the present time—namely, the arrangement that had been reported on by the Commissioners in 1854. He believed that opinion was strong; and that it was so was evidenced by one circumstance that he would mention. In the original draft of the Act of 1877 a power of dealing with Clerical Headships was not included; but when the matter came to be discussed in the House of Commons, which was certainly not then an exceptionally Radical or Liberal House, it was found that the pressure of feeling was so strong that it became necessary to consent to a modification of the Bill. If the House of Commons of 1877 was not fully prepared to accept the system of Clerical Fellowships, it would be a matter of very great doubt, if they now repealed all the Statutes and framed new Statutes, whether the present House of Commons would consent to more favourable terms than the present. He would not discuss the peculiar provisions that had been inserted into the Statutes; but speaking of the Statutes generally, though he sympathized with his noble Friend behind him, he thought it very doubtful whether any interference would result in the Statutes being rendered more advantageous to religious teaching and worship than they were at present.

TUNIS—BOMBARDMENT OF SFAX—INDEMNITY TO BRITISH SUBJECTS.

  QUESTION. ADDRESS FOR PAPERS.
  EARL DE LA WARR,rose to present a petition from British subjects residing and carrying on business at Sfax in the Regency of Tunis; and to ask if Her Majesty's Government intend to take any steps to procure relief or indemnity for the losses which have been sustained in consequence of the bombardment of that city by the French; also to move an Address for papers and correspondence relating to the International Commission held at Sfax in August 1881 to inquire into the pillaging and destruction of property after the entry of the French troops; also for the Reports of M. Galea and M. Leonardi on the same subject; and for Papers and Correspondence relative to the affairs of Tunis since the last papers were presented. He wished to add that the
  1802
  Petition, which was numerously signed by British subjects, merchants, and others engaged in business at Sfax, stated that in the months of June and July last the city of Sfax was bombarded, and afterwards occupied by the French Forces; that the Petitioners had all suffered great damage and loss by the injury or destruction of their habitations, as well as by the pillage of the city; that the allegations of the Petitioners were fully substantiated before an International Commission held at Sfax during the months of August, September, and October, 1881; that, although several months had passed since then, the Petitioners (many of whom were completely ruined) had received no indemnity or relief, although the Natives of Sfax had been compelled to pay a large war contribution; and the Petitioners prayed that their Lordships' House might be pleased to take their case into consideration, and direct such representation to be made to the Government of the French Republic, and to that of His Highness the Bey of Tunis, as might result in their receiving the indemnity due to them for the loss they had sustained. He thought the Petitioners had a strong claim upon their Lordships' attention, and that of the country generally, under the very trying and peculiar circumstances in which they were placed. The British trade in Tunis had been hitherto carried on upon most favourable terms. It had been protected by Treaties; and British subjects, especially from Malta, had been induced to invest their capital in trade and other ways. The most friendly feelings had existed, of which he could speak from personal knowledge, between the Government of the Bey and the Government of this country. There had also been a kindly feeling between the Native population and the English. It had been enough for an Englishman to declare his nationality to insure a hospitable reception. The climate was one of the finest in the world, and a large field had been at all times open to British industry. This applied especially to Sfax, the most important city in the Regency of Tunis, as regards commerce, and where the trade was chiefly in the hands of British merchants. But what had happened? The country had been unexpectedly invaded by a friendly Power in alliance with Tunis and England;

  1803
  and British subjects found themselves, without any declaration of war, bombarded by a French fleet, their property destroyed, and their houses afterwards pillaged by French troops in consequence of the patriotic resistance which was offered to the invaders by the Native Arab tribes, as related by an eye-witness as follows:—
  "In the narrow streets of the Native town, house after house was only occupied after a desperate hand-to-hand conflict."
  The effect of this upon the trading and commercial part of the city could readily be imagined; and although the European and Jewish quarter was separated from the Arab, both seem to have suffered alike. Another narrator, speaking of what took place, for whose accuracy he could vouch, said—
  "There can be no doubt that the French soldiers who drove the Arabs out of Sfax on the 16th of July, 1881, followed up their triumph by an indiscriminate pillage of both the European and Arab quarters of the town. What was done happened in the face of day, and can neither be gainsaid nor denied."
  The same witness said—
  "We next entered the European faubourg. Most of the houses were much damaged and knocked about by the shells; but on the pretext that some Arabs had fired from the dwelling of M. Gili, a Maltese merchant, an order had been given to break open the doors of every habitation in the quarter; and as soon as this was done a general pillage ensued. I was an unwilling witness of all that happened. The soldiers (i.e., the French) took or spoiled everything they could carry away, and broke or defaced what they were unable to move. None of the officers seemed disposed to interfere, and the whole business was a sad contrast to the measures taken by the insurgents (i.e., the Native population) to preserve our property."
  This witness of what took place further added—
  "July 19.—This morning I went to visit the Grand Mosque. Its minaret is disabled, and it is turned into a barrack. I saw the soldiers cooking in various parts of it. Throughout the Moorish town the traces of the sack were painful to witness.…… Valuable Arabic manuscripts were torn up and their pages distributed as souvenirs of the siege."
  After many other particulars, he went on to say—
  "In short, the Maltese Colonists of Sfax have been the chief sufferers by the pillage of the town committed in the manner I have described. Some of them have, indeed, lost their all; hardly one has escaped unscathed. As an eye-witness, I have recorded what really happened in broad daylight and in the sight of hundreds of people. The only hope of the half-ruined British com-
  1804
  munity is in the support which they feel sure their claims must inevitably have from the British Government."
  He could give many further details; but he thought he had said enough to justify the words of the Petition as regarded the losses which had been sustained by British subjects at Sfax in consequence of the bombardment of that city by the French and the pillage which ensued. The Petition concluded by stating that the allegations were fully substantiated before an International Commission, which was appointed to inquire into the circumstances of the case; but that, notwithstanding several months had elapsed, no relief or indemnity of any kind had been afforded them, although the Natives of Sfax had been compelled to pay a large war contribution. The Commission here referred to was appointed, he believed, in September, 1881, and was composed of Count Marquessac, captain of the French ship La Reine Blanche, who acted as President; Caid Jelluli, the Governor of the city; Captain Tryon, of Her Majesty's ship Monarch; and Captain Conti, of the Italian frigate Maria Pia. After sitting several weeks, the Commission was abruptly dissolved. Sir Charles W. Dilke stated in "another place," in March last—
  "That the proceedings of the Sfax Commission were brought to a close by the French Chairman, on the ground that the British Commissioner had recalled a witness who had been already examined, and whose second deposition differed from that previously given,"
  This was a somewhat unusual way of terminating an important Commission where considerable interests were at stake—by the ipse dixit of the French Chairman. He asked that the proceedings of the Sfax Commission, together with the Report of M. Galea and M. Leonardi, might be laid upon the Table of the House. He further asked for Papers and Correspondence relative to the general affairs of Tunis since the last Papers were presented, including Correspondence upon the still unsolved question of the Enfida Estate. With reference generally to these questions as affecting British interests, it was impossible to pass unnoticed the recent Decree of the President of the French Republic, dated the 22nd of April, which amounted to the virtual annexation to France of the Regency of Tunis. By

  1805
  this Decree the various branches of Government in Tunis, as far as they related to France, were placed under the corresponding Ministerial Departments in Paris. There remained, therefore, but one step more—namely, to include other nationalities—and the annexation was complete. The Kroumir phantom had disappeared, and, in the words of M. de Freycinet, upon whose Report this Decree was founded—
  "Le moment semble venu d'adopter une organisation plus en harmonie avec la nature des choses."
  He asked the attention of the House, and especially of the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, to these words—for, if they meant anything, it must surely be that the protectorate of Tunis which France had assumed would shortly pass into annexation similar to that of Algeria. They had heard much lately of the danger to this country of the proposed Channel Tunnel; but this question seemed to him to sink into insignificance when compared with that of the annexation of Tunis to France, which would give her possession of what might become two of the finest harbours in the Mediterranean, Bizerta and Porto Farina, and would thus virtually give a naval preponderance to France from Gibraltar to Malta, which, in the event of war, might prove most disastrous to this country. In conclusion, the noble Earl moved that the Petition be laid upon the Table.
  Moved, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty for papers and correspondence relating to the International Commission held at Sfax in August 1881 to inquire into the pillaging and destruction of property after the entry of the French troops; also for the reports of M. Galea and M. Leonardi on the same subject; and for papers and correspondence relative to the affairs of Tunis since the last papers were presented.—(The Sari De La Warr.)
  EARL GRANYILLEsaid: My Lords, in answer to the noble Earl's Question, of which he gave Notice, but which he has put with some development, I have to say that I regret that the Commission of Inquiry at Sfax led to no practical result. Her Majesty' s Government at once put themselves in communication with the French Government on the subject of the British claims. Those claims are now nearly prepared, and will be diplomatically communicated to the French Government through our Ambassador at Paris. As to the Motion of the noble Earl, I cannot agree to it. The Papers
  1806
  will be prepared and presented when the communications which are now going on have come to an end.
  EARL DE LA WARR: If the noble Earl will present the Papers at the earliest possible time, I shall be happy to withdraw my Motion.
  EARL GRANVILLE: They will be presented when the communications are concluded.
  EARL DE LA WARR: There are other Papers—i.e., Reports of what occurred.
  EARL GRANVILLE: They will bo presented.
  Motion (by leave of the House) withdrawn.

THEATRES AND MUSIC HALLS (METROPOLIS)—PRECAUTIONS IN CASE OF FIRE,—ADDRESS FOR PAPERS.
THE EARL OF MILLTOWNrose to move that an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty for Copies of the Report made to the Home Office by Captain Shaw, chief officer of the London Fire Brigade, with regard to the dangers to which the public are exposed from fire in the Metropolitan theatres, and as to the means of exit provided for them. The noble Earl said it could not be denied that these dangers actually existed to a serious extent. Nothing could be more fallacious than to imagine themselves safe merely because they chose to shut their eyes to the perils around them. It had been stated that Captain Shaw's Report on the subject was of a very alarming character or description; but that was no reason for concealing its purpose. The dangers that existed were, to some extent, shown by the fires and panics which had recently occurred in different parts of the world; and if it had not been for the characteristic courage of His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales, on a recent occasion in London, when a bag of gas burst in connection with the limelight in a theatre, there might have been a great loss of life. The lessees of the theatres were bound to take reasonable care for the protection of the public in this matter; and if they failed or neglected to do so, he submitted that their licences should be refused and their theatres closed. The noble Earl concluded by moving his Motion.
Moved, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty for copies of the Report made to the Home Office by Captain Shaw, chief

1807
officer of the London Fire Brigade, with regard to the dangers to which the public are exposed from fire in the Metropolitan theatres, and as to the means of exit provided for them.—(The Earl of Milltown.)
THE EARL OF ROSEBERYsaid, the noble Earl was not rightly informed that the Report of this Committee was addressed to the Home Office. It was addressed to the Metropolitan Board of Works, in whose cognizance that Report was at the present moment.
THE EARL OF MILLTOWN: It is in the Home Office, I understand?
THE EARL OF ROSEBERYsaid, no, it was not in the Home Office; it was in the hands of the Metropolitan Board of Works. He would state what had occurred. In December last, the Home Secretary urged upon the Metropolitan Board of Works the necessity of some inquiry into the state of the London theatres. The Board of Works desired Captain Shaw to make a Report. That Report was issued last March. Since that time the Board of Works had taken the matter into their consideration, and forwarded copies of the Report to all persons interested, including the lessees of theatres reported upon. Since that time the Home Secretary had again urged the question upon the Board of Works. By 41&42 Vict., c. 32, the Board of Works had ample power to deal with the question. If the Metropolitan Board of Works could not see their way to take efficient action in the matter, it would be necessary for the Secretary of State to take such steps in regard to it as he might think desirable and the importance of it demanded. At the same time, he could not agree that it was conducive to the public interest to produce the Report at the present moment; because, until the result of the action of the Board of Works was known, there was no good reason for producing a Report, which, as the noble Earl had surmised, was not wholly of a satisfactory nature.
Motion (by leave of the House) withdrawn.

PLURALITIES ACTS AMENDMENT BILL [H.L.]
A Bill to amend the Acts relating to the holding of Benefices in Plurality—Was presented by The Lord Bishop of EXETER; read 1a. (No. 74.)
House adjourned at a quarter before Seven o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter past Ten o'clock.