Sitting of 6 February 1854

Preamble
MINUTES. NEW MEMBER SWORN.—For Cork, Francis Bernard Beamish, Esq.
NEW WRIT.—For Devon (Southern Division), v. Sir Ralph Lopes, Bt deceased.
PUBLIC BILL.—1° Assessed Taxes Act Amendment.

CRIMINAL CODE—MALTA—QUESTION.
MR. KINNAIRDsaid, he would beg to ask the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) what

269
course had been adopted by Her Majesty's Government with reference to the criminal code passed last year by the Legislative Council of Malta, and sent home to be laid before Her Majesty in Council, which contained sundry new enactments adverse to religious liberty; whether the provisions of the said code (as far as related to offences against religion), of which a translation was furnished to the House in a return delivered on the 15th day of August last, had been adopted, altered, or cancelled; and whether Her Majesty's Government were prepared to furnish any further information of their intention in this matter?
LORD JOHN RUSSELL: I think it is not quite correct to say that the criminal code passed last year by the Legislative Assembly of Malta contained provision adverse to religious liberty, without saying that this enactment was more favourable to religious liberty than the law previously in force. With respect to the hon. Member's question, I have to state that, as great objections were taken in this House to that code, and as some of those objections were considered to be reasonable, the whole code was disallowed by Her Majesty's Government. A new code has since been enacted and from this the whole of the chapter relating to offences against religion has been omitted.
MR. WALPOLEsaid, he wished to know if the noble Lord had any objection to lay the new code on the table?
LORD JOHN RUSSELLsaid, that he had not.

THE CUSTOMS OFFICERS—QUESTION.
MR. APSLEY PELLATTsaid, he begged to ask the hon. Secretary of the Treasury whether the promotion of two-fifths of the lockers and weighers in the Customs service, instead of one-fifth, as originally intended, had worked satisfactorily to the Government and the employés?
MR. J. WILSONsaid, he was glad the this question had been put, because he believed that considerable disappointment existed in consequence of the very small number of inferior Customs officers who had been promoted to high situations. This, however, was not to be traced to the fault of the Commissioners, nor to any want of desire on their part to carry out the Resolution which the House passed on this subject during the last Session. The Board had issued instructions to the Surveyors General to recommend those officers whom they thought deserving of promotion. These
270
officers had accordingly recommended sixty lockers and thirty weighers; but of these ninety persons only ten were found, on being submitted to examination, to be in any way fitted for the higher offices to which they aspired. One of these had been appointed to a higher office, the duties of which he was discharging in a satisfactory manner. The Commissioners of Customs and the Treasury by no means undervalued the principle established by the House last year. They felt that its adoption would most probably have the effect of materially increasing the energy of that class of officers, and in leading them to qualify themselves for higher offices. He might mention as a proof of what might be done by energetic self-cultivation that the only one of the inferior officers who had accepted a higher position had originally entered the service as a porter in the weighing-office—the lowest in the establishment.

IMPROVEMENTS IN NAVIGATION— CAPTAIN MAURY'S PLAN—QUESTION.
MR. HEYWOODsaid, he begged to ask the right hon. Baronet the First Lord of the Admiralty whether it was probable that an office would be established to co-operate with Captain Maury and the American Government in oceanic and other scientific observations; and whether the important collections of observations on currents, winds, and temperature, already in possession of the Admiralty, would be rendered accessible to the head of the proposed office?
SIR JAMES GRAHAMsaid, he was happy to inform his hon. Friend that, amidst more pressing and less peaceful occupations, the subject to which he had adverted had not failed to attract the attention of the Government. The President of the Board of Trade and he (Sir J. Graham) sent Captain Beechy to the Conference at Brussels, and in consequence of his report, it was the intention of the Government to appoint an officer to whom the observations made both on board merchant ships and Queen's ships would be referred. A Vote for this purpose would be taken in the Navy Estimates; and orders had been issued to the commanders of Her Majesty's ships, directing that meteorological observations should be made every four watches—that was, once every four hours—in every part of the world where Queen's ships were employed. An opportunity of making similar observations would also be

271
furnished to a select number of merchant ships—not fewer than one hundred—and the result of all these observations would, be returned to the Board of Trade, where they would be digested. They would then be communicated to Captain Maury, as would also the reports already received.

POST OFFICE ARRANGEMENTS— RAILWAY IRREGULARITIES—QUESTION.
MR. J. BALLsaid, he wished to ask the hon. Secretary of the Treasury whether, according to the regulations of the Post Office department, inquiry is instituted into each case of the non-arrival of mail trains within a reasonable interval from the hour fixed by the contracts made with the several railway companies; and whether sufficient means exist for instituting strict inquiry in such cases, and verifying the facts by sworn testimony? Also whether any, and what, means had been taken by the authorities of the Post Office to render the London and North-Western Railway Company liable for the frequent and great irregularity in the arrival of the mail trains passing over that line; and whether the contracts for the conveyance as mails by railway companies are so framed of to make the latter liable to a pecuniary penalty in cases where the non-arrival of the mail train is caused by the act of servants of the railway company, as, for instance, the despatch of a slow goods train from a station immediately before the hour fixed for the arrival of the mail train?
MR. J. WILSONsaid, that in reply to the first question, he had to state that whenever irregularities in the arrival of the mails took place, a letter was addressed by the Post Office authorities to the secretary of the railway company, requiring to be furnished with information as to the cause of the delay. It was the duty of the mail guard to note the time of the arrival of the mail at each station; but at present there was no way of verifying the facts with respect to any delays that took place by means of sworn testimony. It should, in justice to the railway companies, be stated that the irregularities complained of were sometimes caused by the Post Office, and to meet this the Postmaster General had proposed to some of the leading companies that a system of mutual fine should be established, so that the Post Office should pay a fine if the irregularity was caused by them, and, on the other hand, the railway company should be amerced if the fault was theirs. That arrangement
272
had not, however, been yet carried into effect. There was no doubt that the contracts entered into with the various railway companies did make them liable in a pecuniary penalty for irregularities in the conveyance of the mails; but the Postmaster General felt that it would not be desirable, if it could be avoided, to enter into litigation with the railway companies. If, however, he was unable to secure that regularity which the country had a right to expect, he might be induced to apply to Parliament for greater powers with respect to the companies than he at present possessed.
MR. SPOONERsaid, he wished to know who was to pay the fines—the Postmaster General or the public?
MR. J. WILSONthought the hon. Gentleman would feel that it was no part of the duty of the Postmaster General to pay the fines incurred by the officers of the public in the discharge of public duties. In the town with which the hon. Gentleman was well acquainted—Birmingham—the number of letters had increased by several thousands per week, as compared with last year; and when it was recollected that the letters in the country generally had increased 70,000 per week, as compared with the number only a few weeks ago, it was quite clear that it was impossible at once to perfect arrangements for avoiding all the delays attendant upon this great increase of business.
MR. SPOONER: But who is to pay the fines incurred by the Post Office?
MR. WILSON: They must be borne by the Post Office revenue.

PARLIAMENTARY OATHS.
LORD JOHN RUSSELL: Sir, I rise for the purpose of asking the House to go into a Committee of the whole House in order to consider the oaths at present administered to Members of Parliament on taking their seats, and also to persons taking office. In bringing forward this question, I wish the House to consider generally the state of the oaths at present taken on these occasions. I conceive it will be admitted at once that on so solemn an occasion as that of taking an oath, which is considered as a security to bind those who take it to the performance of certain duties, the oath they are to take as that security should be as simple and intelligible as possible, and that it should only bind the persons to such engagements as they can well and easily perform. If the House

273
will go with me to the consideration of the oaths that are at present administered to Members on taking their seats in Parliament and on assuming office, I think they will agree with me in the conclusion which I draw, that it is almost a profanation to make persons bind themselves in the presence of Almighty God to engagements which are, many of them, totally out of place, and some of which have no application or reference to the present time. The first oath which is taken is the oath of allegiance:—
"I. A. B., do sincerely promise and swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty. So help me God."
That is a plain and intelligible oath, that binds those who take it to allegiance to the Sovereign, and I do not think any reasonable objection can be taken to it. But immediately we come to the next oath, we find that there are assertions made in it which I conceive are quite unnecessary to be made at the present day. If we look through these oaths, we shall find, as a general observation, that they were framed to meet certain dangers which were dreaded at the time. Whether wisely or unwisely, those dangers were felt to exist, and these oaths were intended for security against them. With respect to the oath of supremacy, the obligation to take it arose, as everyone was aware, from the contest which took place in the time of Henry VIII. and Queen Elizabeth with regard to the supremacy of the Crown, and the right which was claimed by the wearer of it to the obedience of all its subjects in all matters and in all cases. This contest, as we all know, was one of extreme violence—so much so that in one of the letters published by Sir Henry Ellis, of the British Museum, there is an account of a friar who said he could not understand how it was that King Henry VIII—or, probably, it might be in the time of Edward VI.—how it was that the King being a layman could be head of the Church; and, because he would not acknowledge that supremacy, he was burnt at the stake. On the other hand, those who opposed the supremacy of the Crown had among them a party who held doctrines of extreme violence, and such as, if acted upon, must have been fatal to all civil authority. I was reading only this morning a famous passage of the Jesuit Mariana, in winch he describes with evident approbation the assassination of Henry III. of France by the Dominican monk Clement. He declares that Clement being a Domini-
274
can, that fanatic consulted the heads of his order as to whether it was lawful to kill a heretic, and, having obtained their approbation to that maxim, he proceeded with letters to the Court of the King of France, and having gained access to the monarch on pretence of presenting those letters, stabbed him with a poisoned dagger; that the King after a short time expired, and Mariana goes on to celebrate the insignem animi confidentiam of the assassin; and I think he adds, prœclarum facinus. While, then, on the one hand, strong opposition was made to the supremacy of the Crown, it was on the other hand thought necessary that that supremacy should, for the sake of civil government, be firmly established. It was a matter altogether relating to the existence and the maintenance of the authority of the Sovereign; and so much was this the case that Lord Burleigh, in a letter to Queen Elizabeth, suggested to that wise Princess that it would be better to have a declaration that the persons who took the oath would be ready at all times to take up arms in defence of the Crown, because he said there were many Roman Catholics who felt themselves unable, from objections of conscience, to take the oath of supremacy, and would object to it, but who would have no objection to take an oath to defend the Queen against all who should oppose her title to the Throne. The whole matter was, in this respect, so well stated by one of the greatest orators who ever addressed this House—I mean Lord Plunket—that I cannot do better than quote his words. He stated, in a speech which he delivered in Parliament in 1823, what was the general policy of the period of the Reformation, and observed—
"At the period of the Reformation three principles were operative. The first was the unalienable establishment of the Protestant religion in these realms, as far as human regulation could affix permanence. The second was to put down and prevent the exercise of all religious professions as contumacious which were at variance with the religion so established. The third was to give the State the power of distinguishing the well-affected from the disaffected, and to disable and disqualify the latter from being admitted into its high offices. Of those principles the first was the most important, and was inalienable; the second, after having been contended against for 300 years, was at length abandoned by the repeal of the law against recusancy; the third was intended as a test to separate the well-affected from the disaffected, and for that purpose the oath of supremacy was framed."—[2 Hansard, viii. 1113.]
In conformity with this opinion we have

275
the dictum of Lord Eldon with respect to relieving the Earl Marshal from the oath of supremacy. Lord Eldon on that occasion said, that the oath of allegiance contained in itself the oath of supremacy. I should hold, therefore, that with respect to the first part of the oath of supremacy, it is at present totally unnecessary. It is—
"I, A. B., do swear that I do from my heart abhor, detest, and abjure as impious and heretical that damnable doctrine and position that princes excommunicated or deprived by the Pope, or any authority of the See of Rome, may be deposed or murdered by their subjects or any other whatsoever."
I have shown you that that was the doctrine of a party at the time of the Reformation and immediately following. I do not believe that there are any persons who hold such a tenet at the present day, and I hold that it is wrong to call on persons in this House, and on those who take office, to say that they abhor, detest, and abjure such a doctrine, when it is in fact, an un-warrantable assumption to maintain that there are any persons liable to the suspicion of holding such a doctrine at the present day. The next affirmation of the oath of supremacy is—
"And I do declare that no foreign Prince, Person, Prelate, State, or Potentate hath, or ought to have, any jurisdiction, power, superiority, pre- eminence, or authority, ecclesiastical or spiritual, within this realm."
With regard to that declaration, it is again evident that it was a declaration which was intended to operate against Roman Catholics, who maintained that the Pope had lawful authority in this Kingdom; and so long as it was maintained that it was necessary to declare that no such authority, ecclesiastical or spiritual, should be held, it might be reasonable—I do not say it was reasonable, but if it was any security against that spiritual authority, it might be right—that all persons should take that oath on coming to the table of the House, and on being admitted to office. But, with regard to the Roman Catholics—the persons to whose consciences this oath was a very great hardship—with respect to whom there were in the reign of Elizabeth many who did take the oath, while there were a great many who did not take it, and who in later times have refused altogether to take any such oaths, declaring, in the first place, that they considered the spiritual authority exercised by the Pope to be rightly exercised, and, in the next place, that he ought to have such authority—with
276
respect to them what have you done? Why, you have relieved the Roman Catholics, who were the objects of suspicion, from the obligation of this oath, while you oblige Protestants to say that no foreign prince, power, or potentate has or ought to have any authority in this realm. You do not oblige the Roman Catholics to say that the Pope has no authority in this Kingdom; but with regard to those about whom there is no suspicion at all—with regard to Protestants, who say there is no authority, civil or sacred, held in this country by any foreign prince or potentate, you make this declaration necessary, while, as I have previously said, you relieve Roman Catholics altogether from such a declaration Such, then, was the quarrel which subsisted at the time of the Reformation, and which you have kept up to the present time. I come now to another oath which was intended against different dangers, and which, when framed, might be defended as necessary for the security of the State. After the Revolution the title to the Throne by James II., and those who followed him, being supported by Louis XIV., then the most powerful monarch in Europe, it was thought necessary by an oath of abjuration to take security from those admitted to Parliament and to office that they would not give countenance to the title of James II. or his successors. The last occasion on which this oath was altered and imposed by Parliament was now nearly ninety years ago—namely, in 1766, when a descendant of James II. was still living, and when the oath might still be considered necessary. The abjuration oath says—
"I do solemnly and sincerely declare that I do believe in my conscience that not any of the descendants of the person who pretended to be Prince of Wales during the life of the late King James III, and since his decease pretended to be and took upon himself the style and title of King; of England, by the name of James III., or of Scotland, by the name of James VIII., or the style and title of King of Great Britain, hath any right or title whatsoever to the Crown of this ream, or any other the dominions thereunto belonging; and I do renounce, refuse, and abjure any allegiance or obedience to any of them."
That is the very solemn delaration imposed by Parliament in 1766, renewed from former days, and not imposed without some presumed imperative necessity. But, then, I say that which is generally known—that there are no descendants of James II. now existing to claim such obedience; and is it not a mockery of this House to call

277
upon its Members to "renounce, refuse, and abjure" all allegiance and obedience to persons who everybody knows are not in existence, and cannot prefer any such claim. The oath of abjuration goes on to promise support to the successors to the Crown; and in the last sentence there is obviously again a reference to those unwise doctrines that were held at the time of the Reformation, and to those persons who were supposed to hold the belief that they could free themselves by equivocation from the obligation of an oath. It closed with these words:—
"And all these things I do plainly and sincerely acknowledge and swear, according to the express words by me spoken, and according to the plain common sense and understanding of the same words, without any equivocation, mental evasion, or secret reservation whatever. And I do make this recognition, acknowledgment, abjuration, renunciation, and promise heartily, willingly, and truly, upon the true faith of a Christian."
Now, it has been clearly ascertained, and ascertained within the last few years more clearly than it was ever ascertained before, that these words were adopted, especially the words "on the true faith of a Christian," in the reign of James I., in concern at the discovery of a treatise written or corrected by the Jesuit Garnet, which bore out what was said against the Jesuits even by Roman Catholics who did not belong to that body. It was maintained that there were persons ready to make a declaration, and at the same time repeat certain words mentally which they believed relieved them from the obligation under which they had come; and it was conceived that by putting in very solemn words into the oath declaring that it was taken in the plain meaning of the words, and without any equivocation or mental reservation, these dangerous persons would be deterred from taking the oath. With respect to this, again, it is obvious that that danger no longer exists—that this doctrine, against which Pascal wrote, is no lodger a doctrine that influences the conduct of men, and, accordingly, therefore, the danger, though it might have existed in former days, is not one which it is necessary now to guard against. What I now intend to propose to this House is, that all those fortificacations and barriers which have been proved to be ill-timed and unnecessary, should be got rid of. In doing so, I only propose that which with regard to common life and the usual conditions of men, is constantly acted upon. In the days when all the roads in this country were unsafe,
278
gentlemen rode out with arms, in order that they might be able to meet those who might assault them; but when, by the establishment of police and a military force, that kind of protection was no longer considered necessary, gentlemen no longer went out armed. At the end of the last century, when the roads in the neighbourhood of London were infested by highwaymen, a gentleman going across Hounslow Heath in his coach took a brace of pistols with him in the carriage, ready for defence against the highwaymen; but when the roads were rendered safe and no danger existed, no one then thought of putting pistols in his carriage. Then, what I ask in respect to these oaths is, that you will act just as you would do in common life, and, as the danger has ceased, not to continue any longer the precautions. I use this comparison as to the way in which men act in their common conduct, but the argument is very much stronger; for, looking at all the considerations that are involved in a solemn appeal to the Almighty, and which appear in the terms of an oath, it ought to be a very solemn proceeding; but, if couched in terms that are no longer applicable, and merely a preservation of useless formalities, it becomes a mere mockery. The oath which I propose, and which I am sure will contain quite enough, at least, for the security of the Crown, will be in these terms.
The noble Lord here read the terms of the oath, as follow:—
"I, A. B., do swear that I will be faithful and bear true Allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Victoria, and will defend Her to the utmost of my Power against all Conspiracies and Attempts whatever which shall be made against Her Person, Crown, or Dignity; and I will do my utmost Endeavour to disclose and snake known to Her Majesty, Her Heirs and Successors, all Treasons and traitorous Conspiracies which may be formed against Her, or them; and I do faithfully promise to maintain, support, and defend, to the utmost of my Power, the Succession of the Crown, which Succession, by an Act intituled, 'An Act for the further Limitation of the Crown and better securing the Rights and Liberties of the Subject,' is and stands limited to the Princess Sophia, Electress of Hanover, and the Heirs of Her Body, being Protestants, hereby utterly renouncing and abjuring any Obedience or Allegiance unto any other Person claiming or pretending a Right to the Crown of this Realm; and I do declare that no Foreign Prince, Prelate, Person, State, or Potentate bath or ought to have any temporal or civil Jurisdiction, Power, Superiority, or Pre-eminence, directly or indirectly, within this Realm. So help me God."
There are two other points to which I wish to call the attention of the House. One

279
is, whether this oath, thus rendered more simple and quite intelligible, should be applied to the Roman Catholic Members; and the other point relates to the words "on the true faith of a Christian," which I propose to omit from the oath. The Roman Catholic oath was imposed by the Act of the 10 George IV. chap. 7, and contains in it, I must say, a great deal of what was intended as a security, not against any real danger, but against danger which it was supposed might arise from certain alleged doctrines and professions of the Roman Catholics. With respect to such imputations, the Roman Catholics declared that they were untrue, but expressed their readiness, if it would afford any satisfaction or fancied security to their Protestant fellow-countrymen, to abjure the imputed doctrines by oath. That offer was willingly accepted, and it was supposed that some security was obtained by the abjuration of those doctrines; but with respect to those which I have mentioned, there is no need of imposing any security, and I should propose, therefore, that the oath now required from Roman Catholics should no longer be enforced. In the Roman Catholic oath, as it stands at present, the Member declares that he renounces, rejects, and abjures the opinion that princes excommunicated or deprived by the Pope, or by any other authority of the See of Rome, may be deposed or murdered by their subjects, or by any person whatever. I must say, I think it rather insulting to the Roman Catholics to suppose that they hold such an opinion. The oath then goes on to say—
"I do not believe that the Pope of Rome or any other foreign prince, prelate, person, State, or potentate hath or ought to have any temporal or civil jurisdiction, power, superiority, or pre-eminence, directly or indirectly, within this realm."
That may be kept in the oath to be taken both by the Protestant and Roman Catholic Members of this House. The Roman Catholic oath next states—
"I will defend to the utmost of my power the settlement of property within this realm, as established by the laws."
I see no need whatever to take an oath to preserve the settlement of property. That rests on the security of the law, and if any one wishes to disturb the settlement of property the oath will not prevent him; but the law and the authority of the Parliament must be considered as the only adequate security for that settlement. The Roman
280
Catholic oath then goes on to say (and this involves a matter much disputed)—
"I do hereby disclaim, disavow, and solemnly abjure any intention to subvert the present Church Establishment as settled by law within this realm."
That part of the oath has given rise to some painful discussions. It would appear that with respect to any part of the institutions or legislation of this country, those who are admitted into this House to make the law, ought to have the liberty to propose any alteration in the institutions and the laws. They may, in fact, propose a repeal of the Union with Ireland, or many other changes, which would be subversive of some of our most established institutions. To say, therefore, that they should be prohibited from making any proposal to subvert the Established Church in Ireland, is, I think, going beyond that which you have any right to demand from Members coming into this House. But, beyond this, it gives occasion, as I have said, to very painful discussions, because, supposing a certain number of Roman Catholic Members in this House think, as some notoriously do, that the Church Establishment of Ireland is injurious to the country, and that it ought to be subverted; and, supposing that they act according to that opinion, they are immediately reproached with perjury, and charged with acting inconsistently with the oath they have taken. The oath does not prevent this point being a question of doubt, there being some Roman Catholic Members who conceive themselves debarred by the terms of the oaths from interfering upon such a subject, and others who maintain that they are not so prevented, and that they may in perfect consistency with their oath propose any change with respect to the temporal establishment of the Church. Now, I do not think that this additional difficulty should be interposed in the consideration of political questions. I am of opinion that it ought to be on no man's conscience that he is not at liberty to give his vote, with respect to political and temporal matters, as he thinks fit. The Catholic oath proceeds—
"I never will exercise any privilege to which I am or may become entitled to disturb or weaken the Protestant religion or Protestant Government in the United Kingdom."
Now, with respect to the question of disturbing or weakening the Protestant religion and Government, there are many who maintain that no exercise of public duties or official functions in this House can

281
weaken the Protestant religion. It has been maintained, both by Roman Catholics and Protestants, that religion, being binding on the conscience, will not be disturbed or weakened by any law passed in this House. I am not now saying whether they are right or wrong in holding this opinion; but what I declare is, that this is not a fit subject for an oath, and its introduction into one only entangles men's consciences, and makes them doubtful as to the real value of what is imposed on them. Besides, this part of the oath is, in fact, no security for the Protestant religion or Government. If the Members of this House, the representatives of the United Kingdom, cannot maintain the Protestant religion and Protestant Government—if a great majority of this House should be opposed to the Protestant religion and the Protestant Government, your oaths would give no security whatever. I think, therefore, it is desirable that the oath should be brought to a more simple form. The last topic on which I shall touch is one whereon I shall not say much at the present time, having often spoken before in reference to it in this House—I mean the question whether the words "on the true faith of a Christian" should be retained or not in the oath. There is one thing that must be admitted on all hands, and that is, that the words I have mentioned were not introduced into the oath for the purpose of excluding persons of the Jewish religion. They were intended for the purpose of binding Roman Catholics, and more especially those of the Jesuit persuasion, more securely to that which was the substance of the oath—namely, due allegiance and submission to the authority of the Crown. This has been stated very clearly, and in a manner well deserving of attention, by one of the Judges of the land, when the question came before him as to whether or not those words in the oath should be dispensed with as being only words of form, and not constituting part of the oath. Mr. Baron Alderson said—
"I do most seriously regret that I am obliged, as a mere expounder of the law, to come to this conclusion" [namely, that the words could not be separated from the rest of the oath of abjuration] "for I do not believe that the case of the Jews was at all thought of by the Legislature when they framed these provisions. I think that it would be more worthy of this country to exclude the Jews from these privileges (if they are to be excluded at all, as to which I say nothing) by some direct enactment, and not merely by the casual operation of a clause intended apparently in its
282
object and origin to apply to a very different class of the subjects of England."
Consequently, if you were to agree with me in the former part of my argument, and say that you would have the oath in a more simple shape than it has appeared before, with those cumbrous and prolix phrases to which I have alluded, it would then be necessary for you to declare whether or not you would introduce these words, "on the true faith of a Christian," professedly for the exclusion of the Jews on account of their religion? Now, differing as I do from any such proposal, should it be made, I must, nevertheless, say that that would be an open and direct proposition declaring religious opinion to be a ground of exclusion from Parliament and office; and should such be the decision of the Legislature, there then could no longer be any doubt on the subject. I certainly do not propose to introduce the words in question into the oath I have framed; but, supposing the Legislature should leave the oaths as they now stand, then a very serious question arises, which has been stated with great legal clearness land force by Lord Lyndhurst in another place, in a speech admirable even for him. This was the statement of the noble and learned Lord:—
"No British subject, no natural-born subject of the Queen, ought to be deprived of the rights enjoyed by his fellow-subjects, unless he has committed some crime, or unless he is excluded by some Act of Parliament directed against him or against the class to which he belongs. That is the true principle of the constitution, and, such being the case, these persons can only rightly be excluded by the concurrent voice of the two douses of Parliament, and with the assent of the Crown. If you exclude them by the casual operation of a clause which was never directed against them, or against the class to which they belong, you unjustly deprive them of their birthright."—[3 Hansard, cxxvii. 847.]
This, Sir, is great authority, and the reasoning which is used as regards the case of the Jews appears to be unanswerable. If, however, it be unanswerable, it raises a still further question, should the Legislature not think proper to make any alteration of the oaths. If you annex to the oath to be taken a clause expressly stating that the person taking the oath must be a Christian, then the law is settled, and there is not a word more to be said by the minority who would be bound by the decision; but if you leave the present oath as it is, and if no new legislation on the subject takes place, I think this House would be bound to reconsider the

283
position in which a person would be placed who comes to the table, and says that form of oath is not binding on his conscience. In the case of a person who, immediately after the Revolution of 1688, came to the table and declined to take the oaths, a new writ was at once moved for the place represented by that individual, and he was excluded from Parliament. In the case of Mr. Pease you appointed a Committee, and that Committee came to the opinion that Mr. Pease ought to be allowed to make his affirmation, and then to take his seat in this House. There appeared to me to be always considerable doubt as to the law of that case, and those most in favour of his being so admitted afterwards proposed and carried a Bill, by which the law was settled, and by which persons of the same persuasion, making their affirmation, would in future be admitted to take their seats in this House. But there was no such law—no clear law on the subject when Mr. Pease was allowed, to make his affirmation and take his seat in this House. Now, I think if the law were to remain in its present state, with those remarkable declarations—first, of Baron Alderson sitting on the bench, and next of Lord Lyndhurst giving his opinion clearly and deliberately in the House of Lords, it would be for you to consider whether or not you, sitting in this House, have not, with respect to your own Members, as good a right to say in what terms the oath should be taken, as Lord Hardwicke sitting in his Court in the case of "Omichund versus Barker." This would be matter for your consideration, opening grave and serious considerations, for lawyers of great eminence take different views on this point. I wish to come to no immediate or hasty decision on it; but, I repeat, it may hereafter be a question for the House whether it should not prefer the course taken in the case of Mr. Pease to that which has since been taken with respect to gentlemen of the Jewish persuasion. However, be that as it may, I can have no doubt whatever that you ought not to maintain the oaths in their present state, and that you ought not to impose oaths which have become a mockery and a profanation, and unsuited to the present time. I therefore with confidence now move that this House resolve into Committee to consider the oaths taken by Members.
SIR FREDERIC THESIGERsaid, he did not mean to oppose the Motion that Mr. Speaker should then leave, the Chair;
284
and neither did he intend to offer any opposition to the introduction of the Bill which the noble Lord proposed to submit to their consideration. But he could not allow even that early stage of their proceedings in this case to pass by without some observations on his part, because he felt it most important that hon. Members should receive a proper impression as to the highly important nature of the question which had been brought under their notice. He trusted it would not be supposed that he was anxious to retain antiquated and obsolete oaths merely because they were old. He perfectly agreed with the noble Lord that when an oath had, in the process of time, lost every object for which it had originally been framed, such a circumstance naturally abated something of the reverence which was due to all those ceremonies by which Members of that House were, as it were, consecrated to their duties. But the noble Lord had disposed of the question at once, because, without entering into any consideration of the propriety of retaining those oaths, he had expressed his intention to introduce a Bill, which was simple enough in its object, but in which most important principles were involved. The noble Lord proposed to abolish the three oaths taken by Protestant Members of that House, and the one oath which was required to be taken by Roman Catholic Members, for the purpose of substituting one common form of oath, which was to be taken by all Members who were to be sworn. Now, it was perfectly obvious, from the notice, given by the noble Lord of his views upon the subject, that it was impossible he could frame an oath which the members of every religious persuasion, and especially Roman Catholics, could take, without leaving out of that oath that which had invariably been found in all the oaths which had been taken by Protestant Members since the time when the Reformation had been firmly established in this country in the reign of Queen Elizabeth—namely, a recognition of the Sovereign's supremacy. He (Sir F. Thesiger) confessed that these were not times in which he, at least, for one, should be disposed to dispense with that acknowledgment. The noble Lord had not exhibited his usual accuracy in his statement with respect to the introduction of a passage in the oath of supremacy. The noble Lord had attributed the introduction of that passage to circumstances connected with the publication of the Jesuit

285
Mariana on the occasion of the assassination of Henry III. of France; whereas the passage in question was not to be found at all in the first oath of supremacy framed in the time of Queen Elizabeth, but had first been introduced into the oath of allegiance and obedience, as it was called, which had been passed in the third year of James I., after the discovery of the Popish plot. The oath of supremacy had originally been a simple acknowledgment that—
"no Prince, Prelate, State, or Potentate had or ought to have any power, jurisdiction, or authority, ecclesiastical or spiritual, within this realm."
The noble Lord had stated that the oath of supremacy was virtually contained in the oath of allegiance. The noble Lord said that that was the opinion expressed by Lord Eldon in the House of Lords; and the noble Lord might have added, that that opinion of Lord Eldon had been quoted with great approbation by another high authority—the present Lord Chief Justice of the Queen's Bench. But he (Sir F. Thesiger) was perfectly sure that if that observation had not suited the view for which the noble Lord was contending, his acute and subtle mind would very soon have discovered a most important fallacy in the argument. It had been said by Lord Eldon that the oath of supremacy was involved in the oath of allegiance. Pray, what oath of supremacy? Was it the oath of supremacy prescribed by the Statute of Elizabeth, and which oath of supremacy had been continued down to the present time? He should say that, if that argument was a good one, the Roman Catholic Members of that House had been ill-treated, because by the oath prescribed in the Act of the 10 Geo. IV. they were required to swear to that which was in terms the oath of allegiance; and while it was carefully provided that they would not acknowledge the ecclesiastical or spiritual authority of any foreign Power, they would, according to the argument which the noble Lord adopted, be bound by their oath of allegiance to a recognition of the ecclesiastical and spiritual authority which was contained in the oath of supremacy. Under these circumstances, he thought that the noble Lord would not press that argument in future, for to that argument it was easy to give a most complete answer. Then, with regard to the oath of supremacy, he, for one, should confess that he was extremely desirous of retaining that oath—not, however, the whole of it, for he had not the slightest objection to the omission of the
286
passage which contained a renunciation of the doctrine that Princes excommunicated or deposed by the Pope might be murdered by their subjects. He should add, however, that he ought not, perhaps, to speak with confidence upon that point, and that he should be glad to be informed what was the opinion of Roman Catholic authorities upon the subject. He would next pass to a consideration of the proposal of the noble Lord to make one form of oath, which should be applicable to every Member who was to be sworn in that House. The noble Lord proposed to get rid altogether of the Roman Catholic oath; and he had then stated the reasons why, in his opinion, that oath ought not to be retained. Now, the noble Lord was perfectly well aware that at the time when the Roman Catholic Relief Bill had been passed, that form of oath had been considered, after due inquiry, to be one of the securities which were to be provided for the Protestant Church against invasion by the Roman Catholics; and Sir Robert Peel had said at that time that it was an oath to which no Roman Catholic could offer a valid or conscientious objection, while it furnished as good a security as an oath could furnish for the protection of the Protestant Church against Roman Catholic invasion. By the terms of that oath, Roman Catholics disclaimed, disavowed, and solemnly abjured any intention to subvert the present Church Establishment as settled by law in these realms, and they solemnly swore that they would never exercise any privilege to which they were or might become entitled to disturb or weaken the Protestant religion or Protestant Government of the United Kingdom. He would not then enter into any consideration of the different views which had been taken by Roman Catholics of the obligation imposed by that oath; but he must say that it seemed to him to be rather a startling thing for the noble Lord to come forward and propose the abolition of the oath after four-and-twenty years only had clapsed since the passing of the Roman Catholic Relief Bill, and to make that proposal at a time when they could hardly say from recent experience that the Protestant Church was perfectly safe from the aggressions of Roman Catholics. He should confess that he most strongly objected to their adopting one, only one, form of oath, which should be taken both by Protestants and Roman Catholics, because they could not frame an oath of that description without omitting from it the re-

287
cognition of the Queen's supremacy, and without depriving the Protestant Church and the Protestant religion of the safeguard which was intended to be provided by that oath. He would now pass to another consideration. The noble Lord proposed that the new oath should be one which might be taken by a person who was not a Christian. That appeared to have been the darling object of the noble Lord for some some time, and he (Sir F. Thesiger) must be permitted to think that possibly the noble Lord would not have felt quite so great an anxiety for the alteration of these oaths if it had not been for his earnest desire to attain that particular object on which he had set his heart. Now, the noble Lord, strangely enough, seemed to throw out an intimation, that unless the Legislature would consent to a law by which an oath of the kind which he intended to propose should be adopted as the oath to be taken by all Members of Parliament—[Lord JOHN RUSSELL: Or the reverse.] Or the reverse, certainly—then the noble Lord held out this threat, that it might be necessary for the House to consider whether it would not take the course which was taken at law, of allowing all persons to be sworn according to those forms which were binding upon their consciences, and so cut the knot of the difficulty which had always impeded the progress of the noble Lord's measures on this subject. But did the noble Lord forget his own argument in the year 1850? In that year, when that proposal had been made, the noble Lord had resolutely opposed it; and had told them that the matter in dispute was not the form, but part of the substance of the oath. He had a perfect recollection of the noble Lord's arguments upon that occasion. The noble Lord had then disdainfully rejected the notion of endeavouring to introduce, by a side-wind, the alteration which had been suggested, and had refused to adopt the proposal that Jews should take the oath on the Old Testament, in the form most binding on their conscience; he said, No, that could not be done, because this was not a form, it was the substance of the oath. He (Sir F. Thesiger) was not afraid, therefore, of the threat of the noble Lord, for he did not think that he would be much disposed to adopt the course which he threatened, after the mode in which he had treated that suggestion on a former occasion. He would ask, then, hon. Members to consider what it was that they would have to dis-
288
cuss upon the question between the existing institutions and the principle of the change in the oath which the noble Lord proposed. In the first place, that change contained an attack—he would not say an insidious attack—but certainly it did contain an attack on the Established Church, because it omitted all recognition of the ecclesiastical authority of the Queen, which was intimately connected with, and which was the keystone of, the Established Church. The noble Lord's measure would, he believed, invade one of the securities of the Protestant religion—because, as he had pointed out to the House, there was a security in the nature of the oath provided to be taken by Roman Catholics, against which he had never heard that any sound and conscientious objection had been made, and, by taking away this security, he maintained they were materially weakening the Protestant religion. In the third place, they were endangering the Christianity itself of the nation by depriving the House of its Christian character by means of an oath which would enable anybody, of whatever religious persuasion, to become a Member of that House. He would not, however, as he had previously stated, upon that occasion, argue the main question which awaited their consideration. He hoped he had said enough to impress on the minds of hon. Members the importance of the principles involved in that question. The course which he proposed to adopt was this—he would allow the House to go into Committee that evening, and he would not oppose the introduction of the noble Lord's Bill, for he thought it was desirable that they should have it before them, and that they should then consider it carefully; but on the second reading of the measure he would most unquestionably offer his opposition to it; he would divide the House upon it; and he would endeavour as far as possible to prevent the passing of a Bill which he believed to be one of a most mischievous character.
House in Committee.
Resolved—
"That the Chairman be directed to move the House, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to substitute one Oath for the Oaths of Allegiance, Supremacy, and Abjuration, and the Oaths appointed to be taken by the Act of the tenth year of George IV., c. 7."
House resumed.
Resolution reported.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr.

289
Bouverie, Lord John Russell, and Sir James Graham.

SLIGO ELECTION.
MR. I. BUTTsaid, that in pursuance of the notice he had given he would now move that a Select Committee be appointed to take into consideration the petition of John Patrick Somers. The petition had been printed with the Votes, and consequently hon. Members were in possession of the facts of the case. The allegation stated in it was, that an attempt had been made by the present sitting Member, or, at least, by persons professing to be agents of the sitting Member, to tamper with the witnesses of the petitioner. He believed that this Motion would be seconded by the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sadleir) himself, and this made him feel that the better course would be, anticipating no opposition, to move for the inquiry without any statement. It was enough for him to say, that the allegations of the petition disclosed a state of facts which, in the case of any tribunal exercising judicial functions, would be a contempt of Court, and would be punished as such. In no respect, however, did he hold himself personally responsible for the statements of the petition.
MR. JOHN SADLEIRsaid, he begged to second the Motion. The petition was presented in the course of last Session, and he had then repudiated all knowledge of the transactions. He had now only to repeat that statement, and, of course, he was most anxious that the matter should be submitted to the strictest investigation, and at the earliest possible period.
MR. GOULBURNsaid, he had very considerable doubt whether a Committee of that House was the proper tribunal to investigate the charges contained in the petition. If subornation of perjury had been committed, the parties were liable to be punished by the regular tribunals, and he would submit, therefore, to the consideration of those who took an interest in the regularity of the proceedings of that House whether it would not be best to decline to enter into an endless inquiry of this nature, but to leave the parties to proceed by the usual course of law.
MR. I. BUTTsaid, he did not think it would be right, if subornation of perjury had been committed, that the House should leave the vindication of the honour of its own proceedings to the chance of a private prosecution. Here was an allegation
290
which, he had no hesitation in saying, if it were submitted to any Court of Justice in the country, and if it were found true, would be treated as a gross contempt of Court, and be punished accordingly. The petitioner in this case came forward prepared, on his own responsibility, to prove all his allegations, and he (Mr. Butt) would be betraying his duty to the House if he had not asked them to grant an investigation. If, upon inquiry, it turned out that the allegations were true, it would be for the House to consider what steps it would take to vindicate its own authority; and he must say that, after allowing these allegations to be printed and to go forth to the public, it would not be just to the parties themselves that no investigation should take place. He hoped, therefore, that the House would not acquiesce in the views or bow to the authority of the right hon. Gentleman, but would grant an inquiry, in justice to others implicated in the transaction, but whom he had not named. At all events, if the hon. Gentleman divided the House, and if he succeeded in defeating this Motion, he (Mr. Butt) would have the consolation of having done his duty in bringing this matter under their consideration.
MR. GOULBURNsaid, he had no intention of dividing the House, but had merely wished to point out the inexpediency of going into an inquiry of this sort before a Select Committee.
MR. T. GREENEsaid, he regretted that the right hon. Gentleman did not mean to divide the House, because he agreed with him that, as it was perfectly competent for the parties to proceed for subornation of perjury in any of the ordinary tribunals of the country, it was not fitting to involve a Committee of that House in a prolonged and useless inquiry.
MR. BENTINCKsaid, that during the short time he had been in Parliament he did not remember a single instance in which, it being proposed to inquire into the conduct of any Member on his side of the House, hon. Members opposite had not been most eager in pushing on an inquiry; while, on the contrary, if an hon. Gentleman on the opposite side of the House was attacked, every effort was used by the majority opposite to do away with all inquiry. For that reason he should certainly support the Motion
Motion agreed to.
The House adjourned at half after Six o'clock.

MINUTES.
Sat First in Parliament.—The Lord Plunket, after the Death of his Father.

CRIMINAL CODE—MALTA—QUESTION.
THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURYbegged to ask his noble Friend the Secretary for the Colonies what course had been adopted by Her Majesty's Government with reference to the Criminal Code of Malta, passed last year by the Legislative Council, and sent home to be laid before Her Majesty in Council, which contained sundry enactments adverse to religious liberty? Whether the provisions of the said code, as far as related to offences against religion, of
258
which a translation had been furnished to the House of Commons, in a return delivered upon the 15th of August last, had been adopted, altered, or cancelled? And whether Her Majesty's Government were prepared to furnish any further information of their intentions in the matter?
THE DUKE OF NEWCASTLEsaid, he should be most happy to afford his noble Friend the fullest information in his power upon the subject. At the close of last Session a question had been raised in the other House of Parliament affecting the Criminal Code of Malta. That code was a matter, as their Lordships were no doubt aware, which had been under the consideration of successive Governments, as well as the Legislative Councils of Malta, for many years. In the course of that time there had been numerous attempts made to reform that code; but the greatest difficulties had always intervened, and it was not until the end of last Session that any effort for that purpose had been successful. A code, however, was then adopted, and, under the circumstances of the case, although objections had been taken to a portion of it, the Government felt that it would be most undesirable, unless it should be absolutely necessary, to throw back upon the island the consideration of the whole code, more particularly as the objections which had been taken to it here applied to one chapter only, which related to offences against religion. It would be remembered that power had been reserved to the Crown to enact ordinances upon this subject by an Order in Council. A Bill was now before the Council for that purpose, and he had advised that the code, as it had been sent home, should be re-enacted, with the single omission of the chapter relating to offences against religion.

POST-OFFICE ARRANGEMENTS— QUESTION.
LORD VIVIANcalled the attention of the noble Lord at the head of the Post Office to the irregularity of the mail trains on the several railways, and asked whether it was the intention of the Government to apply to Parliament for more stringent powers?
VISCOUNT CANNINGsaid, that no one could be more sensible than he was of the extreme inconvenience to which the public were exposed by the irregularity of the mail trains; but, as the powers which Parliament had given to the Postmaster

259
General were of little or no avail, he had endeavoured by friendly communication with the different railway companies, to come to an understanding for a mutual system of fines to be imposed on the Post Office and the companies respectively, each checking the irregularities of the other. He thought it very desirable that some such system as this should be adopted as speedily as possible, because the continuation of these irregularities not only occasioned great public inconvenience, but might lead to prolonged disputes between the railway companies on the one hand, and the Post Office authorities on the other. He had thought it the best policy to deal amicably with the question in the first instance; but he should not hesitate to apply to Parliament for further powers in the event of the present arrangements proving insufficient to obtain regularity.

DISTRICT PAUPER SCHOOLS—QUESTION.
LORD LYTTELTONbegged to put to his noble Friend the Lord President of the Council the question of which he had given notice:—Whether the Government intended to propose any measure for establishing district pauper schools in single unions where they were sufficiently populous, or in the centre of a congregation of unions where they were small, which should be entirely unconnected with the workhouse or any other building, and should be in the true sense, agricultural and industrial schools for the reception of pauper children? Their Lordships were aware that, some years ago, the four inspectors, who were appointed to inspect workhouse schools had, without a single exception, in making their reports, testified strongly that no adequate good whatever was attainable from workhouse schools, and that the establishment of district schools was desirable. In consequence of this suggestion Parliament had attempted to supply a remedy by passing a permissive Act; but that had proved insufficient for the purpose Even a single board of guardians would be unwilling to take upon them the additional duty which would be thus thrown upon them, and that that duty had been thrown not only upon single boards, but upon a combination of boards had only increased the difficulty. The Act, therefore, had remained a dead letter, the only difficulty in the way being that the establishment of those schools would impose upon the boards of guardians the necessity for some little exertion. On the other hand it was one
260
of those things which the boards of guardians would do if they were told that they must do it. Some years ago inspectors had been appointed for the purpose of inspecting workhouse schools, and every report which they had made testified strongly that no adequate good was attainable from workhouse schools. In consequence of this, the establishment of district schools had been suggested, but as the power to establish them had been only made "permissive" with the boards of guardians, who were usually incompetent to perform any except routine duties, save under supervision, the whole thing had proved nearly a dead letter.
EARL GRANVILLEentirely concurred with his noble Friend, that it was quite clear from all the reports of the inspectors that the workhouse schools were perfectly ineffective in training up pauper children. The schoolmasters in such places experienced the greatest inconvenience. If he were a well-trained schoolmaster he found himself in the most irksome situation. He was subjected to a great deal of jealousy upon the part of the governor of the workhouse; and he had to deal with children, who, from the physical and moral constitution which they inherited from their parents required to be treated with more than ordinary care; and yet he was entirely debarred from employing them in anything like industrial education; and be received as a salary only about half what would be given to the master of the commonest elementary school. The children were contaminated by their communication with the persons they associated with in the workhouse. The boys were brought up in the habits of laziness which they saw around them, and were contaminated with the language which they too frequently heard; while there was evidence most conclusive that a large portion of the girls, brought up as they were in communication with the mothers of illegitimate children, followed that course of life which, under the circumstances, might, perhaps naturally be expected of them. He believed that the plan to which his noble Friend had pointed of establishing district agricultural and industrial schools for the reception of pauper children, was the most important that could be devised for putting an end to the hereditary system of pauperism, which had, with truth, become in this country an hereditary disease. There had been cases in which the same family names had appeared on the work-

261
house books for upwards of a century, and it was certainly desirous that such a disastrous state of things should be put an end to. There had been a good deal of communication upon the subject between the different departments concerned in it; and at this moment it was under the most anxious consideration of his noble Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department (Viscount Palmerston) with the view of framing a practical measure, which he hoped might be submitted to Parliament in the course of the present Session.

RUSSIA AND THE PORTE—QUESTION.
THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDE: My Lords, when I gave notice of the Motion which appears in my name upon the Orders—["To call the attention of the House to the state of this country with relation to the question of peace or war"] I certainly thought, from the rumours current, and from the language which was held in this House upon Tuesday last by the noble Lords the representatives of the Government here, that the proposal which had been made to the Emperor of Russia had been virtually, if not formally, rejected by him, and that his formal refusal to accede to that proposal would have arrived, I may say, immediately. And, further, I certainly considered that all negotiations for peace were virtually at an end. It appears, however, from the reports in the public papers, that up to this morning no formal reply to that proposal has been received from the Emperor of Russia. So far as I can understand it, there appears to be something of the semblance of negotiations still going on at Vienna. Under these circumstances, while there is even so faint a prospect of peace as I fear there is, I, for one, should be extremely sorry to occasion any discussion which might prevent a peaceful termination to those negotiations. I do not, therefore, wish to-night to go into the questions that are contained in the blue books which have been laid upon your Lordships' table, nor to discuss some very necessary points with reference to our present position, the consideration of which, however, I think Parliament cannot delay many days. Our position, whatever it is, is becoming so critical that I think Parliament must be accurately informed there upon before many days elapse. At the same time, not desiring to interfere with the faintest prospect of peace until all negotiations are formally closed, I do not
262
wish to enter upon a discussion which must necessarily raise many paints. I shall, therefore, not draw attention to certain despatches which have been communicated to Parliament, but shall content myself with asking my noble Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the simple yet important question, whether any answer has yet been received from time Emperor of Russia to those proposals which have been laid before him?—and I wish also to know what is the present state of our diplomatic relations with that Court. I learn from time public prints that the Russian Ministers, both in Paris and London, have actually retired from their functions, and I should wish to know what instructions, if any, have been given to our Minister at St. Petersburg? If my noble Friend will be kind enough to answer these questions, shall reserve for a short time any observations which I may have to make upon the position in which this country appears to be.
THE EARL OF CLARENDON: My Lords, I am very much obliged to my noble Friend for the consideration which he has shown in consenting to postpone for a short period any discussion which might arise upon the question of which he had given notice for this evening. If the question were discussed this evening, it might to some—though, perhaps, only to a slight—extent prejudice the chance which still remains of arriving at a peaceful solution of the difficulties of the Eastern question. But I think it right to state to your Lordships that, although Her Majesty's Government had some reason to believe that the answer of the Emperor of Russia to the note of the Conference sitting at Vienna—or rather, that the terms which His Majesty had stated as those on which he would be prepared to enter into further negotiations—have been received at Vienna, and were known there on Thursday last, it was only this afternoon that I received from Vienna official information of the facts. The official statement which I have received states that the Conference was immediately called together by Count Buol, and that the fresh proposals or counter-proposals were communicated to time representatives of England, France, and Prussia, by Count Buol. But, as I have stated, to your Lordships, the official announcement was only placed in my hands this afternoon, and I have not yet had time to place it in the hands of my Colleagues. I have only had time to show it to my noble Friend at the head of Her

263
Majesty's Government. I should, therefore, prefer not to enter at this moment into any details in reference to this communication; but still I think it right to inform your Lordships that the terms of the propositions which have been submitted are such as to be quite unacceptable to the Conference, and, therefore, not of a character to be sent forward to the Ambassadors at Constantinople. Of that there is no doubt. With respect to my noble Friend's second question, I have to say that, on Saturday evening, Baron Brunnow called upon me at the Foreign Office, and placed in my hands a Note in which he announced that the answer which he had received from me, on behalf of Her Majesty's Government, to the inquiry which he had been instructed to make by his Government, was not of such a kind as to permit of his continuing any longer diplomatic relations with this country; and that, therefore, the diplomatic relations between the Russian Government and this country must be for a time suspended. His Excellency took leave of me on Saturday evening, but at too late an hour to permit of his leaving London on that night—but I understood that he would depart early this morning. My Lords, I may observe that it is the earnest desire of Her Majesty's Government to give your Lordships the earliest and fullest information upon this and all other important points relating to this question, which is exciting so much anxiety throughout the whole of the country. My Lords, I shall, in the course of this week, endeavour to lay upon the table of your Lordships' House the Note which has been addressed to me by Baron Brunow, by the direction of Count Nesselrode, and my answer to it.
THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGH: My Lords, I have already expressed my opinion that the state of things which has arisen out of the conduct pursued by the Emperor of Russia could terminate in nothing but war. I expressed that opinion to one of the Ministers of the Crown as far back as Easter, and I declared it in this House in August last. I do not regret that the noble Marquess has thought proper to postpone his Motion, because I am of opinion that any retrospect into the conduct of Her Majesty's Government in these negotiations would not be in the slightest degree profitable to the country; but I should deeply regret if the noble Marquess, and those who think with him, or if Her Majesty's Ministers, could be deluded by anything
264
which has recently taken place into relaxing in any degree, or, indeed, into not increasing to the utmost possible extent, their preparations for war. I have no doubt we are at the commencement of one of the most formidable wars in which this country has ever been engaged. I deeply regret that the people of this country do not appear at all aware of the magnitude and probable duration, or of the dismal consequences of that war. It is undoubtedly true that it is a war for which this country is not responsible, nor are Her Majesty's Ministers responsible for it. I acquit them altogether. I think, that, whatever they have said on the subject has been said with ability, and that they have been ably seconded by the various gentlemen holding diplomatic appointments at the different European Courts; but I do conjure Ministers to increase to the utmost possible extent every immediate preparation for war. War is inevitable; and what is absolutely essential to the preservation of the best interests of this country is, that on the breaking up of the ice we shall show a superior fleet in the Baltic. Are we able to do that? If we be not, Ministers are most deeply responsible to the country, for they have had their eyes opened, and could not have been in ignorance of the danger pressing upon us. I will say no more now. I desire that your Lordships should have the opportunity of considering the whole subject; but what I now earnestly press Ministers to do is to increase to the utmost extent the preparations for immediate war, and for a war which will be one of the gravest in which this country has ever engaged.
THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDE: I cannot refrain from saying that in a material part of what has fallen from the noble Earl who spoke last I fully concur. I agree with him in thinking that the war in which it appears we are about to engage may very probably turn out to be one of the most disastrous—[Murmurs]—I do not mean to this country, but disastrous to humanity, on account of the grave and extensive consequences which must result from it. On that account I have postponed my Motion to-night, for I regard the approaching war with apprehension. I cannot, however, entirely concur in the opinion which the noble Earl expressed as to the inutility of entering into any retrospect of what has happened. I think that a retrospect of the past would enable us to comprehend better the position in which we are placed, and

265
which it is essential for Parliament and for the country to understand. I cannot agree with the noble Earl in thinking that Her Majesty's Ministers are entirely irresponsible for the present state of affairs. I certainly think, with the noble Earl, that what has been said, both by Her Majesty's Ministers and their diplomatic agents abroad, has been said with ability; but I think that very often the right thing has not been said, and that much ought to have been said which has been left unsaid. I, therefore, think we must have a discussion on the subject, partaking somewhat of a retrospective character; and, as the noble Earl at the head of Foreign Affairs seems anxious that there should be no delay on the subject, probably to-morrow week, if it should suit your Lordships' convenience, would not be too early a day to fix for the discussion. By that time, it appears to me impossible that Parliament should not be in a position to form a proper opinion on the question. It is evident that the present state of things cannot continue long; if our position shall be the same then that it is to-day, all must agree that it is a state of things that cannot last. With your Lordships' permission, I will give notice at once of my intention to bring forward a Motion on the subject to-morrow week.
EARL FITZWILLIAM: The noble Marquess says, that the present state of things cannot last long. In that I entirely agree with him, and I am the more desirous of saying so, because, in my opinion, the present state of things has already lasted much too long. If I were disposed to find fault with a single syllable of the statement which has been made by the noble Earl the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, it would be this—that he still seems to indicate that there lurks in his mind even the shadow of a shade of hope that there can be any other termination to this state of things than war, as has been announced by the noble Earl (the Earl of Ellenborough) on the upper bench. With all that that noble Earl addressed to your Lordships I do not entirely agree; because I cannot believe that it was quite impossible to avert, at an early stage of the negotiations, the state of things at which we have now arrived. That, however, is a question which, however it may be determined in any man's mind, can make no alteration whatever in the course which Parliament and the country must now take. Whether Ministers deserve credit for the whole of the negotia-
266
tions in which they have been engaged, or whether it be the opinion of any man that in some particular parts of the negotiations they may have failed, of this I am sure, that it is the duty of every man to afford them the strongest support when they shall be engaged in that war with which the noble Earl on the upper bench has threatened us. There is one point on which I am desirous of making an observation, arising out of what fell from the noble Earl. The noble Earl said, it appeared to him that the country was not fully aware of the tremendous character of the conflict in which we are about to engage. Whether the country is aware of it or not, I will not now stop to discuss; but of this I am sure—and I am sure of it from the communications I have had, and have the means of having, from some of the most important communities in this country—that there never was a war in which the Government was more cordially supported than it will be in that in which we are now about to engage. When the noble Earl said that the people of this country were not fully aware of the character of the war in which we are about to engage, I am confident he did not mean to impute to them any unwillingness to support the Government. I am sure the noble Earl did not mean to impute such a feeling to the people of this country, and I have adverted to the language he used only because it might possibly be misconstrued.
LORD BEAUMONT: My Lords, I cannot help observing, that the answer given by my noble Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs is, even under the circumstances to which he has referred, more meagre than is either necessary or desirable. We are still left without any knowledge as to whether we are in a state of war or peace. I think that the time is now arrived, when we are entitled to distinct information on this head, and I think so for this reason; it was stated that, if what is now called the Turkish Note—I mean the one last agreed to by the Conference of Vienna—should be rejected by the Emperor of Russia, all further attempts to submit proposals to that Government would be abandoned. Now, if I understand my noble Friend rightly, the Emperor of Russia has refused to consent to the Vienna Note, and not only refused that, but stated terms on which he was willing to enter into fresh negotiations, which were of such a nature that it was utterly impossible for any other Power to admit them.

267
If things are arrived at this point, further negotiation with the Emperor of Russia must be altogether out of the question: and when the Emperor of Russia has with- drawn his Minister at our Court—when he has refused to accept the proposition we tendered as our ultimatum—when, on the contrary, he insults Europe by offering proposals at the eleventh hour which he knows must be refused—I say that when we have arrived at a point like this, there can be no other alternative than war or disgrace. At this state of things—if I understand my noble Friend's answer—we have now arrived; and therefore I think we are entitled to know whether instructions have gone out from this country for the recall of our Minister from St. Petersburg, and whether all negotiations will be ended at St. Petersburg in the same manner as they are ended here? I am as reluctant as the noble Marquess near me to enter prematurely into discussion on this subject, nor am I now referring to the past. Since I have had time to read a large portion of the despatches on the table, I am willing to give Ministers more credit for what has passed than I was previously inclined to do; but I think we have now arrived at a point when hesitation or holding out false hopes or trying to make us believe that we are at peace, when we are actually at war, is a self delusive course which would be highly culpable. Let us look things boldly in the face as they are, and not hesitate to acknowledge that we are in a state of war, if such be the case. I think, therefore, I am not in any way differing from my noble Friend in respect of the propriety of deferring this subject if I ask my noble Friend the Secretary for Foreign Affairs this question simply—whether instructions have been sent for the withdrawal of our Ambassador from St. Petersburg, and for the cessation of further negotiations there?
THE EARL OF CLARENDON: I am sorry my noble Friend thinks the answer I gave to the noble Marquess was meagre. I thought I answered distinctly to the questions put to me. My noble Friend (Lord Beaumont) seems to think—and so, also, did the noble Earl (Earl Fitzwilliam)—that I am holding out hopes and expectations that fresh negotiations may be entered into, and that I entertain much hope that peace may still be preserved. I can assure them both that I held out no such expectations at all. These negotiations have—as I informed the noble Marquess—now been
268
brought to a close at Vienna. I also stated, in my answer to the noble Marquess, that I had received the official information of this fact only this afternoon, and at a period too late to enable me to communicate it to my Colleagues, and that therefore I thought it better not to enter into details; but, anxious, as far as possible, to satisfy your Lordships' natural desire for information on this subject, I added that the new proposals put forward by Russia were wholly unacceptable—that they could not be transmitted to Constantinople, and that therefore there was an end of them. I have no reason to think that fresh negotiations on the subject will be renewed. It is perfectly true, I believe, that Count Orloff, who arrived at Vienna some days ago, and was about to depart after having executed that particular part of his mission which referred to the relations subsisting between Austria and Russia, has now prolonged his stay; but what object he has in this I really am unable to state. With respect to the other question asked by my noble Friend relative to instructions to Her Majesty's Minister at St. Petersburg, I can only tell him that, as it was half-past 6 o'clock on Saturday evening when Baron Brunow called upon me, and as it was necessary in this, as in all other measures we have adopted, or shall adopt, to have previous communication with the French Government, it has not yet been possible to send instructions to our Minister at St. Petersburg; but we have already held communication with the French Ambassador on the subject, and instructions will be sent to Sir Hamilton Seymour and General Castlebajac by their respective Governments to-morrow, which will place them on exactly the same footing with regard to the Court of St. Petersburg as is the Russian Ambassador here, and that diplomatic relations between the two countries and Russia will in the same manner be suspended.
House adjourned till To-morrow.