Sitting of 19 June 1854

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1° Poor Law Board Continuance; Youthful Offenders; Union Charges Continuance.
2° Married Women; Warwick Assizes; Vice-Admiralty Court (Mauritius); Parochial Schoolmasters (Scotland).

MINISTERIAL CHANGES—EXPLANATION.
MR. STRUTT: Sir, it is with very great reluctance that I rise to solicit the indulgence and attention of the House for a short time in reference to a matter to a certain degree personal to myself. I have waited for some time, expecting that some hon. Member, by alluding to the late
336
changes in the Ministry, would have afforded me the opportunity of giving an explanation which I was desirous to make with reference to the circumstances under which I resigned the office which I lately held; but no such allusion having been made, and having heard that certain representations have been circulated with respect to these circumstances which are not only erroneous, but which are also, in my opinion, injurious to my character, I feel that it is due, not only to this House, of which I am a Member, and to the large body of constituents which I represent, but also, I hope I may add, to my own character—that that explanation should be no longer delayed, and that I should take the very first opportunity of making a short statement to the House; and, if the House will give me leave and grant me their indulgence, for this purpose I will confine myself as concisely as possible to a brief and simple relation of the facts connected with it. Perhaps, however, I should first give a short explanation with respect to the circumstances in which I was placed when I held the office which I have lately resigned. At the time of the formation of the present Government the noble Lord, who now holds the office of Lord President, (Lord John Russell) did me the honour, acting on behalf of the noble Earl at the head of the Government, to request my acceptance, of the office of Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. That offer was totally unexpected on my part. I knew at that time but little, either of the nature or the extent of the duties of the office which was offered to me. I knew this much—that it was an office of a certain station in the Government—that it was an office which had been held on various occasions by Members of the Cabinet and by persons possessing very much greater pretensions to office than any to which I could lay claim; and I also knew that, although the duties of the office could not be supposed to be very laborious, it had usually been held in connection with other duties, and often by Members of the Cabinet to whom I were assigned other labours besides those which fell to them from the office itself. Under these circumstances, in accepting it I stated to the noble Lord that in doing so I should consider my whole time and any services which I could render to be at the disposal of the Government. After I had held the office for a certain time, I found that, although some of the duties were by no means unimportant, and al-

337
though they afforded me an opportunity, of I which I endeavoured to avail myself, of effecting some improvements in the administration of the affairs of the Duchy, those duties were not more laborious than I had reason to expect, and that they were not accompanied by the discharge of any Parliamentary duties connected with the Government in this House. Under such I circumstances it appeared to me that the office was not one calculated to be satisfactory to any man who was anxious, in taking office, that his whole time and energies should be devoted to the duties of the office intrusted to him. I made no secret of this opinion of mine. I took opportunities of expressing it in official communications which I made with respect to the duties of the office. Under these circumstances, I could not look forward with apprehension to any event which might have the effect of relieving me from the situation in which I found myself placed. Nevertheless, in stating that, I am bound to add that, having stated when I accepted office, that I considered my whole time at the disposal of the Government, it certainly was not my intention to shrink from any duties which had been, or which might be assigned to me, so long as my services were required. Having said thus much with regard to the circumstances under which I held office, I will now proceed to advert to the circumstances which led to my resignation of it. On my return to town, at the conclusion of the Whitsuntide holidays, I received a letter from the Lord President of the Council, to which I lost not a moment in replying. That letter was written by him on behalf of the noble Earl at the head of the Government, and the result of the communication which was made in that letter, and at a subsequent interview which I had with the noble Lord at his own residence, was this—that the Government found themselves placed in a position of considerable difficulty with respect to certain arrangements which they considered to be most important for the public service, and that the disposal of the office which I then held would enable them to relieve themselves from these difficulties. I further ascertained, on inquiry, that all the necessary arrangements had already been made. I ascertained, also, that the acquiescence of all those parties who were concerned in those arrangements had been already obtained, and that, in fact, the final conclusion of them was only waiting for the expression of my concurrence. Under these
338
circumstances, I trust I need not say that I did not hesitate for one single moment as to the answer which I should give. It certainly did appear to me, when such a communication was made to me on the part of the responsible head of the Government, that it was impossible for me, with a due regard to the interests of the public service, and, I may say still more emphatically, with a due regard to my own personal feelings, to take any other course than that of instantly placing the office which I held unreservedly and unconditionally at the disposal of the Government. This is a simple statement of the facts which led to my resignation of the office which I held. But before sitting down I should wish, with the permission of the House, to advert to certain reports which have been circulated on this subject, some of which are calculated to be injurious to my character, and to which I am anxious, therefore, to give a distinct contradiction. I understand that it has been said in some quarters, that my sudden and unexpected resignation of my office could only be accounted for on the supposition that I held it under some understanding, and that in resigning it I was, in fact, only fulfilling some previous engagement. Another report, which has been very general, was, that I had been previously consulted with regard to the proposed arrangements, that I had had the opportunity of giving an independent judgment upon them, and that, in consequence of my strong approval of them, I had tendered my resignation, and had by so doing made myself a party to those arrangements. Another report, which has also been very generally circulated, was, that I was supposed to have attached some condition to my resignation—some condition for my own benefit. Now, Sir, to all these reports I give a most unqualified contradiction, in the face of the House and of the country. They have not the slightest foundation in fact. With respect to the first point, I will only say that I held the office I vacated on precisely the same terms as any other Member of the Government, and I would not have consented to hold it on any other. With respect to the second point, I must say that, whatever view I may have entertained or expressed with regard to the arrangements in question, I knew no more of them than any other Member of this house until they were completed, with the single exception of my own resignation; and of that, not until the time had arrived when I felt that

339
it was impossible to refuse it. I can, therefore, in no respect whatever be considered a party to the arrangements in question. With respect to the last point—namely, that I have myself attached some condition to my resignation—I trust it is scarcely necessary for me to give a contradiction to that statement. I have already said, and I now repeat, that on the first moment this suggestion was made I at once unreservedly and unconditionally, without one instant's hesitation, and without the opportunity of consulting one single Friend, placed my office at the disposal of the Government. In doing so, under the circumstances I Lave mentioned, I certainly cannot claim the merit of any great personal sacrifice, so far as regards the mere possession of office. I performed that which appeared to me a simple clear act of duty, and the only apprehension which I have since had has been lest my conduct and my motives should have been misunderstood. There is only one other point to which I wish to allude. Throughout the explanation which I have just addressed to the House I have been most anxious not to say one single word or utter one single observation with reference to the conduct of any other person in these transactions. I have felt that in the peculiar position in which I found myself placed I should be acting in a manner most consistently with good taste, and certainly most agreeable to my own feelings, if I confined any observations which I had to make to a simple statement of facts, and to a simple vindication of my own character, without making the slightest observation or remark on the conduct of any other person. It is with some pain and some embarrassment that I have made this explanation, but I most cordially thank the House for the attention and kindness with which they have listened to me.

OXFORD UNIVERSITY BILL.
Order for Committee read.
House in Committee, Mr. BOUVERIE in the Chair.
LORD JOHN RUSSELLsaid, that he had promised on a former occasion to state the names of the Commissioners, in addition to those included in the Bill, together with the names of the secretaries. The additional Commissioners were to be, the Earl of Harrowby and Mr. George Cornewall Lewis. The secretaries would be, the assistant secretary employed in the late Commission, Mr. Goldwin Smith, and the Rev. Mr. Wayte.
340
On the Motion of Sir WILLIAM HEATHCOTE, clause ordered to be inserted after Clause 30—
"And whereas the College of St. Mary of Winchester near Winchester shall for the purposes of this Act be subject to the provisions of this Act with respect to Colleges, and shall have the same or the like powers as are hereby given to the Colleges of the University, and he subject to the authorities hereby conferred on the Commissioners for the Alteration and Amendment of Statutes, in like manner as is hereby provided with respect to the Colleges of the University, but without prejudice to the powers and authorities, if any, of the Commissioners under 'The Charitable Trusts Act, 1853.'"
MR. PHINNmoved the following clause—
"And whereas it is expedient to prevent credit being given to persons studying at the University of Oxford, who have not attained the age of twenty-one years, Be it Enacted, That, from and after the passing of this Act, no action or suit shall be commenced or maintained in any Court of Law or Equity for the recovery of any debt or demand contracted or incurred by any person under the age of twenty-one years, who at the time of the contracting or incurring such debt or demand shall be a student in the University, nor upon any deed, bond, or obligation given as a security for any such debt or demand so incurred by such pupil while under the age of twenty-one as afore-said."
The hon. and learned Gentleman said his original intention had been to make the clause more extensive, and to apply to all Universities and schools; but on receiving an intimation from the Chairman, that that would be beyond the scope of the Bill, he had altered the clause so as to limit its operation to debts contracted within the University of Oxford. The subject of restraining the expenditure and extravagance of young men at Oxford had engaged the attention of all persons anxious for University reform; but he was convinced that the only mode of effectually doing it was by providing against any possibility of the law assisting those persons who gave credit to students recovering their claims. At present the plea of infancy was often set up to actions of this sort, and it might defeat all claims for articles which were not necessaries; but lately juries had ruled that masonic ornaments, gold-headed hunting-whips, and such things, were necessaries, and even that champagne and wild ducks for a supper were necessaries. If this clause should pass, if a tradesman allowed a young man to have goods, he would have to trust entirely to his honour for payment. It might be said that there ought not to be any specific legislation

341
with regard to Oxford, but unless that feeling should be very strong, he thought it would be desirable to apply the principle to Oxford in the first instance, and afterwards to introduce it into kindred institutions. He trusted that even if his clause were rejected the discussion would elicit such an expression of opinion as to induce the Government to frame a general measure for the purpose of protecting young gentlemen from the evils to which they were now subjected.
Clause brought up, and read the first time.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be now read a Second
Time."
MR. HENLEYfelt disposed to argue the question rather on general than on special grounds, seeing that the hon. and learned Gentleman did not intend his clause to be directed more against Oxford than any other place similarly circumstanced. It might be inconvenient and wrong for young people at the University to obtain goods from tradesmen; but the temptations held out to young men at Oxford were by no means of a special character, but applied equally to the young men in the Army and Navy, and all attempt to deal with the question would open a very wide field. It was a mistake to attempt to deal with the matter in this piecemeal sort of way. A greater curse could not be inflicted on either the young men or their parents, than by such an enactment as the one now under consideration. Parents, if they saw fit, could now refuse payment, and the law supported him unless tradesmen could prove that the goods supplied were necessary for the condition in life of the young man, and the matter was very properly left to the decision of a jury. Supposing the clause to pass, and the debt to be made a debt of honour, tradesmen would take care to put an enhanced value on every article supplied, as a kind of insurance, and that enhanced value would act as a kind of penalty on every person obtaining credit. He believed that such a provision would prove inoperative, and that the only security for tradesmen was in the good feelings of the young men, who would not contract debts without a prospect of paying them. He believed that a great deal that was said respecting the extravagance of the students at the University was wholly untrue and unwarranted, and he knew that a very large number of per-
342
sons passed through the University without any of the failings which had been referred to. He certainly should say "no" to the introduction of the clause proposed by the hon. and learned Gentleman.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERthought it must be felt by all, that the question was one of very great difficulty. The temptations of the under-graduates were somewhat peculiar; but at the same time there was very great force in the objection which had been taken to exceptional legislation upon the subject. The principle of the present law, if he understood it rightly, was a sound principle—namely, that credit ought not to be given to persons under age, except for necessaries. The hon. and learned Member for Bath had so far proved his case, that it was a matter of notoriety that the working of that law with regard to the Universities had not been altogether satisfactory. Whether this was owing to the manner in which juries were composed, or to other circumstances, did not appear; but the construction given to the term "necessaries" was certainly such as to defeat, to a considerable degree, the intention, meaning, and spirit of the law. He confessed that he could not refuse to go so far as to admit that a serious evil existed; but when the matter came to be considered, the question arose whether they ought to attempt to remedy the evil in the University of Oxford alone; and, in the next place, whether a clause of the nature submitted by the hon. and learned Member for Bath would be an appropriate and adequate remedy. He did not think it would be safe for the Committee to adopt the clause before them; and, looking to the character of the clause itself, and the extremely invidious aspect which attached to all exceptional legislation, unless it were most carefully guarded, he could not recommend it for adoption. An examination of the clause would show at once that a great difficulty would be found in its operation in places out of Oxford. Owing to the facilities of communication between one town and another, matters stood in a very different state now to what they did twenty, thirty, or forty years ago. Before railway communication became established, it might be assumed that what articles an undergraduate purchased he procured in Oxford; but it would be most unsafe to assume that now. The taste for ornaments and

343
luxuries at Oxford was steadily diminishing; but even when they were obtained they might be purchased in London of a tradesman who, in the first place, might be reasonably supposed to be unaware that the purchaser was an undergraduate of Oxford, and who, even if he was cognisant of that fact, was not likely to know of the existence of an exceptional law of this nature. Although he was far from going the length of saying that Parliament ought not to attempt to apply any remedy to this peculiar evil, yet he thought it quite plain that they were not at present sufficiently ripe for the adoption of this remedy.
MR. LABOUCHEREsuggested that it might he possible, in the case of a debt incurred by a student of Oxford or Cambridge, to give jurisdiction in the matter to the Vice Chancellor's Court of the particular University concerned. These Courts possessed extensive powers, and were presided over by lawyers of eminence, and would be far better able to judge of what were proper necessaries than a jury composed of tradesmen themselves.
MR. ROBERT PHILLIMOREsupported the clause. He must condemn the temptations which were held out by tradesmen in Oxford and Cambridge to young men just entering the University. He also thought it improper that juries, generally composed of tradesmen, should be allowed to find that champagne and cigars were "necessaries of life" for young men of sixteen and seventeen.
MR. CARDWELLsaid, that whatever I differences of opinion might exist upon this subject, the House seemed to be unanimous in a desire to throw obstacles in the way of extravagance on the part of young men, whether at the Universities or elsewhere, and in an opinion that this clause was not a proper one to be inserted in the Bill before the House. The truth was, that according to the law these matters were decided by a judge and jury, and it was not unfrequently objected that a jury did not afford equal protection to both sides. If that were so, the remedy ought to be sought in an improvement of the constitution of the tribunal before which such cases were to be tried. As things at present stood, a young man having no parents, and with limited resources, by husbanding his means and obtaining a little credit, was enabled to pass through the University honourably, and to obtain an education which might be the
344
means of procuring him a fortune in after life. If this clause were agreed to, such an individual would have the door of the University closed against him, inasmuch as he did not possess the means of obtaining an University education without the assistance of a small amount of credit.
COLONEL NORTHobjected to the clause, on the ground that it would be a step most fatal to the honour of the rising men of England, if they should be allowed to suppose for a moment, that because they were under age they might be dishonest.
MR. HEYWOODsupported the clause, and hoped the hon. and learned Member for Bath would divide the House upon it. He believed the agitation for the reform of the Universities would never cease nor be put down until the difficulty of the extravagance of the students at college was met.
THE SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, he thought the Committee would agree that some power was required to protect young men from running a career of extravagance and wanton profligacy when at the University. He was, therefore, fully sensible of the importance of the object which the hon. and learned Member for Bath had in view; but he thought that there were serious objections to the clause by which he sought to obtain it. He did not apprehend any injury to the morals of the young men themselves from the introduction of a clause to that effect, and he believed it would give very great protection to the parents and friends of the students. The student at college was, in reality, resident under the roof of a quasi guardian, and every encouragement was given by the colleges at Oxford to young men to deal only with such tradesmen as adopted the practice of giving no credit at all. The great obstacle to the effectual utility of the clause seemed to be, that, though it would prevent a resident student under twenty-one years of age obtaining credit in Oxford, he might obtain it in London or elsewhere from tradesmen who were ignorant of his position. A difficulty which had occurred to his mind was this—whether this clause could not be qualified by taking away from tradesmen the power of recovering after they had received notice that any young man dealing with them was a student of the University. He should recommend his hon. and learned Friend to postpone the clause, and to confer with the Attorney General and himself, so that they might see whether a

345
clause could not be framed which should meet the difficulty better than this one did.
MR. J. G. PHILLIMOREthought his hon. and learned Friend would be justified in withdrawing the clause after the suggestion just made by the Solicitor General. At the same time, so strongly did he feel on this subject, that if his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Phinn) went to a division, he should vote for him.
MR. PHINNsaid, that his purpose had been served by bringing this matter under the attention of the Government, and eliciting the opinion of the House upon it. He thought the Committee would agree with him that an Oxford University Bill which did not make some provision in regard to this matter would be an exceedingly defective one. His object was, not to relieve the parent of a student from any of his present liability, but to protect the young, man in order that he might not be tempted to conceal from his father the extent of his extravagance, and might not, at the end of his University career, find himself indebted to an amount which would embarrass him during Ids whole life. The father would still remain liable for the son's necessary debts, and if he did not supply him with money to meet ordinary expenses suited to his station in life, and if the son obtained clothes and books which he wore and used, a jury would enforce the claim against the father. He would, in consequence of what had passed, withdraw his Motion.
MR. HENLEYsaid, he was fully aware of the extent of the evil and the necessity of finding a remedy; he only protested against exceptional legislation on this subject; but if the hon. and learned Member for Bath, instead of carrying his object by a clause in a Bill, would bring in a general measure, he would co-operate with him in repressing extravagance.
MR. CRAUFURDthought that the authorities of the Universities would be able to meet the evil complained of by making such regulations, with regard to the tradesmen who were under their control, as should discountenance the giving of credit to persons who were in statu pupillarum. At Cambridge he believed great encouragement was given to high charges and a system of long credit by the practice of sending in accounts to tutors. The result was, that the accounts which were longest unpaid, and on which, therefore, an addi-
346
tional charge was made by way of interest, were those which were sent in through the tutors.
SIR WILLIAM HEATHCOTEsaid, that at Oxford there was no such practice as for the tutors to interfere in the payment or regulation of tradesmen's accounts. He suggested that the course proposed by the hon. and learned Member for Bath would only be to transfer debts from the Oxford tradesmen to those in London. It was a fear of causing this which led to much of the tenderness exhibited by the University authorities to tradesmen.
MR. GOULBURNsaid, that the statement of the hon. and learned Member for the Ayr Burghs (Mr. Craufurd) would not apply to the University of Cambridge any more than to that of Oxford. At Cambridge the tradesmen were bound, at the end of each term, to send in to each tutor the accounts of the young men under his charge, to be by him examined; and to his (Mr. Goulburn's) knowledge the tutors frequently called the attention of the parents of a young man to anything which they thought to be extravagance on his part. These accounts were regularly paid by the tutors when they received the money from the parents of the students, and any delay which might occur in particular cases must arise from the neglect of the parents to remit the money to the tutor.
MR. CRAUFURDsaid, that he had spoken of facts which had come within his own knowledge during a six years' residence at the University of Cambridge. A tutor of Trinity College, of which he was an undergraduate, left the college without paying any of the bills, for which he had received the money.
MR. GOULBURNsaid, that the hon. and learned Member had founded a general statement upon an exceptional case. Many years ago a tutor of Trinity College did misapply the funds; but he defied the hon. and learned Gentleman to prove that at the present moment such a practice prevailed in regard to any tutor of any college.
MR. PHINNsaid, that, acting on the understanding which had been come to, he would, with the permission of the House, postpone the consideration of this clause, and also of some subsequent ones providing for the regulation of the proceedings of the Vice Chancellor's Court by the rules of common law, until Thursday next. But so strongly did he feel the necessity of apply-

347
ing some remedy to this evil, that unless he had then come to some arrangement with the Solicitor General, he should be disposed to press this clause as it now stood.
MR. CRAUFURD, in reference to the remarks of Mr. Goulburn, said, that he had not drawn his inference from one case, but from his knowledge of cases of the description to which he had referred having occurred, and from the fact that men of his own standing at college, who wished to obtain goods economically, never allowed the accounts to be sent to the tutor, by which course they got the goods five per cent cheaper than they would otherwise have done.
Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.
MR. BLACKETTmoved the following clause—
"It shall henceforward be unlawful to administer any oath on admission to any office or emolument in the said University or the colleges thereof."
The hon. Member said, that it had been suggested to him that he should make an exception in favour of the oaths of allegiance and supremacy; and while he thought such a course would be unnecessary, as he believed that these oaths were administered only on the taking of a degree, he should not object to make such an exception. He would not repeat the extracts which he read to the House on the previous evening, but would only remind it that the oaths to which he objected were such as referred either to matters of trifling importance and minute observance, such as that the heads of the fellows should be washed and shaved by the college porter, and others; and to such as referred to matters which were positively illegal, as the celebration of mass and the performance of the offices of the Church of Rome. There was another class of oaths of which he was not aware when he last brought this subject before the House. The professors swore that they would sing psalms in the High Street of Oxford, the words of the oath being "tu cantabis in publicis processionibus." The argument with which he was met by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, when he last brought this subject before the House, amounted to this, that it was a serious thing to declare that in future none of these oaths should be administered. In reply to this he would remind the right hen. Gentleman that this was a course which had been contemplated
348
and accepted by, he believed, every authority upon the subject. The Dean of Ely had given in his adhesion to it. Dr. Tyler had said that he was not aware of a single oath at Oxford which might not be advantageously abolished, and the Reports of the Commissions to inquire into the Universities of Oxford, Cambridge, and Dublin had all laid it down that it would be highly expedient, indeed that for purposes of efficiency it was absolutely imperative, to prohibit for the future the administration of any of these oaths. As fas as Cambridge was concerned, the Commission upon that University did in this only adopt the recommendation of the Syndicate of that University itself. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer suggested that the reform of these oaths should be left to the authorities of the colleges. He (Mr. Blackett) had no doubt that he used that argument in perfect good faith, but he would remind him that the Oxford University Commission had declared in their Report that it would be nugatory to give to the authorities such a power of reform. On every ground expediency and academic discipline, therefore, he submitted that it would be well to make a clean sweep at once of these oaths, which they could do without travelling beyond the scope of the Bill, and in which they would only be following out the recommendations of the Oxford Commissioners. He should certainly take the sense of the house upon this point, and give those hon. Members who agreed with hint the opportunity of recording their votes in opposition to the continuance of what he considered idle, mischievous, and blasphemous profanity.
Clause brought up, and read the first time.
Motion made, "That the said Clause be now read a Second Time."
THE CHANCELLOR, OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that this question divided itself into two parts, which ought to be kept more separate from each other than had been done by the hon. Member. The hon. Gentleman had quoted, with great truth and justice, and much force, various Statutes of the different colleges of the University of Oxford, amid said it was highly improper (he had even gone the length of saying it was very profane) to bind persons to obey Statutes which it was either impossible or irrational to observe, and which, in point of fact, were not ob-

349
served. So far as that part of the ease went, he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) certainly entirely agreed with the hon. Gentleman; but the hon Member would, at the same time, admit that almost all the cases he had quoted were the cases of Statutes that were in existence under cover of that extraordinary oath invented by William of Wykeham, and which bound those who took it not only to the observance of the Statutes, but also to the resistance of any change in them, and forbade them to obey any other Statutes which varied or departed from their tenor. Now, so far as that particular oath was concerned, it would be rendered entirely and absolutely illegal by the Bill now passing through the House; and it was not too much to assume that, by the act of the Commissioners who would be appointed to work this Bill, those Statutes and all such clauses in them as the hon. Gentleman had referred to, would very shortly cease to figure on the roll of the Statutes of these colleges. But then there Were other oaths which were administered in the University on the admission,
particularly, to fellowships. Now these oaths, generally speaking, so far as they did not fall within the sweep of the prohibitory clause of this Bill, were oaths of a simple promissory character (omitting now all reference to the oaths of allegiance and supremacy, which were not included in this Motion), and therefore he could not see that hon. Member's observation, or his censure of irreverence or profanity, was at all applicable to them. He (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) confessed that this was not a matter on which he had not very strong opinion; but this Bill had been framed, with regard to this particular subject, in the mode that was most conformable to its general principle. It was a Bill that trusted to the operation of enabling powers; and the Government had therefore endeavoured, by the measure as it now stood, to avoid the peremptory ruling and solving of any questions, excepting those which it was absolutely and imperatively necessary for Parliament itself to solve. They proceeded upon the principle that, within certain limits at any rate, confidence might be reposed in the authorities appointed to carry out this Bill, and also to a great extent that confidence might be likewise placed in the members of the colleges themselves; and he himself. had a strong conviction that that confidence would be found to have been fully
350
justified. With regard to the oaths now in question—the promissory oaths—there was some difference of opinion in the University. By many members of the University he believed it was thought that the entrance to a fellowship or a college living was an act of great significance and importance; that the relations which persons who so entered contracted with one another were very close and intimate; and that, therefore, these occasions were occasions which it was most fit and becoming to invest with solemnity by the administration of an oath. Other gentlemen at the University of Oxford took a different view, and were of opinion with time hon. Member that it would be better to withdraw the oath, and trust, first, to the principles and the good feeling of those who were elected, and, in the second place, to the efficiency of their laws. Now what was proposed by time Bill was, that they should leave this question to be decided in the University and by the Commissioners, and he confessed that he thought it would be much better so to leave it, than to attempt to do something which would no doubt be regarded by many as an act violating the freedom of the colleges in the conduct of their own concerns, and for which he thought they could not allege any ground of necessity. He fully granted that there was a ground of necessity for interposing with regard to the oath against any change; and the Government had recognised that necessity by a clause directed against that oath; but in cases where the members of the colleges were simply bound to the observance of Statutes of their college which might be enacted by the lawful authorities from time to time, he thought that nothing should be done to restrain or tie their hands, or to prevent their giving the freest and fairest attention to this question. He certainly hoped that it might be the view of the Committee that they should leave the colleges perfectly at liberty to deal with this matter, subject to the control of the Commissioners, as they had done on many other questions of immense importance, in which it would be impossible to demonstrate that changes ought not to be made; but they were proceeding on the principle that such matters could be dealt with by others much more satisfactorily and more effectually than by Parliament.
MR. GOULBOURNconcurred with the right hon. Gentleman, in thinking that a task of this nature would be better per-

351
formed by the Commissioners than by that House. In the University of Cambridge, where the power of dealing with this question was vested in the college authorities, alterations had been made in the Statutes, and now there were no oaths administered there that could give reasonable offence.
MR. HEYWOODsupported the clause.
MR. J. G. PHILLIMOREwould vote for the clause, believing that these oaths were unnecessary, and that every unnecessary oath was in itself an evil.
SIR WILLIAM HEATHCOTEconfessed he thought it would be very desirable to leave this matter to the authorities to deal with, inasmuch as some persons unquestionably desired some kind of acknowledgment in the form of an oath on entrance, and the propriety of retaining the oaths would differ according to the circumstances of each college, who would carefully consider the form of every individual oath; he should, therefore, be prepared to support the view taken by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
MR. EWARTthought that this was a question of public morality, and that, as such, it should be dealt with by the House.
LORD JOHN RUSSELLadvised the Committee to leave the matter to the discretion of the colleges and the Commissioners.
MR. BLACKETT, in reply, said, he did not mean to charge any gentleman who had taken those oaths with profanity, but he thought, public attention having now been called to them, they would forfeit a great opportunity of abolishing a breach of morality and a great scandal if they did not do away with those oaths, which could confer no benefit either on the University or the country.
On Question, "That the said Clause be now read a Second Time," the Committee divided:—Ayes 71; Noes 109: Majority 38.
MR. G. PHILLIMOREmoved the following clause—
"That from and after the 1st day of December next ensuing, no person shall on account of his rank be permitted to pass his examination or to take a degree sooner than any other undergraduate."
The reasons for moving this clause were so Yen" clear and simple, that he did not feel it necessary to enter into any detail or any statement whatever. His argument was this—if it was a good thing, everybody ought. to share in it; if it was a bad thing, nobody should be subject to it.
352
Clause brought up, and read the first time.
Motion made, "That the said Clause be now read a Second Time."
COLONEL NORTHasked if the clause was intended to interfere with the present members of the University?
MR. PHILLIMOREsaid it was not.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he should endeavour to imitate the brevity of the hon. Mover of this clause. The hon. Gentleman said the only question was whether the thing was a good thing or a bad thing; but he would tell the hon. Gentleman that there was another question, namely, whether it was a right thing for the Committee to do. He thought this matter also was a matter of detail which ought to be left to the University.
MR. EWARTshould support the clause, wishing to see absurd and obsolete distinctions abolished.
MR. HEYWOODthought it desirable that the residence required from ordinary graduates at the University should be shortened, and he wished to see commoners allowed to take their degrees with as little delay as degrees could be taken by noblemen. He could not concur in the suggestion that the University should be left to deal with this subject, for he feared the University might entertain so much reverence for rank that no alteration would be made in the existing regulations. He would, therefore, feel it his duty to vote for the clause.
MR. PHILLIMOREsaid, the Chancellor of the Exchequer had not told them whether he was in favour of the propositions or not. Here was a prominent evil affecting the civil rights of English subjects, and he now sought to remedy it.
On Question, "That the said Clause be now read a Second Time," the Committee divided:—Ayes 66; Noes 67: Majority 1.
MR. BOWYERmoved the following clause—
"And whereas it is desirable to restore the study of the Civil Law and Jurisprudence in the University of Oxford, Be it Enacted, That no degree of B.C.L. shall be granted or conferred by the University of Oxford, unless the candidate for such degree shall have been duly examined for the same in the elements of Jurisprudence and Justinian's Institutes of Civil Law; and no degree of D.C.L. shall be granted or conferred by the University (except honorary degrees), unless the candidate for such degree shall have been duly examined for the same in International or Public Law, and the Pandects or Digest of Roman Civil Law; and it shall be lawful for the Heb-

353
domadal Council of the University to make from time to time such regulations for and regarding such examinations as they may think fit."
The hon. and learned Gentleman said, the object of this clause was to restore to the University of Oxford the faculty of law, which he conceived was one of the most important faculties necessary to constitute a University. At present the degrees in civil law were acquired by a mere form. The degree of D.C.L. was granted after what was called a "wall lecture." The candidate for the degree was shut up with nothing but a wall to look at, and it was supposed that he was ready to dispute with any person who came to him. Nobody, however, did come; but, if anybody did present himself with the view of disputation, he (Mr. Bowyer) believed that in most cases the learned doctor would be very much puzzled as to the manner in which he should deal with his opponent. In many cases the candidate had not gone through any book on civil law, or learnt anything of the science in which he was allowed by the University to take the highest degree. He considered that Parliament should lay down some rules to prevent one of the most important faculties of the University from falling into decay and desuetude. He found a very strong recommendation for the revival of the study of the law in the University of Oxford in page 71 of the Report of the Commissioners. At page 72 the Commissioners stated that the study of the civil law ought not to be allowed to fall into complete desuetude, and the evidence given before the Commissioners fully justified the opinion they had given. The Commissioners had also recommended the institution of the study of international lacy; and he need scarcely remind his learned Friends around him that it was absolutely impossible for any one to obtain a competent knowledge of international law, unless he had made himself to some extent perfectly master of the civil law. They knew how important it was to have persons adequately trained for the office of Queen's Advocate, whose duty it was to advise the Crown on matters regarding the relations of the country with other nations. There were now measures before Parliament haying for their object the reform of the Courts of Doctors' Commons, and one of the effects of those measures, whatever might be their merits or demerits, would be to cause the extinction of a body of persons conversant with a
354
science which was of great importance to the public service, and though he was not then going to enter into that matter, he referred to it as an additional reason why they should take measures to revive the academic study of that science. All persons engaged in the diplomatic service should be acquainted with international law, but many of them had never had an opportunity of learning even the rudiments of it. Therefore they were unable, when they came to argue questions with the Ministers of foreign States, to meet them in argument, or to understand the full force or bearing of the State papers, or of the authorities cited in those State papers. That was another reason why they should not neglect the academic study of this science, which was so necessary for the public service. He thought the University of Oxford would be rendered nil engine of very great advantage to the country compared with what it had been, if, in addition to the study belonging to scholarship and belonging to antiquity, they added also other studies, such as that of the law, which would be practically useful to persons when they came into that or the other House, or were employed in the public service. If the revival of the faculty of law in the University actually took place it would be found valuable and important for practicable purposes, and Dot only would those who were intended for the legal profession go through that course of study which the University would lay down, but a certain amount of study in the civil law would be made a portion of the regular curriculum, of University education. The hon. and learned Member quoted Archbishop Chicheley and Lynwode in support of his view as to the great expediency of these studies at the University, and contended that, in effect, the granting degrees in civil law, as practised at the University now, was in fraud of the intentions of the founders, who had left directions that those degrees should be made conditions on their benefactions; for it was manifest that these founders contemplated that the degrees should be bon° fide degrees and real tests of proficiency.
Clause brought up, and read the first time.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the said Clause be now read a second time."
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he appreciated fully all that had been said by the hon. and learned

355
Gentleman as to the importance of the study of the civil law, and the great benefit to be derived from it, but at the same time he must say that the clause which he had proposed was out of place on the present occasion, because it presumed altogether a different idea of the functions of the House, and of the task then before it, from the true one, and seemed to rest upon the suggestion that they were engaged in constructing a system of study for the University of Oxford. The main objection he bad to the adoption of the clause was, that it would be entirely inconsistent with the general framework of the Bill, which was to put the University of Oxford into a position to do its own business for itself, but not to undertake to do its business in its stead; and until they should see how they acted, Parliament would not be in a position to judge how far it was necessary to interfere by a positive provision of this kind. The same argument as that which had been used by the hon. and learned Gentleman would apply to the study of theology and of other faculties, and they would be involved in the performance of a labour for which they were entirely unfit, but for the performance of which the University of Oxford was not unfit. He should be sorry, at the same time, to see a clause of this kind negatived, because it contained important matter, and an adverse vote, would do injustice to the clause; but he trusted that the hon. and learned Gentleman would not prematurely press upon them a proposition of this kind. He would suggest to him to withdraw the clause, and begged he would accept his thanks for the able and friendly interest, the highly intelligent interest, he had displayed in the University by the speech he had made.
MR. HENLEYalso trusted the hon. and learned Gentleman would withdraw the clause as having nothing to do with the purpose of the Bill.
MR. ROBERT PHILLIMOREagreed with the hon. and learned Gentleman who brought forward the Motion, that any attempt to teach international jurisprudence without laying down as the basis for it an acquaintance with the civil law, would result in knowledge of the most inadequate description; but lately at Oxford, those who took degrees in civil law had been subjected to real or bonâ fide examination in some of the authors to whom the Motion of the hon. and learned Gentleman had reference. He thought it would be very unwise on the part of the hon. and learned
356
Gentleman to press this question to a division; but he very much rejoiced the discussion had taken place, because it was important that the University of Oxford should be impressed with the notion that Parliament was not indifferent to the study, and did not wish that the sums of money left for the purpose should be diverted from that object.
THE SOLICITOR GENERALwas quite sure the Committee would concur with him in high appreciation of the hon. and learned Gentleman's motives for bringing forward a subject upon which he was so distinguished an authority. The proposition which the hon. and learned Gentleman had made, could not but have its full weight with those who would have the further development of the resources of the University in their hands; and he trusted the hon. and learned Gentleman would, therefore, not feel it necessary to press his clause upon the Committee. The general principles involved in the Motion of the hon. and learned Gentleman were already embodied in the Bill, but had reference not to the subject of law only, but to all the subjects contained in the University examination. It was unnecessary, therefore, to lay down these principles with regard to the faculty of law, unless they went on to repeat them with regard to divinity, medicine, and any other branch of instruction which either was or might be hereafter included in the curriculum of University education. He thought his hon. and learned Friend might very safely leave it to the superintending authorities in the University under this Bill so to perfect the course of studies there as to give the students that full, that comprehensive education which would enable them, with credit to themselves, and benefit to the community, to fulfil their moral and social duties and perform their political obligations. He would call to his hon. and learned Friend's recollection, that there was a subject now engaging the attention of the Law Commission that would have an important bearing on the subject in which he was so interested—the question, namely, of effecting, on the part of the Inns of Court, the complete fulfilment of the great and important mission with which they had been originally charged—to provide effectually for the legal education of the country. The course recommended by the hon. and learned Gentleman might, possibly, be most in; convenient with reference to that question, and, if embodied in an Act of Parliament,

357
it could not hereafter be modified. He hoped, therefore, that his hon. and learned Friend would not press his Motion upon the House.
MR. HEYWOODsaid, he did not see the advantage of reviving the ancient system of the study of civil law in the Universities, as the hon. and learned Gentleman proposed. The system was dying away, and he saw no sufficient reason why they should endeavour to revive it to any great extent. It ought, at any rate, to be put on quite a different footing. He was aware that, on the Continent, the study of the civil law was regarded as an excellent mode of improving and strengthening the intellect; but he thought there were many modern works, the study of which was likely to be as helpful to the intellect as the Pandects of Justinian.
MR. EWARTsaid, the Statutes of 1830 had in fact revived the study of the civil law at Oxford. He was glad that the hon. and learned Gentleman had raised the question of diplomacy, even in passing, in relation to this subject. He did not see where diplomatists could receive a preliminary education so well as in the Universities, and he hoped, therefore, that the attention of those learned bodies, which were the natural feeders of the diplomatic profession, would turn their attention to the study of the civil law, and especially of international law.
MR. NAPIERsaid, the great excellence of this Bill was, that it untied the hands of the University, that it was simply an enabling measure, and that it left free action to the heads of the University in the regulation of the curriculum of studies. That principle would be invaded if the House agreed to the present clause, and he trusted, therefore, that the hon. and learned Member would withdraw it. In saying this, he did not at all undervalue the importance of the study of the civil law, which he believed to he indispensable to a thorough knowledge of law. At the same time, he thought the province of the University was rather to promote the general education of the students than to impart instruction in particular studies, with the exception, indeed, of theology—a knowledge of which should, he thought, be acquired there.
MR. BOWYER, said, that, after what had fallen from the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Solicitor General, he would not hesitate for a moment to withdraw his Motion; but he thanked the right hon.
358
Gentleman and the other Members who had taken part in the conversation for the favourable manner in which they bad received his proposal, and he hoped that what had passed would have the effect of directing the attention of the University authorities to the subject.
Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.
MR. HEYWOODsaid, that he had given notice of a clause which he feared would be liable to the same objections which the Chancellor of the Exchequer had made to the clause of the hon. and learned Member. Its object was to provide that, during the last year of the academical course, all students shall be left free to devote themselves to some special branch or branches of study, and to select their own tutor or professor. He should not, however, press the clause, but should assent to its being negatived.
Clause (During the last year of the academical course, all students shall be left free to devote themselves to some special branch or branches of study, and to select their own tutor or professor), brought up, and read the first time.
Motion made, and Question, "That the said Clause be new read a second time," put, and negatived.
MR. HEYWOODthen proposed clauses, enacting that the Commissioners shall, within one year from the passing of this Act, prepare balance-sheets of the present state of the revenues of the University, and of all the colleges and halls of Oxford, and shall forward the same to Her Majesty's Secretary of State for the Home Department, with a view to their being presented to Her Majesty and to both Houses of Parliament; that the Commissioners shall be authorised to examine the unpublished copies of Royal Commissions and of academical Statutes belonging to the University and colleges of Oxford, and to suggest alterations in the college Statutes, more especially tending to an improvement in the system of succession to college endowments; and that the Commissioners shall revise the table of fees exacted by the University, so as to equalise all fees demanded for the same purpose, and to abolish all those which are exacted for no service, or which are unnecessary, due regard being paid to vested interests. He thought these clauses were rendered necessary by what took place when the late Commission issued. That body, one of the objects of which was to examine into the revenues of the

359
University, having required accounts of their receipts from all the colleges, some of them, amongst which he might mention Brasenose, refused to give any information with respect to money matters; although he believed they had in reality no reason to shun inquiry. Others, however, had brought forward their balance-sheets in a plain, straightforward manner. He thought it was of importance that this Motion should be agreed to, as it would be a recognition of these colleges being public institutions. On public principle he thought they ought to ask that a copy of the accounts of all the colleges should be laid before Parliament. This would be a proof that they recognised them as public institutions, and it was on that ground that he asked the House to assent to the Motion.
Clause (The Commissioners shall, within one year from the passing of this Act, prepare balance sheets of the present state of the revenues of the University, and of all the Colleges and Halls of Oxford, and shall forward the same to Her Majesty's Secretary of State for the Home Department, with a view to their being presented to Her Majesty and to both Houses of Parliament,) brought up, and read the first time.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that after the admirable example which the hon. Member had set with respect to the first clause, he felt the less hesitation in advising him also to withdraw those then under the consideration of the House. There was not, perhaps, one word in the clauses of which the hon. Gentleman had given notice, to which he could object on the merits. He was sure, however, that clauses of this kind would be likely to create dislike and alarm at the University, although, perhaps, these feelings might not be perfectly justified. At the same time, he would not have urged this alone as a reason for the withdrawal of these clauses. The first, however, was entirely unnecessary, as the 4th clause of the Bill gave the Commissioners who were to be appointed under it power to call upon the University and the colleges for the production of documents and accounts, and it would no doubt be their duty to exercise that power. The accounts so obtained would in due course be transmitted to the Crown, and would then, according to the usual practice, be presented to Parliament. lie must observe that what had taken place under the former Commission was no guide as to what was likely to occur under the new one. The first being merely
360
issued under the authority of the Crown, many fellows and heads of houses thought themselves precluded by their oaths from divulging any information which might result in prejudice to their colleges; their only duty, however, would clearly be to obey a Commission appointed under the authority of Parliament. The next clause was perfect surplusage, inasmuch as it only set forth in detail part of what was fully contained in the 4th clause. No doubt, the Commissioners would, quite independently of anything contained in this Bill, make suggestions to the University authorities; but to empower thorn to make suggestions conferred upon them no real authority, and he could not help thinking that it was not compatible with the dignity of Parliament to give the Commissioners power to make recommendations if they did not also give them power to carry those recommendations into effect. He thought also that it would be unwise to insert a table of fees in this, which was simply an enabling measure; for it was clear that, if the University was not competent to revise its own table of fees, it was riot competent to deal with the much more important matters committed to its discretion. He thought it was not desirable at present to interfere in detail with the regulations of the University, but to allow a reasonable time to elapse during which it might be seen what was the working of the constitution that had been given to that body.
MR. HEYWOODthought there were several matters on which the Commissioners might make excellent suggestions. The rules with reference to compulsory celibacy and compulsory ordination were, for example, very bad rules, and to these the attention of the Commissioners might well be directed. He thought, also, that Parliament should know what the suggestions of the Commissioners were. After what had been said by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he did not wish to press these clauses to a division.
Motion made, and Question, "That the said Clause be now read a second time," put. and negatived.
On the preamble being put,
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERproposed to omit the following words—
"And for ensuring. the enjoyment of fellowships and other collegiate endowments according to personal merit, and for promoting the main designs of the founders both as respects the appointment to the said endowments and the continued tenure thereof; and for charging portions of the

361
endowments or income of colleges in certain eases with duties to be performed for the benefit of members of the University at large."
It was not proposed to part with any portion of the substance of the preamble, but the fact was, that when the latter portion of the Bill was rendered merely enabling, it had been thought better that this passage, relating to the college endowments, should be prefixed to such merely enabling portion of the Bill, and it had accordingly been inserted in the 31st clause.
Motion agreed to.
Bill reported; as amended, to be considered on Thursday.

SUPPLY—POSTAGE OF PRINTED PAPERS.
On the Order of the Day being read for going into Committee of Supply,
MR. MILNER GIBSONrose to call the attention of the Secretary to the Treasury, in the absence of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to the subject of the postage of printed matter—he did not mean newspapers—which was at present allowed to go through the post up to a certain limited weight. He understood there was a Treasury order which permitted printed matter (not being newspapers) to go through the post for a penny, the newspaper stamp being affixed to those particular copies which were intended to be sent through the post merely for postage purposes, and not because the paper really was a newspaper. He wished, in the first place, to ask whether there was any objection to lay this order on the table; and in the next, to call the hon. Gentleman's attention to the circumstance that the Board of Inland Revenue, acting under that Treasury order, required persons to make what might be called a false declaration in order to obtain the privilege thus afforded. Persons who desired that their printed matter should go through the post, franked by the newspaper stamp, were called upon by the Board to make a solemn declaration that these printed pamphlets were newspapers, when everybody knew they were not newspapers, and when the parties themselves and the Board of Inland Revenue were perfectly conscious they were not. He had an instance of this before him. There was a publication called the Quarterly Statement of the Society for Promoting the Employment of Additional Curates in Populous Places. Now it was clear that this publication could not be a newspaper; yet he found Mr. Richard
362
Clay, of Hornsey, in the county of Middle. sex, printer and proprietor of this Quarterly Statement, affirming that it was a newspaper, in order to obtain the postal privilege in question, and saying, "I do make this solemn declaration, conscientiously believing the same to be true." He certainly thought that if it were the intention of the Treasury to allow such publications as this to go through the post for 1d., persons wishing to avail themselves of the privilege should not be obliged to go through this most objectionable preliminary form of making a declaration amounting to something very like a falsehood. The Chancellor of the Exchequer himself was, he believed, a member of this Additional Curate Employment Society, and was, therefore, to some extent a participator in the system of making loose declarations, and thereby, if not defrauding the Post Office, at least of lessening the charge which this publication would have to pay for transmission by post according to the laws of the land. He (Mr. Gibson) thought that, both on moral and on financial grounds, the subject was one well worthy of consideration on the part of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and of the Treasury. He knew a gentleman who refused to make such a declaration, which he knew to be false, and in justice to those who entertained conscientious scruples the Government ought to put an end to the anomaly. He wished to ask whether the hon. Gentleman would have any objection to lay the Treasury order on the subject on the table of the House?
MR. J. WILSONsaid, it was scarcely correct to charge the Board of Inland Revenue with calling upon these persons to make a false declaration. It was true that the Treasury, upon the representation of the Post Office, had so far relaxed the duty in regard to postage of newspapers as to allow certain pamphlets, not exceeding a specified weight, if duly stamped as newspapers at the Board of Inland Revenue, to pass free through the Post Office. But the Board of Inland Revenue had nothing whatever to do in requiring a false declaration on the subject. The Board was bound to take the declaration of any person who came before it, and said, "I am going to publish a newspaper," and who asked, therefore, that newspaper stamps should be attached to a portion of his impression. It was not for the Board to say whether the publication was a newspaper or not; they accepted the declaration made

363
to them, and allowed the stamp to be affixed. It was quite true that a variety of publications had of late years been issued and sent through the post under the character of newspapers, and nothing was more common than for merchants in sending their circulars abroad to call them newspapers. Undoubtedly such. publications contained what those persons thought they were entitled to call news, such as accounts of the state of the markets and of the prices of goods; but when these gentlemen went to Somerset House, all that the Commissioners of Inland Revenue had to do was to see that when they granted the privilege in question the declaration required by law should be made. The proprietor or printer declared the publication to be a newspaper, and that he conscientiously believed all he had stated to be true; and it was not for the Board of Inland Revenue to doubt a man's word and to declare he had been guilty of a misstatement. He could have no objection to place the House in possession of either the original Treasury order or the subsequent correspondence which had taken place between the Treasury and the Post Office on the subject.
MR. BRIGHTthought the hon. Gentleman had not been very successful in apologising for the Board of Inland Revenue, for the Board could not but see that the publication in question was not a newspaper, as it was a quarterly publication, which, even according to the ill-defined state of the law as it at present stood, was sufficient to exclude it from that category. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer was both a subscriber to this society and a member of the committee; both the Archbishops were members, and the paper was published under their auspices. He wanted to know why the Board of Inland Revenue should treat different persons in a different manner. In the case of this Society the stamp was affixed, under the pretext of its being a newspaper, to those copies of the publication that were sent to the country, while those copies that were distributed from hand to hand in town were published without a stamp. But it might be that in the very next street a person might come forward to make the same declaration with respect to his publication, when the Board would insist upon every individual copy being stamped. Therefore, though there was but one law, yet there were two applications of that law; and he was sure that
364
the hon. Member for Westbury (Mr. Wilson) would be the first to admit that in all matters of taxation it was essential that that taxation should be levied with justice and equality upon all, and that the Board of Inland Revenue ought not to be allowed to constitute itself a kind of censorship upon the press, allowing a portion of one publication only to be stamped, and insisting upon the stamping of every other copy in the case of the other. The hon. Member said, that the Board of Inland Revenue had nothing to do but to receive the declaration of the proprietor or publisher, and that they took that at once as valid and true. But if a person brought a pair of boots to the Inland Revenue Office, and proposed to make the usual declaration in order that they might pass through the Post Office, he took it for granted that the officials would then open their eyes and discover that they were not a newspaper. He would take this opportunity of asking the Attorney General, whom he now saw in his place, what conclusion had been come to in the case of the Penny Commercial Journal, published by Mr. Shard, in Dublin, which had been prosecuted by the Government, and in which the proprietor of the paper had obtained a verdict in his favour. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, a short time ago, stated that in his opinion that verdict was a bad one, but that the question of a new trial had been referred to the consideration of the Attorney General. As it was desirable the decision of the hon. and learned Gentleman should be known, he begged now to ask him what opinion he had formed upon the case?
THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, he would be happy on this as on every other occasion to give an explicit answer to his hon. Friend, but the matter had not come under his notice. It was an Irish prosecution, conducted by the Attorney General for Ireland, and he was not competent, therefore, to give any opinion on the subject.
MR. MILNER GIBSONsaid, the Chancellor of the Exchequer expressly stated that the matter had been referred to the English Attorney General.
The House then went into Committee of

SUPPLY—MISCELLANEOUS ESTIMATES —CRIMINAL LUNATICS.
(1.) Motion made, and Question proposed—
"That a sum, not exceeding 164,165 l., be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Expense of the Maintenance of Prisoners in County Gaols,

365
Reformatory Institutions, and Lunatic Asylums, and Expenses of Removal of Convicts, to the 31st day of March, 1855."
MR. SCHOLEFIELDsaid, he had been prevented on a former occasion from bringing forward a Motion of which he had given notice—that as a salary was refused to Roman Catholic chaplains, the same measure should he meted out to the chaplains of all; other religious denominations. He therefore thought it right to bring it forward on the present occasion, though he was sorry he was obliged to do so on such a limited scale, and in relation to a class of most pitiable objects. He referred to the class of criminal lunatics, for whose religious instruction there was a Vote in this Estimate to the extent of 100 l. In proposing to reduce the Estimate by this sum he hoped the Committee would not misjudge his motives, but would remember that he wished to test a great principle. The House had already decided by a vote on a former occasion that it would not subsidise Roman Catholic priests. He was not disposed to quarrel with that decision, if the House would now declare its determination to mete out the same justice to all the other sects. But if not, then the Committee would be adopting the principle announced by his hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Spooner), that there was no truth out of the pale of the Protestant creed. If that were so, they might deride the absurd claim of the infallibility of the Pope of Rome as long as they pleased, but it seemed to him that they were in fact setting up the same claim on behalf of Protestantism, with this ignoble difference, that the Protestant Pope issued his decrees from Exeter Hall instead of from the Vatican. The Protestants had an unquestioned majority in that House, and all that he asked was, that they should not exercise their power in such a way as to injure the Roman Catholics, or expect from them the services of loyal subjects while they refused to treat them on the same footing of justice and equality that all Her Majesty's subjects were entitled to.
Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That a sum not exceeding 164,065 l. be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of the maintenance of Prisoners in County Gaols, Reformatory Institutions, and Lunatic Asylums, and Expenses of Removal of Convicts, to the 31st day of March, 1855."
MR. W. WILLIAMScomplained that the Vote was not made out in the same clear and explicit manner as it used to be a few years ago. There was no account
366
in this Estimate of the value of the labour of prisoners, which ought to have been stated. Then he observed that the items for criminal lunatics in England and in Ireland had been increased from 2,9631. to 7,643 l. He wished for some explanation as to these points.
MR. FITZROYexplained that the increase in the prison estimates referred to by the hon. Member for Lambeth arose out of the increased price of provisions and the increased number of lunatics accommodated and supported in the prisons. With respect to the return of the amount produced by labour in the prisons, if the hon. Member referred to the 15th page of the Estimates he would find it clearly entered that it amounted to no less a sum than 16,226 l.
MR. MACARTNEYhoped that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would allow a Committee to be appointed relative to Ireland with respect to these Votes, inasmuch as he considered that country by no means fairly treated in the Estimates, after the promises which had been held out by Sir R. Peel on the repeal of the Corn Laws. Ireland, in fact, upon the clear promise held out to them by that statesman, claimed for the present a Supplemental Vote as to these Estimates, and he could not understand why Government should resist such a measure of justice. He hoped, before he brought forward any Amendment as to these supplies, that Government would fairly and ingenuously consider the question.
MR. APSLEY PELLATTcomplained of the increase in the Vote for reformatory institutions, which had been raised from 3,000 l. in the last year to 5,000 l. in the present. He also complained that the Estimates were not drawn up in a sufficiently clear manner.
MR. FITZROYexplained that the increase in the Vote for reformatory institutions had arisen from the experiments which the Government was making with regard to these institutions. It was thought desirable that previous to any general measure being taken upon this subject, which might throw the maintenance of the institutions upon the county rates, the experiment should be tested upon a larger scale than had been hitherto done. Some juvenile institutions had been established through private beneficence, or through private and local influence, in various parts of the country, to which it had been thought desirable to send juvenile offenders for the purpose of ascertaining whether the

367
system therein enforced might not be an improvement on that necessarily employed in the gaols. Hence it was proposed to increase the Vote to the Philanthropic Institution, which was well known from the beneficial results of its discipline, from 3,000 l. to 4,000 l., and 1,000 l. had been voted to some other reformatory institutions, such as that at Birmingham, Gloucester, and Kingswood, which had been certified as useful anal beneficial institutions.
COLONEL GREVILLEsail, it was necessary that the principle should now be decided. He thought that if they were to refuse support to any party, they ought not to refuse those who had no property and give it to those who were already richly endowed. The hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Spooner) had taken it upon hint to state to the House what was truth, and what was error. He denied the right of the hon. Member to enter upon that subject at all; but if he wire inclined to argue it with him, he should say that there could not be truth in that system which neglected that fist of Christian virtues—charity. They never found the Catholics abusing the religion of others, yet the hon. Member lost no opportunity of abusing their religion. He had called it idolatry and blasphemy. He thought such language was a disgrace to the House, and a disgrace to the hon. Gentleman, who ought to remember what Burke said in 1792, that in this country the Roman Catholics were a sect, but in Ireland they were a religion. They had entered into a political Union with a Roman Catholic people, and they were bound to give them the full advantages of that Union; if their consciences would not permit them to do that, they were then bound to dissolve the Union. With respect to these prisons, we ought undoubtedly to deal with Roman Catholics in a fair and manly spirit, and by no means to tamper with the religious faith of any man, whether convict or not. Whatever decision the House might come to, he hoped they gaols not turn their gaols into proselytising institutions, and that they would refuse to allow their proceedings to he guided by the principles of intolerance and bigotry.
MR. T. CHAMBERSwould not argue the question whether there ought to be an established religion, but there was one now established, and instruction in it was provided for all classes at the cost of the State. Criminals confined in gaols could
368
only expect the same teaching as was provided for those who had committed no crime. The principle was clear, and he could not adopt the grounds for exception urged the other night by the noble Lord the Secretary of State for the Home Department. If there was to be an exception, it should not be in favour of Roman Catholics only, but ought to be extended to all sects. The Protestant religion was established within the walls of the prison as well as without. But lie admitted that the State ought not, because a man was in custody, to take advantage of it as an opportunity for proselytism. The Established religion allowed liberty of conscience to all. When a man entered a prison his name was taken down, and his religious opinions, and any minister lie wished was allowed to attend him. An attempt was being made to set up the anomaly of a Roman Catholic Establishment alongside of the Protestant one. He thought such a question as this ought to be brought forward in a formal Resolution, and not on occasion of Votes like that now before them.
SIR JOHN YOUNGsaid, that the payment of chaplains was not a novelty, although one of the objections urged to the Vote on the last night was, that it was an attempt to introduce into England what had only been established in Ireland. The present Vote was for lunatic asylums, and not for prisons, and the number of Roman Catholics in them was very small. The argument that the Protestant religion, being the religion of the State, was established within the prison as well as without, was a mere play upon words. The unfortunate people for whom this Vote was to provide had not the means of procuring instruction; he implored the House, even if it refused chaplains to convict prisons, not to dilly them to lunatic asylums. if hon. Gentlemen would read the Reports of the Commissioners of Lunacy, and see the effect of the visits of the chaplains, they would not incur the great responsibility of denying to these unfortunate creatures the consolations of religion. When they were verging towards sanity, their minds were aroused and their recovery hastened by the visits of the chaplains.
MR. DRUMMONDquite agreed that it must be exceedingly painful to vote against the present grant. It was most unfortunate that this item should have been selected on which to raise a discussion like this; but he was quite ready to support the

369
Government on either side—either that they should treat all Dissenters from the Church of England alike, and salary all who asked for it, or that they should reject ail alike; one thing or the other they must do. It was not fair that Government should go on coming to the House with Votes of this kind, which provoked discussions in the House, pretending here in the House to be opponents of the Roman Catholics, and carrying on negotiations with the Court of Rome to assist the Queen in governing her own subjects. So long as this continued, and until they had got that question fairly out which never had been gut out—until it was seen what it was that Lord Clarendon, when Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, really had set on foot with regard to the Court of Rome—these questions would be continually arising. It was the Government blowing hot one day and cold the next—asking the House for a hot vote one day and for a cold one to-morrow—that made all the difficulty in these questions, and Government ought to choose a consistent course either one way or the other.
MR. PHINNwas quite at a loss to understand on what principle the hon, Member for North Warwickshire drew a distinction between the payment of chaplains in gaols in Ireland and in England; for there was an established religion in Ireland equally as in England, and the Queen, by her coronation oath, was bound to support the established religion of both countries. The hon. Member and those who thought with him were constantly talking of the "Protestant Empire of Great Britain." But take the case of Lower Canada, where the religion was the Roman Catholic religion. Would the hon. Member for North Warwickshire contend that Protestant criminals immured in the gaols there should be attended by Roman Catholic chaplains or by none at all? He would ask the same question with regard to the people of India. By taking this particular Vote, and passing over others which involved the same principle, the hon. Member strained at a gnat and swallowed a camel. He (Mr. Phinn) did not think money should be paid for any denomination of religion; but the principle ought not to be applied in an exceptional case like this. When a man was sent to gaol he ceased to be a free agent, and ought not to be denied that spiritual consolation which he might desire. There might be more Roman Catholic prisoners
370
in want of this spiritual consolation than there were ten years ago. The noble Lord the Home Secretary was right when he said that the Legislature was bound to apply the best means of reformation, and that therefore the access of Roman Catholic convicts to chaplains of their own persuasion ought not to be denied. The argument that might apply to dissent was inapplicable in the case of the Roman Catholic religion; the sacramental ordinances of the two Churches being so antagonistic that it was impossible to ask a Roman Catholic to receive the visits of the Protestant chaplain. He should vote with great pain and difficulty for the proposition of his hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, having to choose between two evils; but he trusted this might be the last occasion on which a sectarian discussion on such a subject would be revived.
MR. ADDERLEYdenied that those who had supported the Motion of the hon. Member for North Warwickshire on a former evening had involved themselves in the dilemma of either paying the chaplains of all religions, or of paying the chaplains of none. The principle laid down on a former evening was a very clear one, and had been acknowledged by all, namely, that, in all our public institutions, there ought to be a chaplain of the Established Church of the nation; but that, as that Church was a tolerant Church, the wants of those who differed from it should be provided for. In Ireland there was permanently a large majority of prisoners of the Roman Catholic religion, and it was necessary that there should be permanent Roman Catholic chaplains; but the proposition defeated the other night was not founded on any such principle, because it would have affirmed that, in all the gaols of England, whether there was one Roman Catholic prisoner or not, a Roman Catholic chaplain should be provided.
LORD SEYMOURappealed to the Committee not to strike out this Vote, which was of a purely charitable nature, and was very far from raising the large religious question which had been introduced into the discussion. From his own experience, having been formerly a Commissioner of Lunacy, and having had opportunities of judging of the effect of reformatory treatment on prisoners, he could speak as to the powerful influence which the inculcation of religion had upon such persons; it frequently happened that it was from the early associations of religion that men were

371
brought back again to the reason that had deserted them. This was a question of a sum of 100 l. for providing a chaplain for criminal lunatics, and he trusted the Committee would affirm the Vote.
MR. SPOONERquite agreed with the noble Lord that the opportunity was not a very fitting one for discussing the great principle raised by the Amendment of his hon. Friend (Mr. Scholefield). He therefore would not have taken any part in the discussion had he not been called upon to state the principle he acted on the other night, when he moved the rejection of the Vote of 550 l. for the payment of Roman Catholic chaplains in England. Now, he could not agree in two statements made by his hon. Friend. He did not think it was just or right in any way whatever that a Protestant State should pay for the support of the Roman Catholic religion; and that was the principle which actuated his Motion of the other night. But when he was asked, why act on a different principle with regard to this Vote from that which had influenced him in the case of England, he would say that the Vote for Ireland was already decided by Parliament; and although he objected as strenuously to the principle of that Vote as of this, he did not think it his duty, every time it came before the House, to assert his objections or to arouse opposition. When, however, the principle was endeavoured, for the first time, to be applied to England, he then thought it his duty to take the sense of the Committee with reference to such an application; yet he had no hesitation in saying that in any shape, or under any circumstances, for a Protestant nation to support a Roman Catholic priesthood was an act totally unjustifiable. He believed such a policy to involve a great national sin. He held it to be an abandonment of the high privileges which England enjoyed as a Protestant nation, and that it was fraught with very great danger to the State. He had been accused by hon. Gentlemen of indulging in continual abuse of the Roman Catholic religion; now he meditated no such abuse—he merely stated his own opinion with regard to that religion, and he had a perfect right to do so. He knew many individuals professing the Roman Catholic faith for whom he entertained a great respect; but because he entertained that respect, he was not to be deterred from saying that they were under a very dangerous delusion. But at the same time
372
he would remind the House and the noble Lord that the words which he had used upon a late occasion, and which were deemed such very hard ones, were words found in the Articles of the Church of which the noble Lord, who rebuked him for using them, was a member, and that the Sovereign was bound by, and did attest her full consent to, those Articles containing the very words in question. Again, therefore, he would say, although he might be accused of great bigotry for so doing, that it was a great national sin to support the Papal religion. He had ever opposed it, and should ever oppose it. They could not, however, say that he was for depriving Roman Catholics of the comfort of their religion—if, indeed, theirs was a religion; for they had free permission, when members of that faith were in prison, to send to their spiritual advisers; but what he asked was, why should a Protestant nation pay for the support of Popery? The privileges demanded in this matter by Roman Catholics were withheld from the members of every other persuasion except those of the Establishment; and why, therefore, should they concede to Roman Catholics greater privileges than they gave to others? As long as they admitted the principle that it was the duty of the State to provide for the religious education of its subjects, that education must be supplied according to some specified form—according to some specified principle or doctrine, and, consequently, it was the duty of the State to pay chaplains to inculcate those doctrines which it held to be the right ones. Upon that principle he proposed, the other evening, the rejection of the Vote. He believed in that principle; he rejoiced it had been recognised, and he hoped it would long continue to be recognised. The Vote proposed on the former night was a new one—it was an attempt to introduce into England a system which cannot be justified. He had endeavoured to stay the movement, and his efforts, he was happy to say, had succeeded. With regard, however, to the Vote now under discussion, he could not say that his hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham (Mr. Scholefield) had shown his usual good sense in endeavouring to raise so important an issue upon so very doubtful an occasion as the present. It was a Vote which he (Mr. Spooner), under all the circumstances of the case, should support, as he felt it would be wrong and cruel not to do so.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, he could not allow the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Spooner), or the hon. Member for North Staffordshire (Mr. Adderley), to misrepresent the Vote which he had proposed the other evening, without setting them right as to a mistake which they had made. The hon. Gentleman for North Warwickshire had objected to the Vote on the ground that it was entirely a new one. Now, it was no such thing: He himself had explained, and it was explained over and over again by others, that an allowance had been made for years to the Roman Catholic chaplains at Milbank and elsewhere; that that allowance had been made for visits at each prison; and, therefore, that the only novelty involved was, that he proposed to give a fixed payment in all cases, instead of payments dependent upon the number of visits paid at so much pet day. Therefore the hon. Gentleman was entirely mistaken in affirming his proposal to be an entire novelty as regarded England. The hon. Member for Staffordshire (Mr. Adderley), however, said that the proposal was for the appointment of a Roman Catholic chaplain to every gaol in the kingdom, whether it contained one prisoner or many. Again, he must say, his proposal was for no such thing, for he could not have done that without entirely changing the law. His proposal, then, was simply confined to three or four Government prisons, where a large number of convicts were confined, and had no reference whatever to the great bulk of the county gaols throughout the country. But with regard to the Vote of the other night, he must say there never was a Vote exciting more painful feelings in his mind than it occasioned, and he could not have believed, had his opinion been asked beforehand, that in the present century, in the present state of the country, considering the general liberality and enlightenment that prevailed upon other subjects—that a Vote such as that could have possibly been rejected. It only seemed to remind him of what passed at the period of the decay of the Eastern empire, when Constantinople was besieged by the enemies of the Christian religion, the Mahometans. At that time the foolish Greeks, instead of uniting to make a common defence, were squabbling amongst themselves—the blue faction with the green faction, and the green with the yellow—as to differences of opinion which had no reference whatever to the great
374
question of the national independence. And what had they done by their vote of the other night? Why, with the great national enemies—vice, infidelity, crime, and profligacy—not merely thundering at their gates, but actually undermining the ground upon which they stood, instead of joining unitedly to withstand their enemies, they refused the small assistance that would convert these miserable wretches, condemned for their crimes, into useful members of society. Well, but grievous—he was about to use some other expression—grievous as was the opposition to the Vote of the other evening, he must say the opposition to the proposal now before the House seemed to him to far exceed it in the peculiarity of its impolicy and unfairness. His noble Friend (Lord Seymour) had well pointed out the value of religious advice to the unfortunate men, the objects of the present Vote; while in this case the question of religious differences did not apply. The other evening it was Protestant against Catholic—it was the difference between the two creeds that divided the House. But here the Vote applied on behalf of both Protestants and Catholics, and they were presented with the other position, the voluntary principle, and the principle of faith. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Bath (Mr. Phinn) had placed the question upon its proper basis. Supposing the voluntary principle were admitted—supposing it were admitted that every free man was bound to find, at his own cost and charge, such religious instruction as was in conformity with the particular tenets of the religion which he held—still, even in that case, the condition of these men was totally different, for the objects of this Vote were not free; and though they were told that it was in their power to send for a priest, yet he would ask, might not they call for those who would not come? And what right had they to call upon a Protestant or Roman Catholic clergyman to go to Dartmoor Prison from a great distance, or to visit lunatic asylums in Ireland, to afford, without remuneration, that ministration which was so necessary to the lunatic and convict? Why, when they separated these men from the means which they possessed, of enjoying freely whatever religious instruction they wished—and when they admitted that religious instruction was as necessary for them as medical advice—and when it was given upon sanitary and not upon the theological

375
principles—it was absurd to tell him such persons might send for a priest or clergyman, and to contend whether or no the voluntary principle should obtain. He hoped, therefore, that the House would not endeavour to fight out the theological principle over the bodies of these unfortunate lunatics and convicts; for it would be as inconsistent to do so as to have disputations as to the theories of surgery carried on over the body of the unfortunate man for whose relief and benefit the operation was to be performed. It was cruel in hon. Members to make these unhappy persons the victims of their differences. If they so desired, let them fight them on some great principle, but he entreated the House, for Heaven's sake, and for the sake of commiseration and mercy, to give to these unhappy lunatics that which he would have had them grant to convicts—the religious consolation rendered so necessary by their moral and physical wants.
MR. LUCAS said: Sir, I am sorry to interrupt those Gentlemen who call for a division, but having, in common with many Members on both sides, felt a considerable interest in this question, I hope I may be allowed to say a few words. Sir, I have nothing to say in reply to the appeal of the noble Lord (Viscount Palmerston) as to the impropriety of contesting a principle upon such a vote, for I have the strongest aversion to fighting a principle upon a question of this kind, which concerns the suffering and the afflicted among our fellow-creatures. But those who, like the hon. Member for North Warwickshire, borrow from the noble Lord tins argument, should recollect that the same argument applies to the Vote which was negatived the other night. The Catholic criminals who were to be provided with religious instruction by the Vote of 550 l. are in the same position practically as regards this question, as those criminal lunatics for whom the noble Lord expresses so much compassion. Sir, I have no principle to oppose to this Vote, for, as to the voluntary principle, I think it is impossible to carry it out in the case of persons shut up in prison and excluded from the world for sanitary or judicial purposes. And I wish those who are for carrying it to that extent would take a lesson from America, where the aversion to an Established Church is as strong, and carried quite as far, as even they themselves ought to require. But in the United States they
376
find that the voluntary principle cannot be carried to the extent to which its advocates here would press it. They have in the United States a Vote of Congress for chaplains in the Army; they have another Vote for chaplains to the Congress itself; and they have Votes in the several States for the State gaols, which answer to such Votes as the present. They do not understand there, nor ought it to be understood here, that the voluntary principle extends to those who are in confinement, and who cannot be called voluntary agents. Sir, the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Spooner), and the hon. and learned Member for Hertford (Mr. Chambers), told us that the noble Lord (Viscount. Palmerston) pressed for something exceptional in favour of the Catholics. That is a complete misunderstanding. If any case were made out to the noble Lord requiring a grant in favour of Protestant Dissenters, there could be no objection to give it to them as well as to the Catholics, and the proof that it is not an exceptional privilege which is claimed for Catholics is to be found in the fact that there is the same arrangement made for Presbyterian chaplains in those gaols in Ireland which are supported out of the rates. In the county gaols of Ireland you have the arrangement carried out to an extravagant and absurd extent, whether there are Presbyterian prisoners or not. In the course of last summer I was visiting Mullingar Gaol, and looking over the visiting books I saw there for every Sunday an entry that the Rev. Mr.—,Presbyterian minister, visited the gaol for the purpose of religious worship; and when I asked the governor, a Protestant of the most determined kind, how many Presbyterian prisoners there were in the gaol, he said, "not one," and added, that there had not been one for some years. Yet there is a sum of 30 l.. a year allowed to the Presbyterian chaplain, 30 l. a year for the Established Church chaplain, although the prisoners belonging to the Established Church are, of course, very few—I believe not more than five or six—and then there is most graciously granted to the Catholic chaplain the same amount of 30 l. a year, although his duties must necessarily be infinitely more onerous. Such is the state of things in Ireland. ["No!"] It may be true, as the hon. Member intimates, that it is not universally the case; but I think it is generally so—and that not with reference to any case of special need—such as some hon. Members

377
appear to require, not with reference to any considerable number of prisoners, of any particular religious creed, but as a general rule—there is not only a salary for the Church of England chaplain, but for the Presbyterian chaplain and the Roman Catholic chaplain; and even though there be no Presbyterian prisoners at all, the salary is not the less paid and received. Sir, I was glad to find that the hon. Member for North Staffordshire (Mr. Adderley) felt it necessary to offer some explanation of his vote the other night. I was glad he had the manliness to do so, for I am persuaded he is only one out of many who are heartily ashamed of the shabby decision which the House came to the other night—a decision, I am sure, adverse to the feelings, and I believe to the opinions, of a very great number of those who were among the majority on that occasion, and which, I am certain, will not tend to raise the character of the House in the judgment of all rational and enlightened men. But, Sir, I wish to bring the question before the noble Lord the Home Secretary in another way, and in a different point of view. The noble Lord will recollect that, from the beginning, in the conversations I have had with him on this subject, I said I did not wish to look on it so much as a question of money as of prison discipline; and that though, by reason of the forms of the House, I might be obliged to raise it on a Vote (it is hardly possible to raise it in any other way), yet that what I wanted was not so much justice in regard to money grants, as justice in regard to an entire change in the arrangement of our gaols. I mean such an alteration in the arrangements of our prisons as that justice could be done to the Catholic prisoners. At this moment justice is not done to them in that respect. The subject is now before the House in a somewhat peculiar position. The majority have decided that there shall be no payment for religious instruction to Catholic prisoners. But they have not decided that there shall not be justice done to Catholic prisoners in regard to the right of receiving religious instruction. On the contrary, the majority on that Vote consisted in a great degree of those who, while adverse to money grants for these purposes, are anxious that justice in every other respect should be done to Catholic prisoners. Now, Sir, I want to bring under the notice of the House and of the noble Lord thus publicly (for I will not make any claim on
378
behalf of Catholics which I am not prepared to maintain thus openly as just and reasonable)—I want to impress this upon the House and on the noble Lord—that he is not precluded, at the present moment, from making a just provision for religious instruction to Catholic prisoners, and that the vote the House came to the other night does not at all prevent him from doing so. The noble Lord stated in his speech on a former occasion the principles upon which the arrangements in this respect ought to be made. But, Sir, those principles are not enforced, those arrangements are not carried out at this moment, even in the prisons under the control of the Government. They were not enforced last year. They are still less enforced now. As I understand, the arrangements of some of our prisons are more bigoted and more unjust now than they were when the attention of the noble Lord was first called to the subject. [Mr. FITZROY asked if the hon. Member would name any one?] Take Pentonville for instance. The Protestant chaplain of that prison is an anti-Catholic pamphleteer, who writes pamphlets on "Prison Discipline," in which he denounces the Pope as "Antichrist," and who shows, by his published writings, that he is a most unfit person to be chaplain in a prison in which people of opposite religious belief are confined. I refer the noble Lord to this gentleman's writings. I did not wish to mention any one, but as the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Fitzroy) the Under Secretary of the Home Department asked me to name any prison, I was compelled to do so. But, in fact, I might name all your prisons. The arrangements which exist in all of them fail to secure justice in this respect to the Catholic prisoners. The hon. and learned Member for Hertford (Mr. T. Chambers) said that we had a most perfect toleration, and that no further toleration could be asked than to allow the Catholic prisoners to send for their priests, and to allow the priests to come when so sent for. But the hon. and learned Member is under a complete mistake if he imagines that this is a measure of perfect "toleration." Sir, the present system of prison discipline for the Catholic prisoners is one of torture, under which they are often compelled to profess themselves Protestants, and to conform to the Protestant worship under positive pains and penalties. The system of discipline is one of strict separation, and at Pentonville, where the

379
system is carried very far indeed, it is almost one of solitary confinement. Well, on Sunday, when the time for divine service comes round, the Catholic prisoner has this temptation, that he can acquire a relaxation from the severity of that system of confinement if he chooses to abandon the profession of his religion and chooses to go to the Protestant service, to enjoy diversity of scene and that conversation among the prisoners which, in spite of the regulations, they do enjoy when they go into chapel. Thus, under the rigour of solitary confinement, and for the sake of spending in a less irksome manner the time allotted for divine service, Catholic prisoners, who have no real wish to change their religion, and every desire to remain Catholics, are actually compelled by pains and penalties, to go into the Protestant chapel and attend the Protestant service, in order to escape the horror of solitary imprisonment. Now, Sir, every prisoner upon coming in is, or ought to be, truly registered according to his religion, and the noble Lord (Viscount Palmerston), with that frankness and sense of justice which Le has always shown on this subject, admitted that what I proposed was right and reasonable, that those who were registered as Catholics should have a right to the attendance of a Catholic priest, and that the Catholic priest should be admitted to them in the same way as the Protestant clergymen are admitted to Protestant prisoners. That is the basis of the arrangement I ask for. There is another question, that of the schoolmasters in the Government prisons; the schoolmaster is the agent and subordinate of the Protestant chaplain; he reports to the clergyman, is under his orders, and assists him in giving religious instruction. The consequence is, that as the schoolmaster is of rather a lower rank in society—if the chaplain is a bigot and seeks to proselytise in the prison—the schoolmaster is a bigot of a worse description, and does the business of proselytism in a baser way. I have in my possession a book given by the schoolmaster at Pentonville to one of the prisoners, a History of England, published by the Religious Tract Society, full of the grossest abuse of the Catholic faith, and the most abominable falsehoods—nay, I may add, considering that it was given to a prisoner out of funds supplied partly by Catholics, a book full of the foulest blasphemies. This book was forced on a Catholic prisoner by the Protestant school-
380
master, acting under the instructions of the Protestant chaplain! I ask the noble Lord to redress these grievances. I ask that there may be a Catholic chaplain, paid or unpaid—payment is, in my opinion, a subordinate matter—that there may be a Catholic chaplain in each of these prisons, having a right to go there at all such times as the Protestant chaplains can go to visit the Protestant prisoners, and to visit the Catholic prisoners to give them religious instruction and consolation, and provide the means of religious worship. At the same time, the question of payment is one which must be raised, and which cannot be raised in any form that is pleasing to the House. But while it cannot be raised in a form less agreeable than with respect to these miserable wretches, the criminal lunatics, still it must be raised in all possible forms and ways. And for my part I almost wish the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Spooner) may succeed in a few more of his Motions, in order that the question may become hotter, and press more imperatively for decision, and compel the house to settle it in one way or another, and to do justice to all classes, either by paying for all or for none. For myself, I care very little in which way the question may be settled; but of this I am determined, that, distasteful as the subject may be, it shall not be allowed to drop until absolute and complete justice is done to all classes of the community, either on the one principle or the other.
MR. KIRKsaid, the hon. Member had fallen into a great mistake as to the number of Presbyterian chaplains receiving stipends for their services in Irish gaols. If he had consulted a return which he had himself moved for and obtained, he would find that there were forty-two gaols in Ireland, and that out of the forty-two, twenty-five were returned as making no payment whatever for Presbyterian chaplains. With regard to the question before the House, he considered the speech of the noble Lord the Home Secretary conclusive.
MR. HADFIELDsaid, that, even according to the return alluded to, fifteen Presbyterian chaplains received salaries for their services in gaols. Now, He objected to all such payments; and he assured the Government that, sooner or later, this question would have to be grappled with and settled. For nearly two hours the House had been discussing a question

381
whether a sum of 100 l. should be granted—a sum which might have been raised in less time by voluntary contributions. It was only in this way that the question should be settled, and he recommended the Government to turn their attention to it. The people would certainly never consent that taxes, wrung from them all, should be applied to maintain principles in which they did not believe; and he was glad to hear from the hon. Member for Meath that he intended to agitate the subject, believing, as he did, that religion would maintain itself if grants were withheld, which were injurious and prejudicial to all classes.
MR. SIDNEY HERBERTsaid, the House would, perhaps, allow him to say a few words on this subject, concerned as he was with a department which it materially affected. He had listened to the debate of the other night with great regret, and he believed it had terminated in a way contrary to all rational and Christian principle, and in a way mischievous to the interests of the State; but with regard to the present proposition, he was bound to say, in favour of the hon. Gentleman who had brought it before the House, that it was a clear and logical sequence of the Vote of the other night. If the reduction of the Vote of the other night were just, he did not see why, upon such grounds, the present Vote should be sustained; but in this case the House should specially consider the circumstances under which the Vote was asked, and the consequences which might proceed from it. The hon. Gentleman who had just addressed the House supported the voluntary principle, and considered that the money asked for could be raised by that principle. No doubt, a sum equal to the amount by which it was proposed to reduce the Vote might have been raised in less time than the discussion had occupied. No doubt the voluntary principle had done much, and would do much. He saw what had been done through it by Dissenters, and he knew that most of the influence now possessed by the Church of England had been gained through its adoption of the voluntary principle; but in the present case he asked the House just to consider for one moment upon whom it was to act. One class was that of convicts in prisons, and the other, analogous in respect to their isolation from the rest of the community, was the Army. Under the voluntary principle, everybody who was a customer fur religious instruction paid for it;
382
and the voluntaries did not object to receive money from a person for instruction, not for himself, but for his children. [Mr. HADFIELD said, the question was as to the poor.] Money was not received from the poor, but from the rich in favour of the poor. This was a just principle where all men were free agents, and could send for their minister whenever they required him. But men in prison were debarred from such power. To them the State stood in loco parentis, and was bound to give them the best religious instruction suitable to their tone and frame of mind. So with the Army. The clergy of the Church of England were admitted to the prison and the regiment; but upon what principle could the same instruction be refused to those who were not members of the Church of England? Upon what principle could they refuse? The hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Spooner) would refuse upon a very intelligible principle; but he apprehended that the House was not prepared, although it had agreed with his vote, to adopt his reasons. The hon. Member said, with perfect consistency, in the case of Roman Catholic prisoners and Roman Catholic chaplains to gaols, that their religion was a fable—an idolatrous deceit—[Mr. SPOONER: Hear, hear!]—and that he would not have it conveyed to these men. The hon. Member said, "Hear, hear!" and therefore quite adopted this phraseology. Well, but the question here was, not between this sect and that sect, but between Christianity and heathenism. The hon. Member said that this was an idolatrous religion—that these people were idolators—and that their faith was "damnable;" but then he said, also, that idolators they should remain—that they should not have access to any vestige of Christian truth, unless they would take it in his shape—that being a shape in which they were bound in honour not to receive it. The voluntary principle was an admirable principle, so long as it dealt with free men—not so when they came to deal with men who were not free agents. If they confined men within stone walls, where they ceased to be free agents, they must take care that religious instruction reached them at the public expense; for, depriving them of their freedom, they assumed this responsibility. But if the principle which was contended for by the hon. Gentleman opposite was a sound principle with respect to prisons, why was it not equally sound with respect to army chaplains? Why did not

383
the hon. Gentleman move to rescind or to reduce the Vote for army chaplains? Now, in his (Mr. Sidney Herbert's) opinion, the case with respect to the Army—for which he stood there responsible—was not nearly so good a case, according to the hon. Gentleman's (Mr. Spooner's) idea, as the case with respect to the prisons. Our soldiers were, to a great extent, free men. They were obliged to attend to certain duties, and to submit to a certain discipline; but during a considerable portion of the day they were at liberty to go where they liked, to see whom they liked, and to pay for whom they liked; yet they thought it just and right that an Army recruited from different creeds should have the advantage of the attendance of ministers of different denominations, in order to meet its religious wants. How was it, then, he asked if they intended to be consistent—that they did not move to rescind this Vote for army chaplains of different religious denominations, to exclude the Roman Catholic, and exclude the Presbyterian if they pleased, from those ministrations to which they maintained the members of the Church of England were alone entitled? They do not do it, because they dare not do it. Then why should they do it in the case of these prisoners? Why should they give scope to their sectarianism at the expense of these helpless creatures, to whom they were bound by all the holiest tics which Christianity could impose upon them, and refuse to give them all instruction in those first great truths of religion which all of them held in common, because it happened in the case of the Roman Catholic that, in their opinion—and he would frankly say, in his own opinion also—those truths were obscured by the admixture of erroneous doctrine? He could not go that length. He would not add to the injustice which had been done already in the case of these prison Votes, by depriving others likewise of that religious instruction to which they were entitled at their hands. He hoped, therefore, that the House would not sanction this Amendment—not because he agreed with what had taken place before, for he thought the vote which had been come to on the Motion of the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Spooner) the other night was not defensible upon any great principle which could be laid down with respect to prisoners placed under their charge—but he hoped the House would refuse to give its assent to this Amendment, because having voted an injustice to
384
one portion of the community was no reason for extending that injustice, and for depriving the majority—for it was not the minority, as had been the case the other night—of that religious instruction which was necessary to the salvation of all men, and which it was especially their duty to give to those who stood towards them in the peculiar relation of—those whom they had shut up—as they I said—for the purpose of reformation, and had deprived of all those rights and advantages which freedom and society could give.
MR. NAPIERsupported the Vote, but wished it to be understood that in doing so he was not affirming any question of principle. In answer to the right hon. Gentleman's question, "Why not move to rescind the Vote in reference to the Army?" he might retort the question, "Why not alter the regulation in reference to the Navy?" which had been repeatedly pressed on the attention of the right hon. Baronet the First Lord of the Admiralty by the hon. Member for Meath. He should have voted with the majority the other night if he had been present, for he considered the principle involved was an important one; at the same time he admitted that it was a difficult question, and the very difference between the two services proved it.
MR. SCHOLEFIELDrepeated the expression of his deep regret that he should have been obliged to raise the question, and to take the vote, upon this particular item. Nothing should have induced him to do it, if he had been aware, as lie was now told, that there were many other occasions upon which he might have raised the issue upon which he was desirous of taking the opinion of the House.
MR. SPOONERsaid, that he had not been aware that there was any Vote in the Army Estimates especially for Roman Catholic chaplains. If he remembered rightly, the Vote was for "chaplains" generally, and he believed the right hon. Gentleman had granted no money for Roman Catholic chaplains, unless he had done it lately. However, if he had overlooked it, he was sorry for it; and he would take care not to overlook it on the next occasion.
MR. SIDNEY HERBERTstated, that the Vote for army chaplains (18,000 l. a year) was divided in the proportion of two-thirds to Protestant chaplains and one-third to Roman Catholic; and

385
this had been the case ever since the hon. Gentleman had been in Parliament. If the hon. Gentleman meant that he objected to the Vote when tile items were separate, but not when they were mixed up together, he hoped his noble Friend (Viscount Palmerston) would take a hint from the Army Estimates next year, and, by wrapping up these items the one in the other, secure the hon. Gentleman's vote.
Mr. SPOONER and Mr. J. O'CONNELLmade some observations which were rendered undistinguishable by cries for division.
Question put.
The Committee divided:—Ayes 23; Noes 246: Majority 223.
Original Question put, and agreed to.
The following Votes were then agreed to—
(2.) 92,765 l., Transportation.
(3.) 342,702 l., Convict Establishment.
(4.) 4,049 l., Bermudas.
(5.) 7,547 l., North American Provinces.
(6.) 9,433 l., Indian Department Canada.
House resumed.
House adjourned at One o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—2a Exhibition of 1851 Commissioners; Public Statues.
Reported—Customs Duties.
3a Excise Duties.

THE WAR WITH RUSSIA—THE GERMAN POWERS.
LORD LYNDHURST:* My Lords, I presume many of your Lordships have read the important document to which the notice refers. It is a memorandum sent by the Cabinets of Vienna and Berlin to their Envoys at the Diet of Frankfort, with directions to present it to that body. It states the course of policy which has been pursued by the Four Powers with respect to the Eastern question; and the object of the communication was to obtain the approval and sanction of the Diet to that policy.
The paper has not been laid upon your Lordships' table, and being a document between foreign States, it could not perhaps, in point of form, have been laid upon the table, at least not in the usual manner; but it has been published in the official journals of Vienna, Berlin, Frankfort, and Paris, and I believe in most of the journals throughout the Continent. It is a matter, therefore, of general notoriety.
The paper has given rise to much discussion, both on the Continent and in this

307
country, and has created no inconsiderable degree of anxiety and uneasiness. It is upon these grounds that I have felt it my duty to submit it to the attention of your Lordships and of Her Majesty's Government, in order that we may receive some distinct explanation, and come to a clear understanding, as to the policy to which it relates.
It is of so much importance to be accurate upon a subject of this nature, that I must beg leave to read those parts of the document to which I refer. The first passage to which I am about to call your Lordships' attention is in these words—
"Both Cabinets have agreed with those of Paris and London in the conviction that the conflict between Russia and Turkey could not be prolonged without affecting the general interests of Europe, and those also of their own States. They acknowledged in common that the maintenance of the integrity of the Ottoman empire and the independence of the Sultan's Government are necessary conditions of the political balance, and that the war should, under no circumstances, have for result any change in existing territorial positions."
Now, my Lords, I apprehend it to be clear that, according to the true interpretation of this passage, when it is stated that "the war should, under no circumstances, have for result any change in existing territorial positions," it must mean territorial positions as between Turkey on the one side, and Russia on the other. This may not, perhaps, be expressed with so much precision as to be perfectly free from doubt; but any such doubt will be effectually removed by referring to the protocol of the 5th of December to which the paper relates. In that instrument the Four Powers express themselves thus—
"In fact, the existence of Turkey in the limits assigned to her by treaty is one of the necessary conditions of the balance of power in Europe, and the undersigned Plenipotentiaries record, with satisfaction, that the existing war cannot in any case lead to modifications in the territorial boundaries of the two empires, which would be calculated to alter the state of possession in the East established for a length of time, and which is equally necessary for the tranquillity of all the other Powers."
It would appear, therefore, that, according to the agreement between the Four Powers, as stated in these documents, no alteration is to take place, whatever may be the result of the war, in the territorial limits between Turkey on the one side and Russia on the other. In other words, that their principle is this—that in every event the status quo ante bellum, so far as re-
308
lates to territorial position between the two Powers, is to remain unchanged.
But, my Lords, it may be said, and properly said, that the protocol upon which ads passage is founded, was signed before the Western Powers had engaged in the war. Undoubtedly that is so; but after that event, and in this new state of things, the representatives of the Four Powers again met for the purpose of confirming what they had previously done; and, upon that occasion, they stated, in distinct terms, that they adhered to the principles upon which the former protocols had been founded. It seems, therefore, extremely difficult to come to any other conclusion than that which I have before stated, namely, that, whatever may be the result of the war, it must terminate by leaving Russia and Turkey precisely in the same state, as to territorial limits, in which they stood previous to the commencement of hostilities; and this is further confirmed by a passage, which I am about to read, in the memorandum sent to the Diet—
"The last of the protocols shows that, although France and Great Britain have entered into the war against Russia, the four Cabinets invariably adhere to the principle proclaimed heretofore by them in common, and have united in regard to the basis on which to deliberate as respects the appropriate means for obtaining the object of their endeavours."
The result, therefore, seems to be that in every event the principle of maintaining the status quo is to be adhered to. That this is the principle upon which Austria and Prussia are acting, is sufficiently obvious; for if Russia were now to withdraw from the Principalities, and at the same time consent to a guarantee with respect to the independence of the Sultan and the integrity of the Ottoman empire, neither Austria nor Prussia would, as it is affirmed, take any active part in the contest. And if that be so with respect to these two Powers, and who state they are acting in concert and on one common principle with England and France, it seems to follow, and I must so conclude unless I hear something satisfactory to the contrary from my noble Friend opposite, that, whatever be the course and events of the war, the status quo as to the limits of the two empires of Russia and Turkey is to be main-mined. And it is in order to obtain some explanation, and to come to a clear understanding on this material question, that I have thought it my duty to submit it to your attention.

309
But, my Lords, it is not a little singular that Austria herself appears to show a disposition to act in one instance at least inconsistently with this principle; and I feel it difficult to reconcile the part of the paper to which I am about to allude with that to which I have already referred. I beg your Lordships' attention as to what is said as to the Danube. The free navigation of that river is stated by Austria to be of the utmost importance, not to her territory and her subjects alone, but to the whole of Central Germany. This is enlarged upon in the strongest terms, but not in terms by any means stronger than the importance of the subject warrants. The paper runs thus—
"It seems to be a requirement of the political, position of Germany, an element of her conservative policy, a condition of her national development for her national wealth, that in the countries of the Lower Danube there should exist a well-regulated state of affairs suitable to the interests of Central Europe."
And again—
"The material interests of Germany are susceptible of most powerful elevation through the great water channels to the East; and it is thence generally incumbent on Germany to secure as much as possible the freedom of Danubian commerce, and not to witness the material animation of water communications with the East repulsed by restrictions."
Let me, then, request your attention for a moment to the actual state of that river, and to the circumstances under which it is and has been long placed. This review will lead to the conclusion that Austria cannot herself be satisfied with the status quo as to this important territorial position. We all know that by the Treaty of Adrianople—that unfortunate treaty I must call it of Adrianople—Russia secured to herself both banks of the Danube; the one she held in absolute right, the other was placed substantially under her exclusive control. She also obtained the right of establishing a quarantine on one of the islands in the Danube.
Thus possessed of the sole and absolute control of that river, from its mouth to a considerable distance upwards, she has so managed as to impede in the most effectual manner the free course of its navigation; and further, by engrafting strict police regulations on the quarantine establishment, to interfere with the freedom of personal communication in that district. Remonstrance after remonstrance has been addressed to her by Austria, by England, and other European Powers without effect;
310
and it is obvious, judging from the past, that unless Russia is removed from her present position, and her limits at this point undergo a material change, it will be impossible to ensure for the future the free and unimpeded navigation of the Danube.
It is supposed, and seems to be thrown out incidentally, but vaguely and obscurely, in this paper, that this object may be secured by some treaty or convention. My Lords, I have no faith in a treaty upon this subject entered into with Russia. There was a treaty relating to it for several years between Austria and that Power, but which, I believe, has now expired. Russia undertook to keep the course of the Danube free from impediment, and Austria, in consideration of this, engaged to pay a toll upon her ships passing down the river. But what has been the conduct of Russia? She has enforced the payment of the toll, but has not only done nothing to keep the course of the Danube free from impediments, but has connived at, if not encourged, every obstruction to its course, apparently with the view of favouring her rival port of Odessa.
At the time when the Turks were in possession of the river, they, by a very simple process, managed to keep the navigation clear; and when it passed from their possession, the depth of the water at the mouth of the river was upwards of sixteen feet—it is now reduced to about nine. By requiring that a kind of iron barrow or drag should be attached to each vessel going crown the stream, thus loosening the mud for the action of the river, they kept the navigation free. Applications have been repeatedly made to Count Nesselrode and to other authorities to adopt the same mode of proceeding, but they have always refused or evaded under different pretexts to resort to these simple means. It was pretended that an apparatus of a more effectual kind was preparing, for the purpose of accomplishing the object. After a long delay the intended instrument arrived at Odessa; after a still further delay it was set to work, and it turned out, as had been foretold, not only to be ineffectual, but to increase the evil it was intended to remedy. It soon got out of order and was abandoned.
If any noble Lord should wish for further details on this subject, I exhort him most earnestly to read the papers that were laid last year on the table of your Lordships' House with respect to the

311
Sulina mouth of the Danube. They will be found to afford a lively picture of the shuffling, evasive, and, if I might apply such terms to persons in high and exalted stations, I would say tricking and mendacious, diplomacy of the Court of St. Petersburg. Is it not, then, evident from these facts that it has become absolutely necessary that a change should take place in the state of territorial possession at the mouth of the Danube—that such an alteration is required for securing that most important, and I may add necessary, object. on which so much reliance is justly placed by Austria and Germany—namely, the free and uninterrupted navigation of this great river? Those Powers must be convinced that this object can only be obtained and effectually secured by a departure from the principle of the status quo in this district.
Leaving, then, the western side of the Black Sea, I beg your Lordships to pass with me to its eastern shore. We have shut up the Russian fleet in the harbour of Sebastopol. It has the mortification of feeling that it cannot encounter the combined force without the certainty of entire destruction. All the Russian establishments on the Circassian coast, from Anapa to its southern extremity, have in consequence been deserted or destroyed. The chain of forts which during the last fifty years the Government had been employed in constructing at a vast expense, as a defence against the incursions of the brave mountaineers of that district, and with a view to their ultimate subjugation as well as for the further purpose of recruiting their armies and transmitting military stores to her south Caucasian possessions, have been levelled with the ground. Can it be possible, then, that, unless forced by the must disastrous events, we should consent to place Russia again in possession of this coast? We have supplied the brave population with arms, we have encouraged them to take an active part in the war against the common enemy. To abandon them to his vengeance would be not only an act of the grossest cruelty and injustice to this simple and heroic race, but, as your Lordships must feel with me, an act of deep disgrace and infamy.
I will now, my Lords, pass from these particulars to the more general question. From the earliest period, from the time of the Empress Catherine down to the present day, Russia has considered Turkey as her destined prey. Every war between these
312
Powers has ended in the steady advance of Russia towards the accomplishment of her purpose, and we now know, from what has lately come to light, that she considers the victim to be almost within her grasp, and it is evident she will persevere with the constancy habitual to her in endeavours to seize and secure it. But, my Lords, if the situation of Russia is to undergo no change at the termination of the present contest, what will be her actual position with respect to Turkey? I do not wish upon this point that you should rely upon any opinion or statement of mine; but will refer to an authority above all exception, that of Count Nesselrode himself?
Some time after the conclusion of the Treaty of Adrianople, Count Nesselrode wrote to the Grand Duke Constantine, at Warsaw, to give an account of the particulars of that treaty, and of the relative situation of Russia and Turkey in consequence of it. A reference to that despatch will place before you in a striking manner the future position of Turkey if the status quo should be adopted. He expresses himself in these terms—
"The Turkish monarchy is reduced to such a state as to exist only under the protection of Russia, and must comply in future with her wishes."
Then, adverting to the Principalities, he says—
"The possession of these Principalities is of the less importance to us, as, without maintaining troops there, which would be attended with considerable expense, we shall dispose of them at our pleasure, as well during peace as in time of war. We shall hold the keys of a position from which it will be easy to keep the Turkish Government in check, and the Sultan will feel that any attempt to brave us again must end in his certain ruin."
If this description be correct, and who can question its accuracy, Turkey will thus be left at the mercy of Russia, whenever the state of Europe shall be such as to enable that Power to avail herself of the advantage of her position, either for further encroachment or for the attainment of the ultimate object of her ambition—the entire subjugation of the European dominions of the Sultan. In what manner Russia is likely to act under such circumstances, I might, perhaps, safely leave your Lordships to conclude, and certainly will not trouble you with any observations of my own respecting it, but refer you, as I have before done, to approved Russian authority—to that of Prince Lieven, for many years the representative of Russia at this Court. In answer to a letter from

313
Count Nesselrode, who had consulted him by command of the Emperor upon his projected attack upon Turkey, he expresses, himself thus—
"Our policy must be to maintain a reserved and prudent attitude until the moment arrives for Russia to vindicate her rights, and for the rapid action which she will be obliged to adopt. The war ought to take Europe by surprise. Our movements must be prompt, so that the other Powers should find it impossible to be prepared for the blow that we are about to strike."
But Prince Lieven was one only of the persons consulted upon this occasion. The Emperor was desirous of knowing what opposition he was likely to meet with from the other Powers individually, and what chance there was of a combination against him should he persevere in the execution of his design. The most detailed, and at the same time the most able, of the secret despatches, transmitted to St. Petersburg upon the occasion, was from Count Pozzo di Borgo, an adopted Russian, not an over-scrupulous, but a very keen and subtle diplomatist. He was intimately acquainted with this country and its policy, and was at that time the representative of Russia at Paris.
This paper cannot be read at the present time without a feeling of curiosity and deep interest. He adverts to the different Powers in succession, beginning with this country.
"England," he says, "has recovered from her commercial and financial crisis, and is in a condition to oppose us, and possibly may take that course. She may in that event do us considerable injury, but not of such a nature as to be wholly irremediable. She cannot, however, alone obstruct our designs or oppose the march of our armies."
His conclusion, therefore, is, that the single opposition of this country could not stand in the way of the accomplishment of the Emperor's designs.
He then comes to France, and, after some curious and amusing comments upon M. de Villele, the Minister of that country, considers what would be the probable effect of the union of France and England in opposition to the projected enterprise. Whatever, he says, can be done by a superior naval force can be effected by England alone; the addition, therefore, of the maritime means of France will not be material; and as to her military power, she will be prevented from using it with any effect against us by reason of her geographical, moral, and political position. "Where," he observes, "is she to find a
314
field of battle to oppose us; and," he adds, with an expression of triumph, "her armies well know what they have to expect if they come in collision with ours." What is to be the result of that collision at the present day must soon appear, and may, and I trust will, disappoint the confident anticipations of the Russian diplomatist.
Having thus disposed of England and France, he proceeds next to consider whether anything is to be apprehended from Austria. Prince Metternich, that experienced, sagacious, and clear-sighted statesman, had endeavoured, but without success, to awaken attention to the designs of Russia, and to form some sort of union against her. The attempt had excited the strongest feeling of resentment and indignation against that eminent person. Accordingly his policy was decried, his schemes ridiculed, and the power of Austria treated with contempt. One short sentence disposed of the whole:—"To every country," said the Russian diplomatist, "war is a calamity, to Austria it would be certain ruin." Thus far then, according to this statement, there appeared to be no serious impediment to the aggressive designs of Russia.
I hear it whispered near me—You have forgotten Prussia. Far from it! I have reserved her as a pattern of constancy in political connection, and which would be most praiseworthy in connections of a different description. My noble Friend opposite must possess some powerful attractive force to have torn asunder, or dissolved the strong cohesion between these two Powers, Russia and Prussia. Read what Pozzo di Borgo says of Prussia. With what an affectionate sneer he treats that Government. It can scarcely be considered as irony, it is so broad and undisguised—
"Prussia being less jealous, and consequently more impartial, has constantly shown by her opinions that she has a just idea of the nature and importance of the affairs of the East, and if the Court of Vienna had shared her views and her good intentions, there can be no doubt that the plan of the Imperial Cabinet would have been accomplished."
Fortunate it is for Europe and the world that she has not shared her views upon the present occasion, but, on the contrary, has persuaded Prussia to adopt a more wise land generous policy.
At a subsequent period Count Nesselrode, in the despatch to which I have al, ready referred, speaking of what I may

315
call Prussia's subserviency to the Emperor, expresses himself in these terms—
"The Count Alopeus transmits to us the most positive assurances, which leave no doubt touching the favourable dispositions on which Russia may reckon on the part of Prussia, whatever may be the ultimate course of events."
These passages present a striking picture of the cautious policy, and at the same time of the industry, unwearied activity, and energy, of the Russian Government. Acting upon these opinions, the invasion of the Principalities, after a short but necessary interval, was decided upon, and the armies of Russia, without opposition from any European Power, passed the Balkan, and dictated the degrading and disastrous terms of the Treaty of Adrianople.
Place Russia there upon the termination of the present war in the position she then held, and which is so forcibly described by Count Nesselrode in his secret despatch to the Grand Duke, and what can you reasonably expect when a convenient opportunity occurs, but further encroachments on the Sultan, and ultimately, the entire subjugation of the European portion of his empire?
But then this paper refers to some projected guarantee—some treaty, to which the Four Powers and Russia are to be parties, for the maintenance of the independence of the Sultan and the integrity of the Ottoman empire. Now, my Lords, I fully admit, as to the Four Powers, that as long as they continue united in friendship and policy, such a guarantee might afford effectual security against the ambitious designs of Russia; but, if circumstances should occur to disturb this union, and, in the ever-varying events of the world, to create rival or hostile feelings between them, there would at once be an end of this security. And as to the guarantee of Russia, or the obligation of any treaty into which she might enter, who is to be found so weak, so credulous, as to place the least reliance upon it? It would be utterly valueless; not worth the paper upon which it was written.
As to trusting in this Power, whether we look to recent or more remote events, we come to the same conclusion. Sir Hamilton Seymour, our able and observant! Minister at St. Petersburg, had learnt, from various authentic sources, that large bodies of Russian troops were moving towards the Turkish frontiers. In communicating upon this matter with Count Nes-
316
selrode, he was told by that Minister that he must have been misinformed; that these movements were nothing more than a change of quarters, usual at that season of the year. In commenting upon this statement, Sir Hamilton Seymour observes, in his despatch to my noble Friend, that he found it impossible to reconcile the facts which had come to his knowledge with the assurances of the Russian Minister. The result abundantly proved the correctness of the information.
In the course of an interesting conversation that occurred in this House some weeks since, a noble Friend of mine on the cross-bench enlarged, with much eloquence, and in a strain of high feeling, upon the unworthiness of entertaining doubts of the integrity and honour of illustrious persons with whom we were negotiating in matters of public and national interest. I listened with pleasure to the charms of his brilliant declamation, which reminded me forcibly of former days, but remained unconvinced by his reasoning.
In the intercourse of private life, liberal confidence in those with whom we converse and associate is the characteristic of a gentleman; but in the affairs of nations, where the interests and welfare of millions are at stake, where the rise or fall of empires may depend upon the issue, those who are interested with the conduct of such negotiations must be guided by a different and a stricter rule. Their duty in such a position is to exercise caution, vigilance, jealousy. "Oh, for the good old parliamentary word 'jealousy,'" exclaimed Mr. Fox, in one of those bursts of feeling so usual with him, "instead of its modern substitute, 'confidence.'" And if such be the true policy, which I think it is as between Parliament and the Ministers of the Crown, how much more ought it to prevail in the conflicting affairs of nations, where such mighty interests are concerned. If confidence, with its natural tendency, should sink into credulity, to what disastrous results might it not lead?
But, in the case of Russia in particular, and in negotiations with that Government, nothing but the extreme of blindness and credulity could lead to a departure from these principles. The whole series of her history, from the earliest period to the present day, has been one long-continued course of fraud and perfidy, of stealthy encroachment, or open and unblushing vio: lence—a course characteristic of a barbarous race, and, whether at St. Petersburg

317
or Tobolsk, marking its Asiatic origin. To go back to the reign of the Empress Catherine, we find her policy in one striking particular corresponding with that of the present Emperor, and which policy may in truth be traced back to the Czar Peter. She ostentatiously proclaimed herself the Protector of the Greek Church in Poland, fomented religious dissensions among that people, and, under pretence of putting an end to disorders which she bad herself created, sent a large military force into the country, and gradually stripped it of some of its fairest possessions. I need not add a word as to the ultimate and disastrous issue of these intrigues—the impression they created is strong, and will be lasting.
With a like policy in the Crimea, the independence of which country had been settled by treaty, she set up a prince whom she afterwards deposed, and amidst the confusion thus created, entered the country with an army under the command of one of the most brutal and sanguinary of her commanders, and haying slaughtered all who opposed her, annexed this important district permanently to the Russian empire. While these proceedings were going on, she prevented by means of her fleet all communication with Constantinople, being at peace with the Sultan, with whom she was at that time negotiating a treaty of commerce.
I pass over the extensive conspiracy in which Russia was engaged with Persia and other Powers in the East in the years 1834 and 1835 against this country, while she professed to be on terms of the closest friendship with us. These scandalous transactions were strenuously denied by Count Nesselrode to our Minister at St. Petersburg, but were afterwards conclusively established by Sir Alexander Burnes and by our Consul at Candahar. To enter into details upon this complicated subject would lead me too far from my present object.
But I cannot forbear adverting to the designs of Russia upon Khiva, an inconsiderable place in the desert, east of the Caspian. I recollect the expressions of Mr. Pitt, in alluding to Buonaparte, who, after taking possession of Malta, seized a barren rock in the Mediterranean on his passage to Egypt: "Nothing," lie exclaimed," is too vast for the temerity of his ambition, nothing too small for the grasp of his rapaeity"—expressions no less applicable to the restless and insatiable ambi-
318
tion of Russia. Russia sacrificed two armies in endeavouring to reach this remote place. For what purpose? Not with a view to any beneficial trade, but evidently as a convenient centre from which to form combinations and carry on intrigues for the disturbance of our Eastern empire. She has at length, by sending an expedition in a different direction, succeeded in obtaining a footing in that district, the preparations for the enterprise having been made while she was in apparent friendship with our Government.
As to Turkey, it is now known from recent disclosures that, while the Emperor Nicholas was amusing the Sultan with smooth words, and expressing the strongest desire to maintain her independence, he was secretly plotting her destruction and the partition of her empire.
Again, my Lords, assurances were given that Prince Menchikoff's mission related solely to the settlement of the question of the Holy Places; but while thus engaged, he endeavoured by menaces to force the Turkish Government into a secret convention, the effect of which would have been to make the Emperor joint Sovereign with the Sultan. It was afterwards admitted by Count Nesselrode, in contradiction to what he had before stated, that the Emperor regarded this as the most important object of the mission.
After this review of the deceptive policy of Russia, and these instances of her total disregard of national faith, instances which might have been carried to a much greater extent, I ask with confidence what reliance can be placed upon any engagement or guarantee into which she may enter, should it at any moment become her interest, or should she consider it her interest, to disregard it.
But Russia, carrying diplomacy to the extremest point of refinement, has introduced a new and significant term into that mysterious science, namely, the term "material guarantee." If the Emperor will give a guarantee of this description, something solid and substantial, as a pledge of his fidelity—something that he would be unwilling to forfeit—such a guarantee might enable us to hope for a secure and lasting peace; but to rely upon a mere paper guarantee—a mere pledge of his Imperial word —would, your Lordships must feel, be the extreme of folly and weakness.
I may possibly be asked, What are your views, what do you look forward to as the

319
results of this great struggle? My answer is, that I cannot, in my position, presume to offer an opinion upon such a subject. It is obvious that these results must depend upon the events, the contingencies of the war. But I may venture to say negatively that, unless compelled by the most unforeseen and disastrous circumstances, we ought not to make peace until we have destroyed the Russian fleet in the Black Sea, and razed the fortifications by which it is protected, As long as Russia possesses that fleet, and retains that position, it will be idle to talk of the independence of the Sultan—Russia will continue to hold Turkey in subjection, and compel her to yield obedience to her will.
What course Austria will finally pursue, however I may hope, I will not venture to predict. She has far more at stake in this conflict than either England or France. Should Russia succeed in retaining the Principalities, and in increasing her influence on the southern frontier of Austria, the independence of that empire will be at an end. If this overgrown and monstrous Power, extending over so many thousand miles from west to east, pressing as it does on the northern boundary of Austria, should coil itself round her eastern and southern limits, she must yield to its movements or be crushed in its folds.
What Russia may further attempt, if successful in her present efforts, time alone can disclose. That she will not remain stationary we may confidently predict. Ambition, like other passions, grows by what it feeds upon. Prince Lieven, in the despatch to Count Nesselrode, to which I before alluded, says—
"Europe contemplates with awe this colossus, whose gigantic armies wait only the signal to pour like a torrent upon her kingdoms and states."
If this semi-barbarous people, with a Government of the same character, disguised under the thin cover of a showy but spurious refinement—a Government opposed to all beneficial progress and improvement, and which prohibits by law the education of the great body of its subjects—a despotism the most coarse and degrading that ever afflicted mankind—if this Power with such attributes should establish itself ill the heart of Europe (which may Heaven in its mercy avert!) it would be the heaviest and most fatal calamity that could fall on the civilised world.
THE EARL OF CLARENDON: My Lords, before replying to the observations of my
320
noble and learned Friend, I hope he will permit me, with all due deference, to remark upon the somewhat irregular, and therefore inconvenient, course which he has taken upon the present occasion. My noble and learned Friend has made a long, able, and most interesting speech, with the view of directing your Lordships' attention to a document which is not before you, of which you can have no cognisance, and which has not been communicated to Her Majesty's Government, for this reason—namely, that Powers do not make known to foreign Governments communications which pass between themselves and their agents relative to their own affairs. Your Lordships may or may not, as my noble and learned Friend supposes, have seen this document, when it was published some months ago; but I contend that you are not in a position to form an opinion, still less to pass a judgment on a paper, the contents of which many of your Lordships have probably heard to-night for the first time. If proceedings of this kind are continued with the sanction and authority of your Lordships—if this Motion should be drawn into a precedent for making the communications between foreign Governments the subject of discussion in this House, I fear we should be exposed to the inconvenience of arriving at decisions upon insufficient and perhaps erroneous data, and expose ourselves to remonstrances from foreign Governments on account of the conclusions at which we may arrive. The document to which my noble and learned Friend has referred, contains merely a recapitulation of transactions in which the Four Powers—England, France, Austria, and Prussia—were concerned, and it sets out, as my noble Friend observed, that the Four Powers were unanimously agreed upon the maintenance of the integrity of Turkey and the independence of the Sultan as essential to the equilibrium of Europe. This document was transmitted by Austria and Prussia to the members of the Germanic Confederation, who had felt aggrieved at having beers excluded from the negotiations relative to these transactions, which materially concerned the interests of Europe. This was a matter with which Her Majesty's Government had nothing to do, and no doubt the Cabinets of Berlin and Vienna had sufficient reasons for not deviating on this occasions from the mode of proceeding with regard to the other German States

321
usually observed in similar cases. These Powers, foreseeing that the aggressive policy of Russia might render neutrality no longer possible, concluded with each other an offensive and defensive treaty; and then arose the necessity of communicating it to the Germanic Confederation, not only for the purpose of securing the union of Germany against a common enemy and a common danger, but also for securing the support of the large armed force which the Confederation in certain circumstances, but solely with reference to German interests, is bound to supply. Under these circumstances, it was not only natural, but indispensable, that in applying to the Germanic Confederation the Declaration made by Austria and Prussia should have reference to German interests alone; and, therefore, it was that the Cabinets of Berlin and Vienna informed the Confederation that the continued military occupation of the Lower Danube by Russia was inconsistent with the material, and even with the political, interests of Germany. It was, therefore, of the utmost importance, that the status quo on the Lower Danube should be realised as originally fixed in the interests of Central Europe. I agree with the noble Lord in the opinion that the phraseology leaves an ambiguous impression; although I had no doubt whatever as to the real meaning, and upon inquiry I found that my opinion was correct, and that the words had reference more to the state of things which had been complained of in the previous paragraph of the Declaration, namely, that armed occupation of the Danube which was destructive to the interests of Germany and Austria. It was certainly not to replace Russia in the power which it had to occupy the mouths of the Danube. That power and possession had always been used to obstruct the freedom of commerce, and to throw every obstacle in the way of the free navigation of the river. But the Declaration goes on further to say, there is a vast field open for our commerce and industry to the East, and that great field must not be possessed by Russia. But this great field has always been obstructed by Russia, and that freedom of navigation prevented which Austria considered necessary. And the note goes on to say, so far as respects Russia, that now is the time to secure that liberty, and to remove those obstacles; and so it goes on to the next sentence, to which the noble Lord has refer-
322
red, with respect to the territorial status quo. The noble Lord will remember that it simply enjoins on the Confederation, that it is its bounden duty to take care that the result of the war shall not be such a territorial change of any of the great States of Europe as shall injuriously affect German interests. That is not an unnatural recommendation from the two great German Powers to the twenty-five minor Powers, at the same time that they are inviting their aid and co-operation, and calling upon them confidently and bravely to prepare for the trials which may be in store for them. I do not think it weakens any engagements which may have been taken between Austria and Prussia with England and France—on the contrary, it rather adds strength to them, as it calls upon the Confederation to unite as one man and prepare for the eventualities of war. Nor does it in any way alter the character of the assurances we have received from Austria. After the Philippic delivered by my noble and learned Friend against "confidence," and the preference which he has shown for "jealousy," I am almost afraid to venture on a declaration of my confidence in Austria. But I think I am justified in saying that we should look at Austria as an independent Power, carrying out her own policy, having some internal dangers to apprehend and many German difficulties to contend with, and that, under these circumstances, full allowance is not made for her difficult position. But, my Lords, as the alliance of Austria is of great importance to us—and, as far as the inland operations of the army of Austria are concerned, I consider them to be essential to us—I think it may not be out of place if I advert to some past proceedings, and state to your Lordships the facts upon which I found my confidence in the assurances which Austria has made to us. Such a course will, I think, be more practically useful than that of following my noble and learned Friend in his history of Russian aggressions, the character of which I need not say is such as I must necessarily condemn, but which, in my position, and speaking under a greater degree of responsibility than my noble and learned Friend, I think it better that I should abstain from commenting upon, and confine myself to matters which may be more practically useful and more interesting to your Lordships. I will, therefore, proceed to state what are the grounds upon which I feel confidence in the assurances

323
of Austria. My Lords, about three months ago I ventured to state in this House my belief that Austria could not remain neutral in this great contest, and that for the very reason stated by the noble and learned Lord—namely, that her interests, more than any other Power, were concerned in the issue of the war, and that the danger which menaced her was greater than that which menaced France or England or any other Power. Nay, I will now go further, and say, that if the German Powers—Austria more especially—had stood alone, they would have been compelled by every consideration of policy and self-interest to protect Turkey against the aggressions of Russia. Because, if Russia remained in possession of the Principalities, and, in spite of resistance on the part of Turkey, advanced to Constantinople itself, if her fleet retained the entire command of the Black Sea, and she closed the mouths of the Danube, the commercial prosperity of Austria and the German Powers, would be totally destroyed, and they would become, not the allies, but the mere vassals of Russia. True it is that there are some German Powers who still look with awe at the imaginary omnipotence of Russia, and who seem to wish to derive a guarantee from her for their future existence. But Austria has not shared in this ignominious feeling—the independence and dignity of the empire would have repelled such ideas. But even had she done so, neutrality would not have been her line. She must have been compelled to take part with Russia, not, I repeat, as an independent ally, but as a vassal to do the bidding of the Emperor. But Austria, and Prussia too, repelled the demand that was made on them by Russia to engage in a convention of neutrality, and from that moment a separation took place between Austria and Russia, which is a matter of no small importance to the world, because it has always been supposed that Russia, having a claim on the gratitude of Austria, would possess that influence over Austria which my noble and learned Friend described. But Austria did not yield to any such influence. Site had gone with us. Site had declared that she agrees with us, and she supported our summons to Russia to evacuate the Principalities. Therefore, I think that there was no reason to apprehend that Austria would remain neutral in this contest. But I know that it has been said that Austria has not moved with that vigour and rapidity which was called for
324
by her own engagements and by the possible necessity of the case. But I would only call upon your Lordships to place yourselves in the position of Austria, and to remember that up to the close of the year 1853 she did not believe in the possibility of a war. She trusted to the assurances and to the friendly feelings of Russia. She believed that her wishes and her interests would not be disregarded by Russia, and that the Emperor of Russia would not turn a deaf ear to her entreaties. She did not think that the Emperor of Russia would abandon his conservative character, and be himself the disturber of the peace of Europe. We must remember, also, the personal feelings which entered into these considerations—that the Emperor of Austria had a strong personal regard and respect for the Emperor of Russia, and that he had to weigh, with reference to the future, the consequences to himself and his people between the conclusion of a treaty of alliance with Russia on the one hand, and a treaty of alliance with the Western Powers on the other. We should also bear in mind that to quit the long-established alliance with Russia for one with the Western Powers was, on the part of Austria, nothing less than a complete revolution—a change of policy so (treat as was not to be effected without some difficulty. But, as I said before, Austria readily concurred in all the changes and in all the onward movements which had been made, and when the Emperor came to deal with the inadmissible propositions of Russia, sent by Count Orloff, and was not able to discover in them any assurance that the object of the Emperor of Russia was peace, he gave orders that an army of 30,000 men should be concentrated between Transylvania and the borders of Wallachia, and he formed a treaty with the Porte that he should send troops into Servia if the Russians entered into the principality. On that, indeed, the Emperor of Austria was disposed to act more vigorously; and he would have concluded a convention between the Four Powers, but obstacles which were insurmountable prevented him from doing so. He, however, did agree to the protocol of the 9th of April, which embodied all the terms that had been agreed upon by the other Powers. About the same time Austria and Prussia agreed to a treaty of alliance offensive and defensive, which had reference solely to German interests, affecting, therefore, the other States of Ger-

325
many, whose support and assistance it was intended to invite. But there was an additional article which accompanied that treaty, and which was of a more extended view. By that additional article the two Powers bound themselves to demand that no onward movement should be made by Russia in sending forces into the Turkish territory.
LORD LYNDHURSTasked, whether that additional article had been laid before Parliament?
THE EARL OF CLARENDON: I am not aware. I believe it has not, and that the reason is that it was not communicated to the Conference. The treaty alone had been communicated to the several Governments, but it was not thought right by Austria and Prussia that that which had been withheld from the Conference should be communicated to the Governments. The reason the additional article was withheld was, that it had reference to matters beyond what immediately concerned Germany; but at the same time a copy of the additional article was communicated to Her Majesty's Government. This additional article of which I speak gave a more extended view of the parties, and it provided that the two Powers, Austria and Prussia, should require Russia to suspend all warlike operations within the Turkish territory; that a definite answer should be demanded on these two points; and that, if such an answer was not returned as should give complete security and satisfaction to the two Powers, then Prussia pledged herself that she would have her army in readiness to co-operate with Austria, and, if the Principalities were incorporated by the Russians, or the Balkans passed or attacked by the Russians, then Austria and Prussia together were to take the offensive. At the beginning of this month a summons by the Austrian Government, announcing that determination, was sent to St. Petersburg. In anticipation of the answer being unfavourable, the Austrian Government, after communicating with Her Majesty's Government and with the Emperor of the French, proposed a convention with the Porte, by which Austrian troops were to be permitted to enter the Principalities, in order to occupy them as long as was necessary, Austria having stated to the Engliah and French Governments that she was determined, however much her assistance might be required, not to permit an Austrian soldier to enter the Turkish territority without having pre-
326
viously obtained the consent of the Sultan. At the same time Austria placed at the disposal of the Porte any number of troops that might be required for reducing the insurrection in Montenegro, but not to be called into service unless actually required or considered necessary by the Turkish commander on the spot, and to be demanded by him. She also offered that her ships should co-operate with ours in order to suppress the Greek insurrection. And, my Lords, I am informed that at the close of this month, or at the beginning of the next, the Austrian army, organised and fully equipped for active service, will amount to 300,000 men. Now, my Lords, under these circumstances, I think we may feel some confidence in the assurances of Austria, that her object and views are the same as our own, and that in the prosecution of this object we shall always find her with us. Nor can I believe that after the knowledge which Austria has acquired of Russian diplomacy, and after the experience she has had of Russian friendship—after the experience she has had of her utter disregard of Austrian interests—that after the vast expense she has incurred, and the great risks to which she might be exposed—I say, I cannot believe, as the noble and learned Lord would seem almost to infer, that she will be so wanting to her interest and to her dignity as to conclude such a peace as that to which the noble and learned Lord has adverted, which could be nothing but a short hollow truce, and to which England and France could not be parties—a peace which could afford Austria no guarantee for the future, which would be indeed a triumph to Russia, which would leave Austria entirely at the mercy of Russia, and leave Europe for ever afterwards subject to the pernicious influence and oppressive policy of that Power. My noble and learned Friend has asked what were the terms which would be proposed for effecting a peace with Russia. My Lords, I cannot possibly say, nor do I think any one of your Lordships would undertake to say, upon what terms peace can be made. That must depend upon the chances and the contingencies of war. And indeed, my Lords, if I did know upon what terms we alone would be prepared to make peace—if I was prepared to say that we would accept no other terms than those which the noble and learned Lord himself would accede to—I am sure your Lordships would agree with me that it would be the most imprudent course I could possibly

327
take to divulge them. We may all have our opinions as to what may be desirable in that respect, but none of us can tell what may be possible. But this we know, that the policy of Russia and the power she has hitherto possessed of carrying it out have been and are dangerous to the peace and well-being of Europe, and that both are adverse to the cause of progress and of civilisation. And we also know that the object and interest of Europe must be to curtail that power and to check that policy. We know that the means of doing it are now so great and effectual, and that the opportunity is so wonderfully favourable, that if we were now to neglect it we should in vain hope for its return. All Europe is not to be disturbed, great interests are not to be dislocated, the people are not to have fresh burdens imposed upon them, great social and commercial relations are not to be abruptly torn asunder, and the greatest Powers of Europe are not to lie united in arms, for an insignificant result. I think you must agree that repression will only postpone the danger, and that safety can alone be found in curtailing the Power which menaces the peace of Europe and the cause of progress and civilisation.
THE EARL OF DERBY: My Lords, I believe your Lordships must all have admired, as I have done, the able and eloquent statement made by my noble and learned Friend behind me, who entered into this important question with all his wonted vigour and perspicuity; and I do believe that, whatever irregularity there may have been in the course taken by my noble and learned Friend, an ample justification of that course may be found in the concluding observations of the noble Earl who has just addressed you. I think your Lordships will be of opinion that the terms of the document which has been cited and commented upon by my noble and learned Friend were of a character to cause the most serious apprehensions, that, with regard to two of the great Powers of Europe, that which my noble Friend opposite (the Earl of Clarendon) deprecated as an insignificant result, would be the conclusion at which those Powers would arrive. And I confess that, difficult as it is to argue on the precise terms of a document, which is not merely not technically before us, but which we have not practically before our eyes at the present moment, I think then noble Earl was less fortunate than usual in the attempt he made to explain that which, after his explanation, appeared to me not
328
only an ambiguous expression, but an expression on which it was very difficult to place any other interpretation than that natural interpretation placed upon it by my noble and learned Friend. My noble Friend opposite spoke as if the terms in question were the terms of an agreement between Austria and Prussia, and confirmed and assented to by England and France, for guaranteeing the independence of Turkey. If such were the object of that agreement, my noble and learned Friend could have found no reason to complain, and could see in it no grounds for doubting the intentions of the different Powers; but the case put forward by my noble and learned Friend is, that in a document purporting to be a resumé of the Conference between the different Powers, and submitted by Austria and Prussia to the Diet, these two Powers declare that whatever may be the result of the war—subject to the exception, and certainly, as it seems to me, the inconsistent exception, of the rights to be exercised on the banks of the Danube—those two Powers not only declare that the integrity of Turkey shall be maintained, but that the territorial arrangements between Turkey and Russia shall also be maintained; thereby leading to the natural inference that, if that object could be secured, if the Principalities should for the moment be evacuated, and if the integrity of Turkey should be recognised by Russia, there would be an end of all their efforts against the latter empire; and that, not only would there be an end of those efforts, but that, if France and England were to seek to go further in the prosecution of the war, Austria and Prussia, under the terms of that agreement, would have a right to step in and say, "No; we declare that, whatever might be the result of the war, existing territorial arrangements should be preserved inviolate, and if you proceed to enforce any measures beyond the evacuation of the Principalities, and the restoration of rights on the Danube, you cannot count on our alliance, you cannot count on our assistance, nay, more, we are bound by implication to oppose any proceeding by which existing territorial arrangements would be disturbed." Now, I must say that my noble Friend opposite (the Earl of Clarendon) passed lightly over this, which was the pinching part of the statement of my noble and learned Friend, and the more pinching because it not only throws doubts on the intentions of Austria and Prussia, but because a subsequent protocol, signed by all the Four Powers, recog-

329
nises, as accepted by them, two engagements—one between England and France, and another between Austria and Prussia, which would appear to put limits to the operations of all the Powers in the event of Russia acceding to the terms in question. According to those terms, if Russia should evacuate the Principalities, recognise the integrity and independence of Turkey, give no material gurantees for that purpose, but sign a treaty containing that recognition—according to those terms, as interpreted by my noble and learned Friend, and as I think they would be interpreted by any rational man, Austria and Prussia would stand aloof, under the most favourable view of the case, and might even be expected to take part in defending Russia against the dismemberment of any portion of her territories, however dangerous her retention of it might be to the future tranquillity of Europe. My noble Friend opposite (the Earl of Clarendon) insisted on the sincerity of Austria. But no question was raised by my noble and learned Friend upon that subject. The question was, as to the meaning of the professions made by Austria. That Power was, no doubt, sincere in declaring that it was necessary that the Principalities should be evacuated, and that she would have recourse to hostile measures if any attempt were made by the Russians to pass the Balkan. The question, however, was, not as to the sincerity of Austria in what she professed, but as to what was the meaning of her professions, and what assurance we had of her co-operation in the event of the Emperor Nicholas so far complying with the demands addressed to him as to retire from the Principalities, while he announced his determination to retain all his existing possessions. I have certainly heard with much satisfaction one portion of the speech of my noble Friend opposite. I recollect that my noble Friend on a former occasion declared that, as we were embarked in this war, we were embarked in it for no trifling object—that we had to deal with a great question which had been growing up for years, and almost for centuries—that the solution of that question was now forced upon us—that it must be settled once and for ever, finally and decisively; and I must again say that I rejoice to hear that declaration repeated by my noble Friend, in answer to my noble and learned Friend behind me, because sure I am of this, that the people of this country, however unwilling they might be to cuter into a war
330
at all, however much they might feel the pressure which it must impose on their resources, and much as they might recoil from all the inconveniences, the dangers, and the horrors by which it must be attended—sure I am, that whatever might be their disinclination to enter into a war, their disinclination and their disgust would be infinitely greater at the conclusion of a shameful and dishonourable peace. And a shameful and a dishonourable peace I am confident they would declare that to be which should not effectually bridle the growing ambition of Russia, restrain her not merely within her existing limits, but wrest from her those portions of her conquests, her retention of which is dangerous to the tranquillity and the independence of Europe, and take not moral but material guarantees, by which the renewal of her ambitious projects, and of her disturbance of the peace of Europe, might be effectually and permanently checked. I quite agree with my noble Friend, that it is not for us to say now what should be the precise terms on which alone we would consent to the restoration of peace. But this I will say, that I am convinced that the people of this country, having expended very large sums in making preparations for this war—having made incredible exertions for that purpose, and being prepared to make still greater exertions, and to bear all the inconveniences which must be the result of those efforts—I am convinced that the people of this country will not be satisfied unless you show them that security has been taken for the future independence, not of Turkey alone, but of the neighbouring States, against Russian aggression. And, above all, as my noble and learned Friend said, and said most truly, it is for us an object not only of policy, but of binding honour and duty, not to desert those gallant mountaineers who are now engaged in a struggle into which we have encouraged them to enter, and in which we have already afforded them our assistance. I believe that if we were now to make terms for ourselves only with Russia, and leave her to deal with them while she has no other enemy to encounter, we should be betraying a duty which we owe to mankind, and exposing ourselves to indelible disgrace. I say that for the future it is impossible to admit that the Black Sea shall be a Russian lake, or that the Danube shall be a Russian ditch, closed up by mud and filth against the commerce of the world. I say

331
that we must have material guarantees for the peace of Europe. I rejoice at the language held upon that point by my noble Friend opposite on the part of Her Majesty's Government. That language, I am sure, will give universal satisfaction to the people of this country; that language justifies the interpellation which has been so ably made by my noble and learned Friend near me; that language, I trust, the country will see followed up, on the part of the whole of Her Majesty's Government, by acts vigorous and decisive as the language of the noble Earl.
THE EARL OF ABERDEEN: My Lords, my noble Friend (the Earl of Clarendon) has so fully expressed the views and intentions of the Government upon this subject, that little remains for me to say. At the same time I cannot help making a few observations in reference to what has fallen from my noble and learned Friend (Lord Lyndhurst). I think that the speech of my noble and learned Friend would have been somewhat more appropriate and in place three months ago than it is at this moment. At that time it might have been, perhaps, necessary to stimulate the feelings of this country—the indignation and the martial feeling of this country—against a Power with which we were not yet at war; but having engaged in a war with Russia, I think it was not requisite to indulge in that eloquent and protracted Philippic which my noble and learned Friend delivered to the House in a detail of the policy of the Russian Government for many years past. My noble and learned Friend reminds me of old times. I recollect, five and twenty years ago, having had the pleasure of making known to him—then sitting on the woolsack—the French Ambassador of that day—a man of lively imagination and much wit; his observation to me afterwards was, speaking of my noble and learned Friend, "Chancellor, did you call him? Surely he is a colonel of dragoons." Now, it seems to me that my noble and learned Friend's speech to-night partook of the characteristic thus ascribed to him. Most happy am I to find that my noble and learned Friend retains all his vigour and martial energy; and I have only to observe that I think the speech would have been more appropriate if it hail been delivered before we had entered into the war than after we have fully engaged in it, and when we do not require such incentives to stimulate us in its prosecution. Now, this war was, at its commencement, so strictly
332
of a defensive character, that I can fully understand time cause of that apparent ambiguity in expression to which my noble and learned Friend has referred. Your Lordships will recollect that the object was to resist the unjustifiable aggressions of Russia against the Turkish territory. This was the declaration of Her Majesty when publishing to time country the cause of the war. Her Majesty declared that the purpose of the war was to protect an ally against unjust aggression. Throughout, the integrity of the Turkish empire and the independence of the Sultan were put forth as the main objects—I may say the, exclusive objects—of the war; and, therefore, it never occurred to provide against the Turkish conquests on the Russian territory. Our object, and the object of Europe, in all those protocols and engagements, was to preserve entire the territory of Turkey and the independence of the Sultan. Consequently in reciting these objects there might, no doubt, appear ambiguity in confining the objects of the war to those points to which I have adverted, and in not taking into view the possibility of any encroachment on the Russian territory; but that does not follow the least in time world from any engagements to which we are a party. Austria is an independent Power, and most happy have we been that Austria has agreed with us so far as she has done; but if Austria refuses to go further than these engagements, to which all four have been parties, what power have we to compel her to do so? Austria is acting now with a view to consult her own interests and the general interests of Europe. Austria is now listening to the advice of that veteran and able statesman whom my noble and learned Friend has eulogised, and I cannot doubt will be guided by him, both in regard to her own interests and to the interests of Europe. Therefore I attach no weight to the apparent ambiguity to which my noble and learned Friend has referred. As to the conditions with which we would be satisfied as the conclusion of the war, and the objects we should hold in view in pursuing it, it would be both premature and unwise to pretend now to decide. My noble and learned Friend, to be sure, has given the Emperor of Russia due notice to fortify Sebastopol, because he has declared his determination to lay hands on that stronghold, and I dare say His Majesty the Emperor of Russia will follow my noble and learned Friend's advice.

333
But the conditions for the termination of hostilities are, I say, those which can only be described by the expression "a just and honourable peace." Now that must depend in a great measure upon the progress of the war. If it should so happen that you find the Russians at Constantinople, it is perfectly clear that the conditions of the peace may be very different from what they might be if the allies should find themselves at St. Petersburg. Therefore the whole course of the negotiations must depend upon the varying progress of events. All I can say is, that at all times I shall advocate an honourable peace, though bent on obtaining the great objects we have in view—the security, integrity, and independence of the Porte, and, as far as reasonable, what is called the security of Europe, which, however, I cannot say I feel to be very much in danger by the chance of Russian aggression. For let me remind my noble and learned Friend, that when that disastrous Treaty of Adrianople, to which he refers, was concluded, at a time when the Russian troops were within fifty miles of Constantinople—a treaty I admit to be most onerous and disastrous—still no acquisition of Turkish territory was made by Russia. [Intimations of dissent.] Two or three small ports in Asia were taken possession of by Russia, but not an inch of territory in Europe; and the Principalities were evacuated. [A Noble Lord: The Danube.] The Danube? No doubt, I have already expressed my opinion in this House with regard to the Treaty of Adrianople; and no one has ever described the disastrous and onerous nature of its conditions more strongly than myself. But I say, considering the position at that time of the Russian army, which was almost at the gates of Constantinople, that treaty did not show any great desire of territorial aggrandisement. And what happened since that treaty was made, twenty-five years ago? Since that moment has Russia acquired a single inch of Turkish territory? Has Russia had any hostility with Turkey at all? None in the world. The only interference that Russia has had with Turkey has been to save the existence of the Turkish empire by sending a Russian army to Constantinople to protect it against Egyptian invasion. That is all that has happened since the Treaty of Adrianople. There has been no war, there has been no aggression, but only a single service rendered to Turkey by Russia. I think that, if we can secure
334
tranquillity for twenty-five years to come, we shall not do amiss; and that ought to be the object we should have in view. I quite agree with those who, notwithstanding they may have been led away by the excitement of the moment and the commencement of hostilities, still think that we ought never to close our ear against the voice of reason; and I for one, so long as, or as soon as ever I see the prospect of a just and honourable peace in view, shall most certainly endeavour to attain it. Now, this may not suit the spirits of those who are more bent upon hostile measures; but it must not be taken as implying that I am indifferent to the conduct of the war. On the contrary, I venture to say, that those who most desire peace may be most prepared to carry on war with the utmost vigour and determination—not to wreak vengeance on an enemy for whom personally we can feel no hatred, but to obtain with more certainty and security such a peace as we ought to desire. That is the reason and that is the motive which will induce me to carry on the war with the utmost possible vigour; and I do trust that in carrying on war, animated by these feelings, which ought to inspire all Christian nations, we may look for the attainment of the great object, peace, in a shorter time than many noble Lords appear to think probable.
LORD BEAUMONTcontended that the apparent meaning of the document referred to was, that the view of the Four Powers were the same, and that this country was evidently bound, under the circumstances, to respect simply and purely the present territorial arrangements. He did not see why in the world this country should have had anything to do with the treaty between Prussia and Austria. It gave us no further advantage in the war; it was a treaty by which we had nothing to gain; it was, in fact, more a question between two German States. But, however clear and positive the Language used by Austria and Prussia appeared to be, and however much confirmed afterwards by the Bamberg Conference, yet he could not but allow that the speech of the noble Foreign Secretary that night went a great way to remove the impression which the documents must undoubtedly have produced; and that advantage, even if it were all that the noble and learned Lord had obtained by bringing this subject before the House, was not to be despised. If the debate had ended with the speech of the noble Foreign

335
Secretary, there would have been every hope that the peace to be obtained would be a peace which would cripple Russia; and a peace, which did not cripple that gigantic Power and tend to strengthen its constant and mortal enemy, Turkey, would not be anything like such a peace as this country ought to be satisfied with in return for all the sacrifices it had made. But his hopes on this head had been some-what cooled by the calmer language of the noble Earl at the head of the Government; and when the noble Earl spoke of the Treaty of Adrianople as not giving any territorial power to Russia, he almost feared whether a peace giving Russia, if not increased territory, increased moral power, would not be considered a necessity of the time. The noble Earl the Foreign Secretary had alluded to the offer of Austria to send troops into Montenegro and the northern parts of Albania to put down the insurrection. Now, if any papers had been communicated to the Government, showing what had passed between the Porte and Austria on that head, he should like to have them laid on the table of the House; because, not long ago, before the war with Russia broke out, Austria did all it could to protect the rebels in Montenegro, but now she was offering to send troops, under the command of an Ottoman general, to put down the very persons whom she had so recently sought to protect. He should like to be assured that it was the fact that, under no circumstances whatever, Austrian troops would enter any Ottoman territory without the positive demand of the Porte; and he repeated his request that all papers referring to the matter be laid on the table.
House adjourned to Thursday next.