Sitting of 6 July 1855

MINUTES.
NEW WRITS.—For Cheltenham, v. Hen. Craven Fitzhardinge Berkeley, deceased; for Evesham, v. Charles Lennox Greenville Berkeley, esq., Steward of Chiltern Hundreds.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1o Income Tax Elective Franchise; Stage Carriage Duties, &c.
3o Bills of Lading (No. 2); Endowed Schools (Ireland); West India Relief Loans Arrangement.

COMMISSIONS IN THE ENGINEERS AND ARTILLERY—QUESTION.
MR. PERCYasked the Secretary of the Ordnance whether it was true that a circular was sent in February last by Sir Hew Ross to the head masters of some of the principal schools, inviting them to send up the names of some of their pupils for the Royal Engineers or Artillery, and promising that thirty commissions should be distributed among them? Whether the names of forty pupils were not sent up accordingly, on the faith of that promise; and whether, notwithstanding that promise, the forty pupils so sent up from schools are to be subjected to competition with the 300 or 400 persons from seventeen to twenty-one years of age, who by open competitive examination, are to be selected according to the arrangement contained in the advertisement dated the 11th day of June, 1855, and signed by the Secretary of the Ordnance?
MR. MONSELLsaid, when it was determined to appoint certain young gentlemen of greater age than those generally appointed to the army, Sir Hew Ross directed letters to be sent to the public schools, to say that such arrangements were in contemplation, and to ask if they would assist. Altogether seventy were nominated, between eighteen and nineteen years of age, and of these seventy, thirty were at present in the practical class at Woolwich, and had been so for three or four months,
518
and, if they passed their examinations, would receive their commissions. Of the remaining forty, only nine were from public schools; the others were selected by patronage. When Lord Panmure took charge of the Ordnance Department, and found that this arrangement subsisted, he considered that very great injury might accrue to the Artillery and Engineers if forty young men of inferior attainments, as a class, to those who generally received commissions were to be grouped together at one period, and in one place, and he therefore determined to open the examination to public competition; but at the same time it was determined to give directions to the examiners who presided at that public competition that they were to take special note with regard to the forty young men to whom these expectations were held out, and in the event of any of them not being successful in obtaining the cadetship, but who nevertheless showed a fair amount of ability, so as to make it probable that they might make good officers, it was the intention of Lord Panmure to consider their cases.
COLONEL DUNNEasked whether those persons so selected, and especially those selected by patronage, were to be subjected to as severe an examination as was ordinarily required at Woolwich?
MR. MONSELL: I should say rather more severe.

VOLUNTEERS FOR THE CRIMEA FROM THE IRREGULAR CAVALRY IN INDIA —QUESTION.
SIR ERSKINE PERRYasked the President of the Board of Control, whether accounts have been received at the India House that the Guzerat Irregular Horse, the Nizam's Irregular Cavalry, and some regiments of Bengal Irregular Cavalry, have volunteered for the Crimea; and whether he can inform the House what is the total amount of Irregular Cavalry that has so volunteered?
MR. VERNON SMITHsaid, in 1854 the Native officers in the Guzerat army volunteered to take part against Persia, when a war between that country and England seemed to impend; but no such war having taken place, they subsequently offered their services in the Crimea. There was also an offer of service from the Bengal Irregular Cavalry. No offers had been made from the Nizam's Irregular Cavalry; but the offers which had been made from the four regiments of Bengal Irregular Cavalry amounted to 2,000 men. The

519
spirit of these officers was highly to be praised; but it had not yet been determined by the Government to accept their services, the subject involving political and economical consideration, of which his hon. Friend was aware.

SARDINIA AND THE HOLY SEE— QUESTION.
MR. BOWYERasked whether Her Majesty's Government would lay before the House, in continuation of former returns, papers showing the relations of the kingdom of Sardinia with the Holy See up to the present time.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, such papers as were asked for would not be papers in continuation of those already laid upon the table. The papers referred to related to the regulations observed by different countries with regard to the admission of bulls and official communications with the Holy See, and were obtained by correspondence with different foreign Governments. Those asked for were papers which had passed between the Government of Sardinia and the Holy See, with regard to transactions passing in the kingdom of Sardinia, and in respect to which Her Majesty's Government had no right to interfere. They had no official cognizance of them, and therefore it was quite impossible to comply with the request of the hon. Member.

THE LATE DISTURBANCES IN HYDE PARK—COMMISSION OF INQUIRY— QUESTION.
SIR JOHN SHELLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, after the allegations contained in the petitions presented to this House in reference to the conduct of the police on Sunday last, it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to institute a searching inquiry?
SIR GEORGE GREY: I stated yesterday that where any specific case of alleged misconduct on the part of the police was brought under my notice I should feel it my duty to institute a strict and searching inquiry into such charge. I am not, however, prepared to say that the petitions presented yesterday—which I have had no opportunity of looking into—afford sufficient grounds for inquiry. I have received a large number of representations on the subject from persons wholly unknown to me—some stating that they did see acts of unnecessary violence on the part of the
520
police, and others stating that, considering the circumstances in which the police were placed, they were perfectly ready to come forward and testify their opinion that the conduct of the police was marked by moderation and forbearance. I do not think the statements of persons avowedly mixed up in the proceedings of Sunday last should be taken as conclusive evidence of the misconduct of the police, and I am anxious not to say or admit anything which would bear that inference. I am also anxious to call attention to the great facilities afforded individuals who have complaints to make against the police, either for assaults or improper violence in the discharge of their duty. In addition to the ordinary law, by which policemen charged with assaults can be dealt with as any private individual, by summary conviction before a magistrate on sufficient evidence, they are liable to action for damages, to immediate dismissal by the police commissioners, and by the 2nd & 3rd Vic., c. 47, to a penalty of 2l., or imprisonment for two months (to which other persons are not liable) inflicted, not by the police Commissioners, but by the ordinary police magistrates, for unnecessarily inflicting injury on any person while in discharge of their duty. There are ample means of identifying a policeman, by the marks on his dress; when complaints are made, they are impartially inquired into, and the punishment is beyond that which can be inflicted on other persons. With regard to the general allegations which have been made, provided it does not imply any condemnation or preconceived judgment against the police—which, I am bound to say, information I have received leads me to believe would be most unmerited—I have not not the slightest objection to have those allegations submitted to a searching investigation.
MR. T. DUNCOMBE: In order that I may not be out of order in making a few observations, I will move that the House, at its rising, do adjourn to Monday next. The right hon. Gentleman says there are plenty of facilities afforded for the identification of peccant policemen by the number and letter upon their coats. Now, I will venture to say that if any of those unoffending persons who complain had done so on Sunday last they could not have offered a stronger invitation to the police to break their heads than by taking down names and numbers. The right hon. Gentleman says he will institute an in-

521
quiry into any case which may he really brought home to the police. We do not want that inquiry. The people do not want an inquiry instituted between the Home Office and the Police Commissioners. They want a public inquiry—an inquiry to which the public shall be admitted, and not merely a report to be laid upon the table of the House founded upon the answers given by the police officers to inquiries from the Home Office. The public must be admitted to the examination, and be permitted to give evidence of what they saw on the occasion. What I would suggest is this—if the Government assent to the Committee which I suggested yesterday, I will move for it without saying a word, and the Government shall appoint any ten or eleven gentlemen they think proper, the House, of course, seeing that they shall be such as are likely to be impartial and unbiassed. I had intended to move for such a Committee upon the Motion of going into Supply; but I find there are fifteen or twenty notices already on the paper to be made upon the Motion for going into Supply. I know that that is a very disadvantageous occasion for making a Motion of this kind, and many hon. Gentlemen would say, "You are interfering with the course of public business; we would be glad to divide with you but for that." If the Government will not consent to do this, I would then suggest that the Crown should issue a Commission to inquire into the conduct of the police on Sunday last. Let the Government appoint three or five gentlemen connected with Parliament, if they think proper, and I shall be satisfied. The last time the right hon. Gentleman was a Member of the Government I unfortunately came once or twice into collision with him upon some charges I made against some public authorities connected with Woolwich and other places. The charges were disputed—my statements were sent down to the authorities accused—of course they denied them. We persevered, and at last we got a public inquiry through a Commission, upon which, among others, I believe, was the noble Lord the Member for Totness (Lord Seymour). That inquiry was perfectly satisfactory to me, and to all those who had made the charges. Now, let the right hon. Gentleman appoint a Commission to inquire into the conduct of the police. Let that Commission have full powers, as we say, to send for persons, papers, and records. Let the people who
522
complain appear either in person or by Counsel, and, I will venture to say, every one of the statements which have been made—all the allegations contained in the petitions which have been presented—will be fully substantiated before such Commission. But no inquiry of the sort which the right hon. Gentleman proposes will be satisfactory to the people, or meet the requirements of the case; it would be nothing but a mockery of an inquiry—a burlesque and farce. The right hon. Baronet, the other night, said, in answer to a question from me, that certain soldiers—some of the Guards—had been mixed up in the crowd in the park, and a picket was sent for from the barracks to fetch them in, and that the commandant, I think he called him, thanked the police for their conduct in giving information which enabled him to send for those men. Now, I understand that that commanding officer was nothing more than the sergeant in charge of the barrack-yard. Is that so? [Sir G. GREY: He was also commanding in the barrack at the time.] Well, when the word "commandant," or "commanding officer," is used, nobody would suppose a non-commissioned officer was meant. At least it was not so when I had the honour to hold a commission in the Guards. When the soldiers were all fetched in the sergeant and the head policeman got upon good terms with each other, and shook hands together, and no doubt arranged the affair comfortably among themselves as to what was to be done with the soldiers. I want to know what offence these soldiers were guilty of? What has become of the charges against them? If those soldiers were guilty of any civil offence they ought to be tried by a civil tribunal. Whether a man wears a red coat or a fustain jacket, if he commits a civil offence he ought to be tried by a civil tribunal. You have no business to send a man to barracks and shut him up there for what he did in the park. The only offence those men were guilty of was in crying "Shame" on the police, for their cowardly and brutal conduct to women and children. Are you punishing these men by martial law, confining them in the black-hole of the barrack, for that conduct? I repeat, if the right hon. Baronet will only appoint a Commission to inquire into these grievances, I believe it will be perfectly satisfactory. If he will make that statement now, I am quite satisfied we shall hear no more of disturbances, unless the police themselves make them,

523
on Sunday next. To be sure, though, even the Church can't let the people alone. I find there has been a letter written to The Times by the senior curate of St. Botolph, Aldgate, which I really must read to the House, that it may see how the people are libelled. If this letter be true, then the metropolis is in a most dangerous state. He says, of course, he is sorry for the Sunday Trading Bill, and then goes on to talk about Houndsditch, the favourite haunt of the hon. Member for Dorsetshire (Mr. Ker Seymer). The writer says—
"In the heart of London, on every successive Sunday in the year, in various streets, alleys, and courts to the north of Houndsditch, and therefore in my own immediate neighbourhood, are congregated upwards of 15,000 persons, engaged in traffic of various kinds, and constituting what is called the 'City Exchange Fairs.' The trade is carried on principally in Cutler Street, Phil's Buildings, City Exchange, Exhibition Mart, Harrow Alley, and Petticoat Lane, places notorious in the annals of crime for outrages and abominations of all descriptions. The articles offered for sale consist, for the most part, of wearing apparel and jewellery, and the fair lasts for the greater portion of the day. I speak from personal observation and inspection, and hesitate not to characterise the place as one of the very foulest sinks of profligacy and crime to be found within the length and breadth of London."
This is a minister of the Gospel, a minister of peace, who is speaking of his own parishioners—
"Of the 15,000 individuals there assembled some are Jews of the lowest grade, but the great majority are nominally Christians, uniting together in forming a multitude of the most ignorant, lawless, brutal, and degraded ruffians that the metropolis can furnish. In this vile haunt crimes are both plotted and perpetrated; for in a spot at the entrance to Harrow Alley I was myself informed on the occasion of one of my visits, by one of our excellent police, that of all the males there congregated, of various ages, and to the number of several hundreds, every individual had been a convicted felon. Stolen property is here disposed of to any extent, 'and no questions asked;' and an inducement is thereby held out to thieves from every quarter to bring hither the results of their crimes, assured of their immediate and safe disposal. I could furnish you with many details of this den of horrors."
This is addressed to the Editor of The Times newspaper, and I am really surprised that respectable journal admitted such a letter into its columns—
"But I will content myself with affirming, that if there be an epithet in the English tongue more descriptive than another of a place reeking with blasphemy, clamour, and obscenity, and of a loathsome assemblage stained with every vice named or nameless, I would select and apply it to this foulest of foul scenes and filthiest of filthy multitudes."
524
Many of these people, no doubt, were among those who assembled in Hyde Park on Sunday last, and who propose to visit it again. If, then, of the class which this clergyman, this rev. Mr. Hugo, the senior curate of St. Botolph, describes,—I say, if 100,000 of these people are to be assembled in the park, property at this end of the town will be in considerable danger on Sunday next. They say they certainly do mean to come and see what is going on at the West End on Sunday next. I believe they would have been peaceable if the police had let them alone last Sunday. Some friends of mine heard some of these people saying, "This is a pleasant place, this Hyde Park; we had no idea there was such a fine place. We have nothing like it in Poplar or Whitechapel—Victoria Park is nothing to it—we shall come here again." Soon after that the police suddenly and brutally attacked them, and all these poor people were driven away although they were quite harmless. Now, if they do come again, and be attacked, I am informed they will come provided with means of self-defence. [Cries of "Oh!"] I don't doubt that they will come armed. But I am at the same time satisfied that if the people understand that there will be a full and fair inquiry into the conduct of the police we shall hear no more of these disturbances. I think there can be no better tribunal for inquiring into the wrongs of the people than a Committee of their representatives, but it would be almost a mockery at the end of the Session to appoint such a Committee. At all events the people will not be satisfied without a full inquiry, and they certainly will not be content with an inquiry made by the Home Office, which would enable the police to concoct their own evidence and make out their own case. I therefore propose that a Commission should be appointed to institute a full inquiry into the conduct of the police during the last two Sundays, and, whatever may be the report of that Commission, I believe the public generally will be satisfied.
SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, that if they were to appoint a Commission to inquire into the proceedings of the police in Hyde Park on Sunday last, they ought to abstain from making statements calculated to prejudice that inquiry. He had proposed no formal inquiry, but a full and searching inquiry into the allegations that had been made to him with regard to the conduct of the police last Sunday. The

525
hon. Member had stated that he would not he satisfied with the inquiry which he had promised, because it would be merely an affair between the Home Office and the police. He (Sir G. Grey) had, however, stated clearly and distinctly that a full and searching inquiry should be instituted into the proceedings in Hyde Park on Sunday last, including the conduct of the police. Such a mode of inquiry as that which the hon. Member had assumed this would be—namely, an inquiry between the Home Office and the police, had never entered into his (Sir G. Grey's) contemplation when he stated that an inquiry should be made. The hon. Member had stated that on former occasions, when he had brought forward charges against certain proceedings at Woolwich and other places, he (Sir G. Grey) had caused an inquiry to be made by means of a Commission, and he said that the result of that inquiry had been satisfactory. What right, then, had he to assume that in the present instance the inquiry would be less searching or less satisfactory? He agreed with the hon. Member, that at this period of the Session an inquiry by a Committee of the House of Commons would not be the most efficient mode of proceeding. He pledged himself, however, that the inquiry which he would institute should be conducted in a manner satisfactory to the House and to the public. He was not then prepared to state to whom the inquiry would be entrusted; but the form of the inquiry, together with the persons entrusted with it, should be communicated to the House, and he pledged himself that the inquiry should be as satisfactory and complete as he had described it. The hon. Member had made a statement with respect to the soldiers mixed up with the crowd, and had assumed that these soldiers were improperly sent by the police in charge of a picket from the barracks, and that the police-sergeant and the sergeant in command of the barracks being upon intimate terms, had arranged the proceedings among themselves, by which the soldiers had been unjustly subjected to punishment. He had been informed that these soldiers had mingled with the crowd, taking part in some of the proceedings there going on, and that the police, instead of placing themselves in collision with the soldiers, sent to the barracks and informed the officer in command of their conduct; a picket was sent and the soldiers transferred to the military authorities, according to the
526
usual custom in such cases. The hon. Member for Finsbury had stated that it was only a sergeant in charge of the barracks at the time. He had been assured that it was an adjutant, and not a sergeant. At all events, it was a commanding officer, and he (Sir G. Grey) was informed that he had thanked the police for the manner in which they had acted by bringing the men under military authority. The hon. Member had also read a letter which had appeared in The Times newspaper, which he (Sir G. Grey) thought had better have been consigned to oblivion; for the hon. Member also stated that the people to whom that letter referred would come from the east end of London next Sunday to enjoy themselves. They had a perfect right to do so. They had a right to be there and to enjoy themselves quietly; and while they did so, they would find the police ready to protect them in their enjoyment. But if they came with arms in their hands, or with weapons which showed an intention to create disorder, or commit crime, they would find the police firmly determined, in spite of all allegations made against them, to discharge their duty for the protection of the public, and the protection of property, and that no intimidation would detain them from the performance of their duty.
MR. T. DUNCOMBEsaid, the right hon. Gentleman had put words in his mouth which he never used. He had stated that he said that the police, and the sergeant, and the commanding officer in charge of the barracks arranged how those soldiers taken in Hyde Park should be punished. He never said anything of the sort. He merely asked whether the matter had been hushed up, or whether it was to be referred to a civil tribunal. He was of opinion that it ought to be referred to a civil tribunal. The right hon. Baronet had said that he was satisfied with the inquiry on a former occasion, in respect to Woolwich. He certainly was perfectly satisfied with the subsequent inquiry, but he was not at all satisfied with the previous inquiry into that matter.
COLONEL LINDSAYsaid, that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Finsbury had alluded to the conduct of some commissioned officer or non-commissioned officer; the fact was, that at the Magazine barracks in Hyde Park there was no accommodation for an officer, and no officer resided there. It was at all times under the command of a sergeant. With regard to

527
the question between the soldiers and the police, the general instructions are that the soldiers are at all times to obey the police. The consequence was that the police were obeyed by the soldiers in the same manner as non-commissioned officers were. If the soldier disobeyed the police, a message was sent to the military authority, and the soldier was taken in charge. Such, he supposed, was the case on the occasion of last Sunday. At all events, the officers are extremely obliged at having soldiers who may have committed themselves given over to the military authorities, rather than that they should, for slight offences, be brought up to the police-court. He hoped this explanation would be satisfactory to the House, as far as the soldiers were concerned. There was one remark he wished to make, and that was, that an old soldier would always get out of a crowd as fast as he could. At the present moment unfortunately they had no old soldiers, but, although they were all young men, he never knew a body of men more exemplary in their conduct than those now constituting our force in London.
MR. W. J. FOXsaid, there was no complaint against the soldiers for their conduct. On the contrary, their conduct generally has been such as to have earned the commendation of all persons. When the right hon. Baronet the Secretary of State for the Home Department had stated the nature of the inquiry which he was about to institute, he (Mr. Fox) thought he could undertake to furnish that tribunal with several respectable names of parties who had witnessed gross atrocities in Hyde Park on Sunday last—such, for instance, as striking unoffending old men while quietly walking, striking women and children, and cases of this kind. One gentleman who had written to him was a clergyman, who stated that he was walking by accident that way, and was attracted by the crowd to see what was going on. He saw a policeman with great and unprovoked fury striking in every direction. He addressed himself to the policeman; but such was his threatening attitude and motions towards the writer, that he thought it much better to reserve his condemnation of the act till a future occasion, and retire from the scene as quickly as possible. His earnest wish was that such an examination would be instituted as would quiet the minds of the people, and restore a good understanding between the population gene-
528
rally and the police. He had received a communication from the proprietor of the "thieves' exchange" referred to by the hon. Member for Dorsetshire. In that communication were stated the names of the principal houses in the metropolis who had dealings with that establishment, and explaining also the reason why things there were so much cheaper than in most other places. He hoped the inquiry instituted would be such as to bring about a good feeling between the people and the police.
MR. KER SEYMERsaid, the statements which he had made with respect to what took place at Houndsditch on a Sunday had not been contradicted by any person; on the contrary, it had been corroborated by every statement which was made. He would also take that opportunity of repeating that, whatever might be thought of the place, there could be no doubt whatever the existence of this Hounds-ditch establishment was a disgrace to the metropolis. He thought it very inconvenient to go into matters in that House which were to be the subjects of inquiry, before the appointment of that inquiry. He could assure the House that if it were disposed to go into the matter he could say something on the other side of the question; and from what he saw on Sunday last he could have no hesitation in stating that the police were not the only parties who were guilty of brutal and cowardly conduct towards women and children.
MR. BOWYER: The right hon. Baronet has stated that the police judiciously avoided coming into collision with the soldiers. I was present, and saw the transaction in question, and I can inform the right hon. Baronet that two soldiers were seized by the police and dragged about so violently by them that the people cried "Shame!" I saw that myself, and was indignant at the manner in which the soldiers were treated. We are bound to believe, after the statement of the right hon. Baronet that the inquiry will be both searching and fair; but I ask would there have been such an inquiry if the hon. Member for Finsbury had not brought forward this question? I will tell the House what is the course which is usual at the Home Office when complaints of this sort are made. The Home Secretary institutes what he calls an inquiry—that is to say, he asks the police what their statement is. Then, having done that, he believes the police, and he does not

529
believe other parties. I do not say that the right hon. Gentleman does that from an improper motive. It is natural for official people to back up the police, and that is what the right hon. Gentleman would have done if the question had not been perseveringly brought forward by the hon. Member for Finsbury.
MR. BENTINCK: I agree with what I believe to be the general feeling of the House, that it is extremely undesirable that we should proceed to offer statements and counter statements upon a question which has not yet been investigated. I cannot help saying, however, that nothing, in my opinion, could be more unfortunate than the course which has been taken by my hon. Friend the Member for Finsbury. He professes the greatest anxiety that there should be no disturbance or breach of the peace in consequence of any ill feeling on account of what has taken place; but I think that it would have been very difficult for my hon. Friend to concoct a speech which should be more calculated to inflame the passions and to excite the irritable feelings of people out of doors than the speech which he has delivered this evening. My hon. Friend first tells the people that they have been brutally ill-treated by the police; and then he informs them that they need expect no satisfaction from the Home Office. After the statement of the Secretary of State for the Home Department, that he will afford the fullest inquiry into the subject, I am sure there is no man in the House who doubts for a moment that the inquiry is intended to be full and ample. If, after this discussion, there should be a disturbance next Sunday, in consequence of what occurred last Sunday and of what has taken place in the House to-day, I am bound to say that I think that disturbance will be attributable, not to the conduct of the Secretary of State for the Home Department, but to the very ill-advised remarks which have been made to-night by my hon. Friend the Member for Finsbury.
MR. G. DUNDAS: I am very glad that the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down has brought back the attention of the House to the subject which was first raised by the hon. Member for Westminster, because I am anxious to say a word upon the conduct of the police on Sunday last, against whom there seems to be a set made by gentlemen who in a manner assume to be, in a peculiar degree, the friends of the
530
people. I happened to be in Hyde Park on Sunday last, and I must say that I never saw greater forbearance and moderation exhibited upon any occasion than was then exhibited by the police. The mob consisted in a great measure of boys and young men under twenty; and I ask you to fancy to yourself, Sir, a mob of such a character leaning over the iron railings, and screeching and hallooing at every carriage that passed, and evincing the most intense delight when their hallooings frightened the horses of a carriage and endangered the lives of those who happened to be in it. I saw the police attempt to drive back that canaille from the rails. They did it with the utmost moderation. No doubt they hit some of them; but the rascally boys deserved much greater punishment than any that was inflicted upon them. I also saw a man get his face cut open, and much he was making of it; but we all know how small a blow will bring blood, and how little blood will make a great show. I do not pretend, Sir, to have much experience in the forms of this House; but I extremely regret that such a demonstration as that of last Sunday should have induced the noble Lord the Member for Middlesex (Lord R. Grosvenor) to withdraw his Bill. I hardly think that it was a very dignified proceeding on the part of this House to yield to that popular clamour. So, we are threatened with another demonstration next Sunday, and men are to go armed in order to defy the authority of the police! I hope that the right hon. Baronet will take efficient means to prevent any such ebullition. I may remind the right hon. Baronet that prevention is better than cure; I will go further, and say that nothing will frighten a mob more than the crash upon the pavement of the trail of a 6-pounder. [Cries of "Oh!" and some sensation.]
MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, the public were under great obligations to his hon. Friend the Member for Finsbury, for bringing forward the subject; and for having obtained from the right hon. Gentleman the promise that a full and searching inquiry would be instituted. He believed that that assurance would be the means of preventing any further disturbance. The people of this country were anxious for upholding the laws and the preservation of the peace; and any occurrence was to be deprecated that irritated them with their own servants—for the police were paid, not by the Government

531
but by those very people—by the ratepayers of the metropolis. They were the servants of the ratepayers, for the purpose of preserving, and not committing a breach of, the peace. He was convinced, from the statements he had heard, that, when an inquiry took place, it would be found that the conduct of the police had been perfectly unjustifiable; and he hoped that the right hon. Baronet would cause such an inquiry to be made as would be the means of allaying the irritation now felt by the whole population of the metropolis, and pretty nearly by all classes, against the police. It was of great importance that the great body of the people should have confidence in the Government; and that when any attempt at a breach of the peace was made by the police especially, the Government should institute a rigid inquiry into the cause of it. He thanked the hon. Member for having brought forward this question, and hoped that it would lead to a settlement of the matter.

INCOME-TAX—THE OFFICERS SERVING IN THE CRIMEA.
MR. H. BAILLIE: I wish to take this opportunity of directing the attention of the noble Lord at the head of the Government to a grievance of which I believe the officers now serving in the Crimea have just reason to complain. It is that those who are now pouring out their blood and sacrificing their lives to maintain the honour and glory of the country are also called upon to sacrifice their pay, and are compelled, in the shape of income-tax, to contribute to the expenses of the war, It is very well for us who are at home to contribute to those expenses; but those who are suffering all the evils that such a war of necessity entails, are, I think, entitled to our consideration, because I look upon it as a positive injustice to subject them to a pecuniary loss. This tax falls with peculiar severity upon a deserving class of young officers who, having no private fortune, enter the army really as a profession; and it is the more unjust to them, since officers who embark for India are relieved from the payment of the tax. Officers in India, moreover, receive much higher pay than others. I will call the attention of the House to the case of two regiments, the 10th Hussars and the 14th Light Dragoons, which have just been sent from India to the Crimea. The moment that those regiments land in the
532
Crimea the officers will lose half their pay, and they will be subjected to income-tax upon the remainder. That is not a way in which we should reward officers who are engaged in a most difficult service, from which, perhaps, more than half of them may never return.
MR. W. S. KNOX: May I also ask the noble Lord a question about the shilling a day which is stated to have been promised in another place to the soldiers in the Crimea? I understand that there has been some mistake upon the subject. Will the noble Lord therefore explain what extra pay is to be given to the soldier, and whether it is also to be allowed to those who have returned from the Crimea, and who have been in all the battles?
VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: In reply to the question of the hon. Member for Inverness-shire, I have to say that the income tax, as it is well known, is by law imposed upon all payments made to public servants, and, therefore, it applies by law to all officers, whether serving at home or abroad, subject to those variations only which depend on the amount of their incomes, whether above or under 100 l. It is true, as the hon. Gentleman stated, that the officers of the British regiments serving in the East Indies do not pay the income tax; but the reason, as he must know, is, that those regiments are not paid by the Government; they are transferred to the service of the East India Company, and are paid out of the revenues of that company, and, of course, the Act imposing the income tax does not apply to their salaries. But those officers who are on leave, or on service at home, receiving their pay from the Government, to be reimbursed by the East India Company, are subject to the tax. With respect to the ground on which the hon. Member thinks that officers serving in the Crimea ought to be exempted, I would remind him that officers upon active service have a daily allowance, called field allowance, in addition to their pay, which is more than they would gain by the remission of the income tax. That brings me to the question put by the hon. Member (Mr. Knox) who wished to know what has been done in pursuance of the announcement made by Lord Panmure in another place. The arrangement intended is this—officers on service now receive a daily allowance, under the denomination of field allowance, to meet the additional expenses of the campaign. It is proposed to extend to

533
the private an allowance of the same kind, and that allowance will be an allowance of 6d. a day, which will be accounted for to the man in the same manner as his pay, with an arrangement which will give him the same means of transmitting any portion of his pay and allowance which he may please to his friends and family at home. He will, therefore, be placed on the same footing as the navy is placed with regard to the facilities of homo transmission. That field allowance will give him the means of obtaining those comforts which are requisite in the position in which he is placed; and on the other hand he will be enabled to make more easy remittances to his friends while he is employed abroad.
COLONEL KNOX, in reference to the statement of the noble Lord the Minister for War in the other House, that the soldiers in the Crimea were to have double pay from the time they landed there, said that considerable misconception existed on the subject, and he was glad to hear it stated that the increase of pay was to be given in the shape of field allowances. He did not think the object of increasing the number of men in the army would be attained if the additional pay were given only to regiments serving in the Crimea. Every man would be wanting to serve in the Crimea, and, as that was impossible, it would be a great hardship upon regiments serving in India, America, or the West Indies, for them to receive only 1s. while other regiments were receiving 2s. or 1s. 6d. a day. He thought the plan of field allowances infinitely better, and he trusted the Government would take into consideration the granting of those allowances from the time the men first landed in the Crimea. He also submitted that the deductions for income-tax from the pay of officers could be surrendered without danger to the revenue, while it would give great satisfaction to the officers of the army, and benefit them very materially.

THE DEBATE ON THE HYDE PARK DIS- TURBANCES—NOTICE OF THE WORDS OF AN HON. MEMBER.
MR. ROEBUCK: Sir, I rise to speak on a very serious matter. Words have been used in this House which ought not to be used by English Gentlemen in the House of Commons. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Linlithgowshire (Mr. G. Dundas) has recommended to the Secretary of State for the Home Department to use a 6-pounder against the people.
MR. G. DUNDAS: All that I meant to imply was that the right hon. Gentleman should have a military force in attendance.
MR. ROEBUCK: Then, Sir, I suppose the hon. Member will apologise for his words.
MR. SPEAKER: The rule of the House with regard to words spoken by any hon. Member to which exception is taken is, that the exception must be taken immediately. Since the hon. Member has spoken another hon. Member has addressed the House; therefore, no exception can now be taken to the words used, whatever they may have been.
MR. ROEBUCK: I rose immediately after the hon. Gentleman to make that Motion, but I was interrupted. You happened to see my hon. Friend the Member for Lambeth, and, being unwilling to press myself on the attention of the House, I yielded; but I rose for the purpose of moving that the hon. Member's words should be taken down. I think that no man who feels as an Englishman and a Gentleman in this House ought to have used such expressions concerning the people of this country as were used by the hon. Member for Linlithgowshire. First of all, the hon. Gentleman called them canaille; then he took exception to their intense expression of enjoyment; and, thirdly, he recommended the right hon. Gentleman to use a 6-pounder against them. I say that such conduct is unworthy of an English Gentleman. I may use strong language, but it is not stronger than the occasion justifies. Sir, the people of this metropolis deem themselves unjustly treated. I am not one of those who think that the noble Lord the Member for Middlesex did wisely in yielding to the clamour of last Sunday, and I was the only one who took notice of the want of wisdom in yielding to that clamour; therefore, I cannot be charged with being a friend to a course of conduct which would have the effect of giving way to popular clamour. It is, however, a very different thing to recommend to the right hon. Gentleman to use a 6-pounder. It is all very well to say that he did not intend such a construction to be put upon his words; but I suppose that the hon. Gentleman has reached the years of discretion, and knows the force of language, though, judging from that language, it would not seem that he has. Such language, however, was used; it has but one signification, and that signification was unworthy

535
of this House, and unworthy of the party who used it. However, as you, Sir, have decided that the words cannot now be taken down, I will not press the matter further.
Afterwards—
MR. G. DUNDAS: Sir, a few moments ago I was betrayed into the use of an expression to which a meaning different from that which was in my mind has been attached, and therefore I regret having made use of it. I can only say that I throw myself upon the indulgence of the House. All that I meant to say was, that I hoped the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department would not spare any efforts to maintain peace and order next Sunday.

STEAM POSTAL COMMUNICATION WITH AUSTRALIA—QUESTION.
SIR JOHN PAKINGTONasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he had received copies of a circular of the Governors of the Australian Colonies, containing the description of a plan for the establishment of regular steam postal communications with these Colonies?
LORD JOHN RUSSELLreplied that the Treasury had under their control and management the mails for Australia, and that his hon. Friend the Secretary for the Treasury would state what arrangements were in operation or in contemplation.
MR. WILSONsaid, that the arrangement made for the conveyance of the mails to Australia by the Cape of Good Hope had been abandoned. But with regard to the contract for communicating every two months by way of India, that contract was not abandoned, but only suspended, in consequence of the number of ships belonging to the Peninsular and Oriental Company employed by the Government in the conveyance of troops to the Black Sea, and which the Company had been unable to replace on the packet service. However, a proposal had been made by the Admiralty, at the request of the Treasury, to the Peninsular and Oriental Company, to make an offer to the Government for the purpose of carrying the mails every month by way of India, but as yet no answer had been received, the Company having to wait for some information from the East that might regulate their offer, and hoping that some vessels now in the employment of the Government would be shortly at their disposal. He could assure the right hon. Gentleman the subject was one which
536
the Government felt the liveliest interest in, and no effort would be spared to secure a monthly communication with our Australian colonies as soon as possible.

GRANTS TO OFFICERS' WIDOWS.
MR. RICHwished to bring under the notice of the House the heavy charge and serious consequences that might ensue from grants to the widows of officers killed in action, as compensation for the price of the commissions which their husbands might have purchased. He hoped that the system of purchase, which was fairly worn out, would shortly be put an end to, whereby the country would be rid of an incubus slowly and effectually. His object in rising on the present occasion was to obtain from the Government some explanation with regard to the course which they intended to pursue. He understood the Government was prepared to grant sums equivalent to the value of the commissions of those officers who fell in battle; but he could not learn whether this applied only to officers who had purchased their commissions, or to officers generally. But could the Government confine this regulation to officers who fell in battle, and exclude those who died of their wounds, or from exposure in the trenches, or marches? It was impossible to confine it; it must extend to all the officers in the field. This would involve a great expense, and the country ought to know all the circumstances. It would be unjust to confine it to those who had purchased their commissions, for had not those officers who had been in the army twenty or thirty years just as good a latent right to sell their commissions, and were not their widows and families entitled to the same consideration? The more so, because it was presumable that the widows and families of officers who had not been able to purchase their commissions were in worse circumstances than those of others. He hoped the noble Lord would give a full explanation of the views of the Government on this point.
MR. HEADLAMwas anxious to say a few words before the noble Lord offered an explanation. He was willing to accept the arrangement of the Government, as a concession in the right direction, but he was far from thinking that it went far enough. He thought, however, that both the House and the army had reason to complain of the delay on the part of the Government in submitting their proposal. It should be recollected that he (Mr. Headlam) had

537
given a notice on that subject at a very early period of the Session. On that occasion the Government had promised a distinct proposition of their own. Nevertheless, up to this moment they had no precise knowledge of that proposition. Now, the subject was a very serious one, for death had been rife with the army, and he himself had received more than one application from the friends of deceased officers in reference to it. He thought it was only due to the representatives of the families of those that had died in the service—due to those who day by day were risking their lives, to have precise information as to the intentions of the Government.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, his noble Friend Lord Panmure had hoped before this to have been able to put the arrangement in such a shape as that it could have been communicated to Parliament. However, unexpected difficulties had presented themselves, which were not yet overcome, and hence the delay which had occurred.

COMPENSATION FOR LOSS OF CHARGERS—QUESTION.
LORD W. GRAHAMwished to ask the Under Secretary for War on what principle, and by whom, whether at home or abroad, the compensation to officers for the loss of their horses had been awarded? In the first place, he would observe that nothing over 50 l. was ever allowed to any officer for compensation for the loss of his charger. Now, for a first-rate charger that was a very small sum, while even that amount was only given in the case of officers of the highest rank. Thus Brigadier Estcourt, Sir Colin Campbell, and General Pennefather, each got 50 l., while Colonel Haly got but 35 l., Major Hume 27 l., and Lieutenent Warren only 23 l. It seemed to him that there ought to be a uniform rate of compensation, the more especially as it was given not so much according to the value of the horses, but on account of the difficulty of replacing them. And the same uniform principle extended to the loss of bat horses. Thus General Pennefather got 14 l. for the loss of his horse, while an unfortunate lieutenant, Hopkinson, only got 1l. 10 s.

WOUNDED SOLDIERS IN THE CRIMEA— QUESTION.
MR. STAFFORDalso wished to ask the Under Secretary for War a question of which ho gave notice yesterday, and
538
which he did not then bring before the House in compliance with the wish expressed by the hon. Gentleman. Several Members of the House had probably seen a letter, published in The Times of yesterday, purporting to have been written by an army surgeon in the Crimea, and he felt convinced that no hon. Gentleman could have read that letter without feelings of the strongest possible indignation. The letter referred to the arrangements made for the reception of the wounded on the 18th of June last, and the writer made the following statements—
"At five a.m. a ward was given over to me. It contained no patients. I was requested to see what was wanted for it. I found in it fourteen wretched shaky bedsteads, as many mattresses stuffed with chopped straw, the mattresses not sewn up at the sides, and sheets and blankets to correspond. This was all—not a single chamber utensil, not a cup, knife, fork, or spoon—no large vessel for holding water—nothing but what I have named. I immediately applied for the various things deficient. Drinking-cups there were none; one chamber utensil only I could have for the whole ward, and two bedpans; nothing to hold water or tea—no plates The wounded began to arrive; that ward was soon filled; others were given over to me in exactly the same predicament. One orderly was given to attend on fourteen wounded men, not one of whom was able to move. Each ward was the same. The constant cry of the wounded was for water. We had nothing to give it them in. Old tin cases that had contained preserved meats were eagerly sought for, but out of these they could not drink, except by a most painful effort, as, of course, they had to be raised up in bed. I proceeded to dress the wounds; the orderly given me had never done that duty before, and when I asked him to give me lint strapping and gutta-percha he did not know what those articles were. Every moment he was called away to give a drink to some wounded man. Well, Sir, during the whole of that day the wounded had nothing to eat, and not enough to drink. During the night of the 18th the wounded came crowding in; some of them were admitted by the orderlies, without having seen a medical officer, and, consequently, not having been seen, their wounds were not dressed till morning. Yesterday the only food given to these poor creatures until nine o'clock at night was hard biscuit and tea! There was no bread for them, no arrowroot, no beef tea—nothing except tea without milk! I did not find this out until the bread had arrived, or certainly, as long as any bread was to be bought, my own men should have had some. We were occupied incessantly all yesterday and the day before in dressing and operating. As soon as one man was removed from the operating-table, another was put on. I have not time, Sir, to write more, or I could give many further particulars. I think these facts need no comment. I can vouch for every word I have written. Though I do not wish my name to be published, you are at liberty to give it to any of the authorities, or to any one who wishes to investigate the matter further. I beg to state that I am not a civilian surgeon, finding fault with what I do not understand.

539
I am in the army, and, being in the army, it is, perhaps, to use an official term, 'indiscreet' to write this letter. Nor am I a non-professional person writing to The Times to complain that a man with a ball through his shoulder suffers pain; but, case-hardened and tough though a professional life has rendered me, I cannot see brave men suffering unnecessarily without indignation. I have written strongly because I feel strongly. Your medical readers will understand the frightful deficiency of stores when I mention that there are no splints, except straight ones, to be had, and that there are no M'Intyre's splints, nor any modification of them, and no angular splints. All these things are stored in the most lavish profusion at Scutari."
He trusted he should not he told by the hon. Gentleman that he had taken these statements hap-hazard from a newspaper, and that it would have been more fair to wait for an explanation before he brought them under the notice of the House. It must be remembered that these statements were made by a paper which was denounced and contradicted during the whole of the autumn and winter, but which, by degrees, had had the whole of its previous terrible statements so completely borne out that the truth of none of them could now be denied. This was not the only reason which had induced him to bring the subject before the House. The information received by the Government with regard to the health and the treatment of the troops, and the supply of medical necessaries and comforts, was derived from a man of whom the Sebastopol Committee had expressed the following opinions—
"Your Committee are totally at a loss to comprehend the report of Dr. Hall, more especially with regard to the Barrack Hospital, the scene of so much misery and suffering, Dr. Hall having reported the hospitals at Scutari to be in as good a state as could reasonably be expected."
The Government could not comfort themselves with the belief, after such an expression of opinion on the part of the Committee, that they could rely on the statements of Dr. Hall, who was charged, not only with having given no information, but with having supplied misinformation on this most important and vital subject. He wished to ask whether the attention of the Government had been called to the letter to which he had referred; whether they had any reason to doubt its authenticity; whether they would be willing to avail themselves of the offer made by the writer of that letter to give his name; and whether they would fully and fearlessly investigate this painful subject? Statements had been made before the Commis-
540
sion less generally known than those made before the Sebastopol Committee, which, although they caused the hearts of those who heard them to chill with horror, were highly honourable to the regimental surgeons, who came forward, notwithstanding the risk to their own professional advancement, to bring under the notice of the country the sufferings of the poor patients committed to their charge. It was not possible to exaggerate the eulogies due to these men. Even putting the question upon the lowest ground, the life of a soldier, looking upon it as a mere mercantile firm would do, could not be valued at less than 200 l. The country could not have any confidence in the head of the Medical Department after the charges which had been brought against him by the Sebastopol Committee, and it could not, therefore, but be expected that statements like that which he had just read would be made from time to time in the papers, and would be read by the country with indignation, but with the strongest belief in their veracity.

BILLETING OF THE MILITIA IN SCOT- LAND—QUESTION.
MR. COWANput the following question to the Under Secretary for War. If a letter from the Commissioners of Police for the city of Edinburgh, which was addressed to Mr. Cowan, and was by him transmitted to Lord Panmure in March last, has received the consideration of the War Department, and whether any of the suggestions therein contained for the removal of the existing irritation caused by the billeting of soldiers and militiamen upon private families in Scotland are likely to be adopted? Also, if the Under Secretary for War is now prepared to name a time when either by the erection of a camp, by the militia being accommodated in temporary or permanent barracks, or otherwise, the localities upon which they are now quartered will be relieved from the burden which is laid upon them? He had received no reply to his letter, or he might have been spared the necessity of bringing the subject before the House. He had learnt from Mr. Ramsey, Lord Panmure's private secretary, that several of the suggestions were considered of the highest value, and that one or more of them would be adopted. Since then he had heard nothing further on the subject. The law regulating the billeting of the militia was entirely different in Scotland

541
to that which prevailed in this country. Here they were billeted upon licensed victuallers and publichouses—in Scotland upon private families. Though the number of militia embodied in Scotland was only about 3,000, the grievance was by no means a small one, for the burden fell upon a small number of householders in the market towns. At Dalkeith, for instance, the 400 militia for the county were billeted upon about the same number of inhabitants. Such was the intense discomfort felt, that people were speaking of openly resisting the law. Dr. Jeffries, of Dalkeith, spoke of the scenes of drunkenness and blasphemy in that town as most revolting. Vermin of various kinds was introduced into the houses, and disease was often the result. He spoke as the medical attendant of some of the individuals. He put it to hon. Gentlemen whether in the case of their own menials they would tolerate such an outrage on the sanctity of their homes. He hoped the hon. Gentleman and the noble Lord at the head of the Government, either by the erection of huts for the encampment of the regiments, or in some other way, would with the shortest possible delay take steps for the removal of the cause of this immorality and disease.
MR. F. PEELstated, in answer to the question of the noble Lord the Member for Grantham (Lord W. Graham), that compensation to officers for the loss of their horses was awarded under the regulations laid down by the Horse Guards according to the rank of the officers. In reply to the hon. Member for Northamptonshire (Mr. Stafford) he had to state that if the letter of the army surgeon in The Times was to be believed, and was meant to be understood in a literal sense, no doubt the hospitals in the Crimea must be in a most discreditable state, because it appeared from the letter read by the hon. Member (Mr. Stafford) that the hospitals had been very ill-provided indeed. The writer stated that there was a deficiency of water, surgical appliances, and other things, although there was an abundance of the articles in question in supply at Scutari. It was impossible to give an answer to such allegations until he had had an opportunity of referring the statements to Dr. Hall, the head of the medical department of the army in the East, and receiving his reply. From the communications he had received, however, relative to the state of the hospitals, both regimental and general, he had been under the impression that they were
542
very well supplied with everything that was necessary, and that they contained the requisite number of medical men. The statement that no specific preparation had been made for the wounded of the 18th seemed to be disproved by a letter of Dr. Hall, written on the 18th, a portion of which he would read. Dr. Hall said—
"In anticipation of the attack, I gave directions the evening before that temporary field hospitals should be established as far in advance down the ravines as safety would admit; that tents, an abundance of water, stimulants, and surgical appliances should be provided, so that aid might be at hand for those who required immediate assistance, and that the right attack should be under the direction of Staff-Surgeon Logan, and the left under that of Staff-Surgeon Paynter. Deputy Inspector-General of Hospitals Taylor established his field hospital down the Picket-house Ravine, and remained there for five hours himself. These tempory establishments were found of the greatest comfort and use, and should there be any future occasion of this kind, I will see that they are established for all the divisions. As the men were dressed, and the same with those that did not urgently require it, they were placed in the small chairs or litters, and sent up either to their own regimental hospital or to the general hospital which has been established in camp. We found the chairs and litters of the greatest use in bringing the wounded from the trenches and up the ravines, where waggons could not travel, and I am sorry the whole 200 are not here. A party of 250 Croats, in addition to the regimental bandsmen, were also employed in removing the wounded from the field, and the whole duty was performed in a speedy and very satisfactory manner."
He could not, therefore, believe that the statement of the army surgeon could be borne out; but a copy of his letter had been sent to Dr. Hall, and an explanation had been called for. That the letter was genuine he had no doubt, and, with reference to the offer to give up his name, he thought it would facilitate the inquiry and render it more full if the offer were accepted. With regard to the grievance of billeting complained of by the hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. Cowan) he could add nothing to what he had stated on the same subject last week. It was necessary, where a militia regiment was embodied, that they should be collected together and quartered in some place possessing a sufficient number of houses for the reception of the men. Arrangements, however, were being made for removing militiamen out of billets as soon as possible.
MR. WATSONwished to call the attention of the Government to the fact that due rewards and encouragement had not

543
been extended to the merits of the medical officers in the hospitals in the East. Many of them had lost their health and some their lives in the performance of their duties. No rewards had been held out to them by the Government, although the unwearied attention which they had paid to officers and men was the theme of admiration among the whole army. He could mention the name of Dr. Macgregor and of others who had distinguished themselves in this dangerous and ill-requited service. The danger to which the soldier was exposed, who, in the excitement of the moment made a charge or who stormed a battery, was nothing as compared with that which awaited the medical officer, who, amid sickness and death, struggled night and day amid the pestilential atmosphere of an hospital to alleviate the sufferings of their fellow men. He called upon the Government, if they were capable of doing an act of justice, to reward and promote the men who were making such sacrifices for their country.
MR. PERCYsaid, if the Report of the Sebastopol Committee were worth anything, the Government would not refer to Dr. Hall again. They would take precautions to obtain more certain information than, in a former instance, was obtained from Dr. Hall.
MR.W.EWARTsaid, the Under-Secretary of War (Mr. F. Peel) had entirely misconceived the nature of the objection, which was not against the number of soldiers, but against their being all billeted in particular localities. On the part of the army, as well as on the part of the people of Scotland, he entreated the Government to form an encampment as speedily as possible in Scotland. It would be infinitely better, both for the soldiers and for the population. There should be one encampment in England, one in Scotland, and one in Ireland, and they would soon have a good and permanent army.
Motion that the House at its rising do adjourn to Monday next agreed to.

THE DIPLOMATIC SERVICE.
On the Motion that the Speaker do leave the chair, in order that the House might go into Committee of Supply,
MR. W. EWARTasked the noble Lord at the head of the Government if any measures had been taken to establish a system of examination of candidates for the diplomatic and consular service?
VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, a sys-
544
tem of examination was under consideration. The plan was not yet arranged, but as soon as it was arranged every information would be given to the House.

UNFENCED MACHINERY.
Order for Committee read.
Motion made and Question proposed, "That the Speaker do now leave the chair."
COLONEL DUNNE COLONEL DUNNE rose to move an Address for Copies of all correspondence between the Secretary of State for the Home Department and certain magistrates of Oldham, on the subject of a prosecution before the said magistrates of a manufacturer for having on his premises unfenced machinery, from which neglect the death of an idividual resulted. When the manufacturer was brought before the magistrates of Oldham, they refused to convict; it was clear, in the opinion of the Inspectors of Factories, that a conviction ought to have taken place, and the correspondence for which he moved had ensued with the noble Lord (Viscount Palmerston) who was then Home Secretary. What he wished to draw attention to more particularly was, that in the case to which this correspondence referred, and in which the manufacturer had been acquitted, three out of five of the magistrates on the Bench were themselves manufacturers, and were interested in not convicting, and they could allege no reason for dismissing the case. He understood the noble Lord, then the Secretary of State for the Home Department, was of opinion that conviction ought to have taken place. Upon the matter being brought to his (Colonel Dunne's) notice, he applied to the Government, and was informed by the Under-Secretary that the correspondence was not finished, and therefore it would be improper to produce any portion at that time. The correspondence was now complete, but the present Home Secretary refused to produce it, and therefore it became necessary for him (Colonel Dunne) to call the attention of the House to the subject. The first point which struck him was that magistrates who were manufacturers, and probably themselves daily committing a breach of the law, were not fit persons to sit in judgment upon such complaints. He found that two of the magistrates who refused to convict were themselves guilty of having unfenced machinery in their factories; and he would assert that in no other part of the kingdom were magistrates

545
allowed to decide upon complaints to which they were themselves obnoxious. He was not very anxious for the papers for which he moved, but wished to elicit from the noble Lord at the head of the Government an expression of opinion that such magistrates ought not to decide upon such cases. He perceived from the public papers that a meeting of manufacturers had lately been held in Manchester for the purpose of raising a fund to meet prosecutions of this nature, and to his surprise one of the chief arguments used on that occasion was that the proportions of deaths from machinery was only one in 10,000 a week, while the Government were killing men in the Crimea at the rate of 1,000 a week out of 40,000; and, therefore, they had no right to interfere with machinery. As he had said, he was very much surprised at such an argument, until he found that the chairman of that meeting, Mr. R. Hyde Gregg was a member of that very ferocious association the Peace Society. Now, how stood the facts? He had some time ago moved for Returns on the subject, and from those he found that since the year 1845 up to the end of last year no fewer than 38,000 and odd persons had suffered death, or amputation, or fracture, or some serious injury, by accidents from machinery; and if they added the proper proportion for the subsquent period, that would raise the number who had suffered fatal or serious injury from machinery in the last ten years to 42,900. Such a number as that in so short a period, he thought, showed how much the question deserved their serious attention, especially when they found the whole amount of fines levied on those negligent manufacturers in the same period was only 700 1., of which, too, a large portion had been remitted. The law required that machinery should be boxed or fenced in to the height of seven feet from the floor. It was not for him to say how that defence shoud be provided, but it was for the Legislature to insist that in some way or another there should be such a defence. He was satisfied that the noble Lord at the head of the Government, and indeed, every Member of that House, must feel the intensest horror in contemplating the accidents which took place so frequently in mills, and that they would be but too glad to interfere in order to prevent mischievous results arising from the operations of the association to which he had referred. Only within the last few days he had received information of two
546
horrible accidents having occurred in mills at Oldham, and which were attributed to the fact that the victims were engaged in oiling the machinery whilst it was in motion. One was the case of a young man twenty-two years of age, the other that of a mere child; and he contended that Parliament was bound in humanity to provide for the enforcement of the law, with the view of securing the safety of the poor people who were employed in these mills, if the manufacturers and mill-owners failed to make such provision themselves. It was said by some persons that unless scope was given to trade foreign competition might prove dangerous, but surely the fear of foreign competition should not be compared with a question involving the loss of human life. Children and young persons were placed in the midst of machinery in which the fluttering of their dresses alone might entangle them, and if it did then they were destroyed. He thought that the Government were bound in common humanity to provide against such a state of things by law, and rigidly to enforce that law. They might see by the reports of the Inspectors that there was no possible species of evasion of the law that was not resorted to at this moment in different mills. The names of the mills and the parties who infringed the law were mentioned in the reports; and if the law was not clear upon the subject of fencing the machinery, and also as to the hours of labour in factories, Parliament ought at once to interfere, amend that law, and make it so stringent that it would be impossible to evade it. He might be asked, why he, a person who was altogether unconnected with the manufacturing districts, should have taken up the question? His only answer to that was, that having, some years ago, been quartered with his regiment there, he had been witness to the operation of the factory system, and that he was actuated simply by motives of humanity, in doing so. The hon. and gallant Member moved for the production of the papers to which he referred, and intimated that on a future occasion he should move a Resolution with regard to the conduct of the magistrates, who, having themselves been convicted of offences against the Factory Act, had, nevertheless, sat and adjudicated upon cases of unfenced machinery and the employment of hands at illegal hours.
Amendment proposed, to leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words—

547
"An humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, that She will be graciously pleased to give directions that there be laid before this House, Copies of all Correspondence between the Secretary of State for the Home Department and certain Magistrates of Oldham, on the subject of a prosecution before the said Magistrates of a manufacturer, for having on his premises unfenced machinery, from which neglect the death of an individual resulted."
VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, that as far as he was concerned, he had no objection to the production of the papers. The case was this. An accident had occurred, as the hon. and gallant Member had stated. The case was brought before some magistrates, and they dismissed it. He (Viscount Palmerston) was not satisfied with the grounds upon which the magistrates had so dismissed that case, and he had expressed his opinion in writing to them accordingly. Thereupon ensued a correspondence; and after he quitted the Home Office he had an interview with some of those magistrates, of whom he was bound to say, in the first place, that they were men of the highest respectability, and that he did not at all concur with the hon. and gallant officer in thinking that the circumstance of their being millowners or the employers of workmen had at all influenced them in performing their duty as magistrates. In that particular case he thought they had taken a partial view of the matter; but upon representation made verbally, and by official communications addressed to his right hon. Friend who was now at the Home Office, he believed they had satisfied his right hon. Friend that he (Viscount Palmerston) had been mistaken in his view of the law of the case, that they were borne out strictly by the law in dismissing the case as it was brought before them, and that, therefore, no imputation of any kind could possibly rest upon them in consequence of their having dismissed that particular case. With regard to the Motion of the hon. and gallant Member, though as far as he was concerned he might not, after a time, have any objection to the production of the papers—for he believed their production would be rather to the credit of the magistrates than calculated to throw any imputation upon them—yet, considering the manner in which the Motion came before the House, and that the granting of it would supersede the Committee of Supply, he felt it to be his duty to oppose the Motion, and meet this particular request with a negative.
MR. W. J. FOXdenied that the magistrates to whom the hon. and gallant Member referred had acted with injustice or had violated the law. The hon. and gallant Member said that some of them had been convicted themselves; but why? Simply for the purpose of making out a case upon which to get the decision of a superior court of law. It was impossible to guard people under all circumstances against the consequences of their own folly or ignorance in obtruding themselves where they had no business; and in this case it happened that the man whose life was unfortunately lost had no occasion whatever to meddle with the strap by which he was caught. It was not his duty. He had not been requested by any one to do it; it was in charge of another man; and the millowners were no more responsible for the accident which ensued than were the shareholders of a railway for the death of a man who had the folly to jump off a platform at the moment a train was passing at full speed along the line. On these grounds it was that the magistrates dismissed the case. In their decision they were perfectly unanimous; and the allegation of interest could not be urged with much reason against two, nor with any reason against the other, of them; for if reference were made to the Reports of the Inspectors, it would be seen that these very men had in many instances dealt severely with offences that had been committed by their own class. He had only further to observe on behalf of the magistrates, that they had not objected, and did not now object, to the production of the correspondence; they had only demurred to its production at a moment when it was incomplete.
MR. HEYWOODsaid, that on account of the rapid movements of machinery in factories, there must sometimes be accidents; but in many cases they were attributable to the extreme foolhardiness of the sufferers themselves. In the present day, there was much too great a disposition evinced to interfere with the occupations of the people; and as to those magistrates, he believed they were as honest a set of men in adjudicating the cases that came before them as any squires or other body of men in the country. Whenever cases in which they were personally interested came before them, they at once absented themselves from the bench. He believed, too, that their decisions were correct, and in one instance he knew that it had been

549
confirmed by the Judges of the laud. With regard to the association to which the hon. and gallant Member had alluded, he (Mr. Heywood) believed that it was called for by the circumstances of the times; that the owners of mills were perfectly right in forming it, and that they had conducted its operations with great judgment and discretion. He should hardly have deemed them worthy of the character of Englishmen if they had tamely submitted to be interfered with and tyrannised over by the central authority when satisfied that they were in the right; and he had no doubt that the association would be maintained until wise legislation was adopted in respect of the manufacturing interest.
SIR G. GREYsaid, that the objection formerly urged against the production of the papers could not now be raised; but at the same time he thought that their production; would only tend to revive questions which were now set at rest. At the same time, if the magistrates asked for them for their own justification, he should have no objection to produce them, together with the legal opinion which had been taken. With regard to the proper protection of machinery, he thought that there was no great difficulty in the matter. It all depended upon the construction put upon the word "fencing." If it were supposed that the Act required a solid casing round the shafts, extending sometimes to a mile in length, if the whole measurement were taken, it would subject the millowners to a ruinous expense; and by a recent decision of Mr. Justice Creswell it had been held that the Act was sufficiently complied with where it was proved that proper precautions, such as a reasonable man ought to take against accidents, had been adopted.
MR. MAGUIREgave full credit to the hon. and gallant Member for the motives which actuated him in bringing forward this question. His object was not to criminate these magistrates; but he (Mr. Maguire) defied any gentleman to take up and read one of the reports of the Inspectors without feeling extreme horror at the contents, and admitting that there were most powerful reasons for the executive Government putting forth all its strength for the protection of the workpeople from accidents which must be ever occurring as long as the law was not enforced. Mr. Hollings, one of the Inspectors of Factories, plainly stated that "no caution or
550
foresight on the part of the workman would save him from the perils of an unfenced shaft;" and he believed that these magistrates were not above suspicion, for it appeared from the Inspectors' statement that three of them had mills with the machinery unfenced.
MR. COWANbegged to bear testimony to the fact that a very large proportion of these accidents were occasioned by the recklessness and foolhardiness of the persons employed, but still he thought that the law should compel the millowners to do their duty by providing sufficient protection. There were some persona who were very careless of the lives of their workmen. For instance, he recollected once going over a mill, and pointing out that the machinery was very dangerous, when, the owner said, in a most unfeeling manner—"Oh! there are plenty of other people to be got." It was necessary that some stringent regulations should be adopted on this subject, and he hoped that the task would be undertaken by the Government.
MR. CHEETHAMbelieved it would be found that the magistrates had conducted themselves on the occasion referred to with justice and propriety. Exaggerated statements had been made as to the number of accidents resulting from unfenced machinery. No class of employers, in his opinion, conducted their business with greater regard to the interests of those they employed; but it was a moot question whether the fencing of shafts above a certain height would have the effect of preventing accidents, and the evidence given before the magistrates tended rather to prove that it would, in some cases, only increase the danger.
MR. W. BROWNthought that the production of the correspondence would vindicate the conduct of the magistrates.
MR. J. G. PHILLIMOREsaid, if the present law were bad it ought to be repealed, but it ought not to be violated; and if the statement of the Inspector were true, that two men in the prime of life had lost their lives, within six weeks, in one district through the neglect of the owners to obey a clear law, some alteration was required.
SIR G. GREYhad not the slightest objection to produce the papers, but he hoped the hon. and gallant Gentleman would not press the Motion to a division, so as to prevent the House going into Committee of Supply.
Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question," put and agreed to.
Main Question again proposed.

THE NEGOTIATIONS AT VIENNA.
MR. MILNER GIBSON MR. MILNER GIBSON rose pursuant to notice, to ask for explanations from the Government relative to the opposition of Her Majesty's Ministers to the views of their colleague, the late British Plenipotentiary at the Vienna Conferences, in reference to the plan proposed by Austria to be submitted to Russia for the purpose of putting "an end to Russian preponderance in the Black Sea," as stated in the circular addressed by Count Buol to the diplomatic agents of Austria, dated Vienna, May 25. He had made some inquiries on Tuesday last relative to the policy of Her Majesty's Government in the East, and to a certain statement made in a diplomatic circular which had been published in various continental newspapers. He was afraid that the course he then took did not harmonise with the feelings of the House, although it might be technically within its rules, considering the subject which had just been brought under their notice. But if he had committed any breach of the rules of decorum, he now begged to apologise for having done so, and to state that he had no intention in any way to disparage the character of the late Commander in Chief, or to manifest indifference to the Motion under consideration at the time. The Prime Minister then said, that he would not be led into a discussion which would rouse the venom of the peace party. [Viscount PALMERSTON: "No, I said 'hostility.'"] He had, however, never mentioned the peace party in his inquiries, which would, perhaps, have more appropriately proceeded from a member of the war party, as they related to the proceedings of the Government during the recent occurrences at Vienna, and to matters upon which every Member of Parliament, whether he belonged to the war or to the peace party, had a right to explanation. The noble Lord the Member for London (Lord J. Russell) had accused him of having misrepresented facts; if he had misrepresented facts, it was quite fitting that he should be set right; he should be the last man in the House to make any intentional misrepresentation, and he should be happy to retract any statements he had made which
552
could be shown to be incorrect. His statements were founded on the authority of public documents which had appeared in the newspapeps—authorities, no doubt, not so good as actual access to the papers in the Foreign Office, but still the only ones within his reach. He had to complain, that during the late debates, when the House was invited to come to a most important decision as to the future prosecution of the war, they had not been treated with the consideration and openness they had a right to expect, and that they had not been put in possession of all the occurrences which had transpired at Vienna, or of the real opinions of Her Majesty's Government, which they were entitled to hear, in order that they might be guided to a wise conclusion. They came to what was called an unanimous vote; but was it clear that they would have come to that vote, if important facts that had now peeped out indirectly through public documents from other countries had been put into their possession—if they had been told, for instance, that the British Plenipotentiary at Vienna differed from the Prime Minister, and that the British Plenipotentiary thought that proposals had been made which promised an honourable and safe solution of the dispute between England and Russia? If they had been told at the same time that this proposition had not been submitted to Russia, in consequence of the refusal of the noble Lord's colleagues to take that course, would not many Members have hesitated before they came to the conclusion at which they arrived, those facts not being before them? At any rate, if that were the case—and he had a right to presume that it was—they were now entitled to a frank and candid avowal of the opinions of the Members of the Administration, of the policy they were pursuing in the East, and of the objects they were seeking to accomplish by the war. He had observed, that since the commencement of the war, almost every prediction to which the Government had lent their sanction had been falsified. Whether he looked to their alliances, to their military operations, or to what had been described as their object in the prosecution of the war, in almost every case the events had been the very reverse of the predictions and announcements of the Administration. Why, Sebastopol was to fall last year—soon after Sir C. Napier arrived in the Baltic the First Lord of the Admiralty

553
stated, in reply to a question of, whether Cronstadt had been taken, that he had not yet received official information of that fact. Then, with regard to their alliances, with what countries were they now associated? Yet, they had been told that Austria was to be their active ally—that Prussia was to act with them—that Sweden was eager to lend her forces for their assistance. Then, with regard to the avowed objects of the war, after they had been told by the Duke of Newcastle, in a despatch, that no safe and honourable peace could be concluded without the fall of Sebastopol, did not a Member of the Government of which the Duke was a Member, and also of the Government now in power, go to Vienna for the very purpose of making peace, without saying a word about the fall of Sebastopol, or making that condition a sine quâ non? What, then, was the object of the war? Sometimes it was the fall of Sebastopol, sometimes it was merely the obtainment from the Government of Russia of a stipulation, written on apiece of paper, which every Member of the House thought would not be worth a straw as a security, but could only be intended to humiliate and insult the enemy with whom they were contending. Not one of the extravagant expectations that the Government had sanctioned had been realised. They had even sanctioned the folly which had been talked about a war for liberty, for the restoration of Poland, and the independence of Hungary. All these visions had evaporated, and the House was left more in doubt than ever as to what was the object of the war, and the nature of the policy the Government were pursuing; and he felt, seeing the blood they were lavishingly expending, and the treasure they were wasting, that he was but discharging one of his first duties as a Member of Parliament, by incessantly asking the Government what were the advantages they proposed to confer on the people of this country in consideration of the enormous sacrifices which they called upon the people to make. The Times newspaper said, that the object of the war was so clear that a labouring man could define it. But if that were so, he (Mr. Gibson) must have been entirely out of the way, for although he had been always anxious to obtain information on the subject, he had been unable to arrive at the object of the war. If a labouring man were to ask him what was the object of the war, and for what purpose he had been called upon to make the sa-
554
crifices he was now making—to deny his children education, to curtail the comforts of his humble home—the only answer he could make would be, that the British Government were endeavouring to attach the Ottoman empire more completely to the equilibrium of Europe, and to put an end to the preponderance of Russia in the Black Sea; and that it was worth his while as a labouring man to make what sacrifices we could to assist in accomplishing those objects. He believed that the Government had never told the country what their real object was in the prosecution of this war. They were drifted into it, and they kept drifting on. If ever they had a divided Government in connection with the carrying on of this war, it was his conscientious belief that they had a divided Government now; and, if success depended on having a clear and united opinion in the Government in such a matter as that of carrying on a great war, he saw sufficient division of opinion in the present Government to make success extremely problematical. The foundation of his opinion that there was this division in the Cabinet, he took from the despatch addressed by Count Buol to the different German Powers after the twelfth conference at Vienna. It would be in the recollection of the House, that after the twelfth conference, not the conference which finally concluded the negotiations, but that at which the negotiations were broken off—Count Buol stated, without any opposing remark from either of the Plenipotentiaries present, that although the propositions made by Russia might not be the most desirable mode of settling the question in dispute, and might not satisfy the third basis of the negotiations, still he thought the proposition contained the elements of a solution, and, that in his opinion, it was especially the duty of Austria to endeavour to find out a plan of approaching Russia's proposal which should satisfy the third point, and thus enable peace to be re-established between the belligerents on the basis of the Four Points. Count Buol said—
"If, since the outbreak of hostilities, there was any one moment when more than at another, the restoration of peace might be considered probable, it was the moment when Lord John Russell and M. Drouyn de Lhuys left our capital. The conference, it is true, had only led to the rejection of the propositions made by the belligerent Powers, but upon both sides it appeared to be admitted that those propositions offered the elements of peace; and we were not only able to declare with-

555
out opposition that we believed ourselves especially called to occupy ourselves in seeking out the means of an approximation, but we also put forward a draught of an ultimatum which was to be sent to St. Petersburg, and which we considered not inadmissible by Russia, since an immediate limitation of Russia's sovereign rights in the Black Sea was avoided, but which at the same time seemed so completely to satisfy the object of the third stipulation, and put an end to Russian preponderance in the Black Sea, that the beforenamed Ministers of France and England, in confidential interviews, showed themselves decidedly inclined towards our proposal, and undertook to recommend the name to their Governments with all their influence. This plan of an ultimatum, the rejection of which by Russia we declared ourselves ready to make a casus belli, consisted of two distinct propositions, of which the Russian Government was to take its choice."
He need not go through the details of the propositions. They were much of the same kind as had been laid before the House. The circular proceeded thus:—
"Lord J. Russell, before leaving Vienna, was made acquainted by verbal communication with these proposals. The French Minister, M. Drouyn de Lhuys, who left Vienna some days later, received a written copy of our plan, and undertook to submit it to the examination of his Sovereign and also to bring it before the British Government. It is unnecessary to speak here of the regret with which, very soon after, we received intelligence, not of the hoped-for acceptance of England and France, but, instead, the opposition of the English Ministers to the views of their colleague, and of the resolution of the Emperor Napoleon to relinquish the services of the Minister who had just won the admiration and the confidence of the Austrian Court."
If this document contained a correct account of what occurred, it would seem that at the very moment when the Government were asking Parliament for means to carry on the war with vigour, the noble Lord the Member for the City of London believed that the war was not a matter of necessity, but that the means of solution were in his hands, and that it was only for him to submit the proposal which had been made by Austria to his Government, and thereby enable the belligerents to arrive at an honourable and satisfactory termination of the contest. Was not this a question, then, sufficiently grave to claim the attention of Parliament? Were they prepared to say that there was any man who wished this war to be carried on one instant longer than necessity required, however anxious he might have been in the first instance to take up arms? It appeared to him that the noble Lord the Member for the City of London went to Vienna with the bonâ fide intention of making an honourable peace. He (Mr. Gibson) approved entirely of the
556
declaration made by that noble Lord—it was a declaration of a Statesman, and one which it was worthy of an English Minister to make—when he said that the only terms of peace which were desirable were those that were consistent at once with the honour of Russia and sufficient for the security of Europe. In that spirit it appeared to him the noble Lord was prepared to act; but his instructions, as he said, were exhausted. His colleagues appeared to have entertained different views. They seemed to desire to avoid even the chance of making peace at Vienna, and of preventing the noble Lord from accomplishing what he (Mr. Gibson) believed the noble Lord earnestly desired to accomplish—the putting an end to these unfortunate hostilities. It was known that M. Drouyn de Lhuys thought it impossible for him any longer to hold the office which he had hitherto held in the French Government after the opinions he had expressed at Vienna, and which opinions were precisely similar to those which had also been expressed by the noble Lord the Member for the City of London. Therefore was it that he (Mr. Gibson) asked how could that noble Lord reconcile his retention of office in the present Government if he still retained the opinions he expressed at Vienna? If, indeed, the noble Lord had changed those opinions, and if he no longer thought that the terms proposed by Austria ought to be submitted to the consideration of the British Government, let him frankly avow that change of opinion; and if the noble Lord did so he (Mr. Gibson) would not have one word more to say on the subject. But he could not sit silent while he saw the noble Lord attached to a Government which was pledged to the carrying on of a war to the very indefinite extent of crippling Russia, while he had the consciousness that the noble Lord must believe that the war had been carried on beyond the necessity of the case, and therefore at a wanton sacrifice of the blood and treasure of this country. They had been led to believe that some difficulties had arisen in connection with this last proposal at Vienna with our ally. Was it so? Was it or not the fact that the Emperor of the French, wishing to act in strict accordance with this country, announced to his Minister that, if the British Government would agree to the proposition of Austria being submitted to Russia as an ultimatum, he was willing to acquiesce? That had been asserted in the presence of the British Minister, and it had

557
not been contradicted. It was stated by the hon. Member for the West Riding, and also by the right hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle. The right hon. Gentleman said, the Emperor of the French was not unwilling to accept this proposal; he proposed to the English Government that it should be accepted; and that its rejection took place in consequence of the influence of the English Government being exerted against it, and that consequently, M. Drouyn de Lhuys, who thought it acceptable, had retired from the Council of the Emperor. If these assertions were incorrect, it was high time that the Government should put the country straight, for rumours and statements of this kind made in newspapers must be pernicious if not founded on fact. With regard to the sneers directed against the zeal of Austria, in her alliance with this country, he confessed that he was no admirer of Austrian institutions; but he believed that the feeling entertained with respect to Austria having been treacherous, and of having failed to fulfil her engagements with this country, had chiefly arisen from our having entertained extravagant expectations of what Austria was prepared to undertake—expectations which the Government of England ought to have known were not sufficiently well founded. He had referred to all the documents and to all the treaties to which Austria had been in any way a party, and he did not find in any of them a single paragraph to sustain such expectations. There was not a word throughout the protocols or the treaties which pledged Austria to do anything which she had failed to do. He attributed, therefore, this expression of disappointment to that habit which England seemed to have of supposing that other countries were equally ready to draw the sword in questions in which they were not concerned as she herself was, and that Austria and Prussia, and those various countries with which they were allied, must of necessity see this war in the same point of view as it was seen by Great Britain. The Austrian Government by the treaty of December, 1854, pledged itself to endeavour to make peace by reasonable negotiations. He contended that Austria had fulfilled that engagement. What were the terms of the treaty between Austria, England, and France? They were these—
"Her Majesty the Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, His Majesty the Emperor of Austria, and his Majesty the
558
Emperor of the French, being animated with the desire of terminating the present war at the earliest possible moment, by the re-establishment of a general peace on solid bases, affording to the whole of Europe every guarantee against the return of the complications which have so unhappily disturbed its repose… … The High Contracting Parties refer to the declarations contained in the Protocols of the 9th of April and the 23rd of May of the present year, and in the Notes exchanged on the 8th of August last."
The allusion to these papers was merely a reference to the Four Points as bases of negotiation; and it appeared to him that the only engagement Austria entered into was to endeavour to assist England and France in negotiating a peace and submitting proposals which, in its opinion, would be considered reasonable by the Emperor of Russia, with the view of settling the dispute; and in case of the failure of these negotiations, all that Austria bound herself to do was to "deliberate without delay upon effectual means for obtaining the object of their alliance." In this case he thought the most effectual means of obtaining the object of that alliance was to submit to Russia the proposition which Austria had drawn up, and which were approved by the Plenipotentiaries sent to Vienna by the various Powers. What possible fault, then, could be found with Austria? She submitted a plan which was approved by the Plenipotentiaries; but the Plenipotentiaries were thrown over by the respective Governments, who then turned round upon Austria because she did not draw the sword, and complained that she had broken her engagement. He was afraid that, before this war terminated, there would be charges of treachery in other quarters. He did not believe they were going to uphold the integrity and independence of the Ottoman empire; he believed in different views, and he cautioned the Prime Minister that a day of retribution would come. If the expedition to the Crimea should end in signal disaster, the Government might endeavour—as Governments had done on former occasions—to throw the blame upon their generals and admirals, but in the end the responsibility would be fixed upon the executive Government. They, and they alone, were responsible for that expedition which they had undertaken, contrary to the advice of their best generals and admirals; they had sacrificed the flower of the British army; they had sacrificed millions of the public treasure; they had concealed from Parliament material facts which transpired

559
at the Conferences of Vienna, and which it was necessary Parliament should know for the guidance of their opinion; and he must say the whole course they were pursuing seemed to him calculated to inspire want of confidence in the Administration, and led him to the conclusion that they were destined to bring great disasters upon the country, and his belief was that the country would visit those disasters upon their heads.
LORD JOHN RUSSELL: I am very glad the right hon. Gentleman has brought forward his imputations upon the conduct of the Government at a time when those imputations can be conveniently answered. I certainly was surprised when, the other day, upon an occasion which I should have thought would have induced the right hon. Gentleman to refrain from bringing before the House any question that could occasion controversy, he introduced a topic of this nature and made serious personal charges against the Government. Were it not for the remark of Mr. Grattan, that persons very often made observations "tempted by the extreme impropriety of the occasion," I should hardly have thought the right hon. Gentleman would have taken such an opportunity. As, however, the right hon. Gentleman has brought forward the subject now upon going into Committee of Supply, I cannot but own that he is fully entitled to explanation, and that the correspondence which has taken place with the Austrian Government on this great question fitly deserves, and should obtain the attention of Parliament. Before I enter into this question, I must refer to the right hon. Gentleman's affirmation, that we have been disappointed in all our predictions, and that the objects of the war are such as he has been pleased to describe. Now, so far from being disappointed as to the events of the war, I will say that, although the siege of Sebastopol has not hitherto been attended with the success we promised ourselves, yet that the repulse of Russia at the siege of Silistria, the evacuation of the Danubian provinces, and the consent of Russia to abandon entirely and for ever all those special treaties which gave her the pretence for interfering with Turkey—all these circumstances are successes far beyond those which we had hoped to accomplish in so short a time. But then the right hon. Gentleman says, we believed that Cronstadt would fall immediately, and he founds this assertion upon a statement made by the First Lord of the Admiralty, on a
560
particular day, that he had no official intelligence of the fact. How the right hon. Gentleman could rest his belief on such a basis—how a simple statement of that kind could warrant him in supposing that we entertained such expectations as he attributes to us, is certainly beyond my comprehension. The right hon. Gentleman went on to say, that we proposed the restoration of Poland and the independence of Hungary as two of the objects of the war. As if we had ever promised or held out hopes of the restoration of Poland—as if we had not always considered, in conformity with the declaration of my noble Friend the First Lord of the Treasury, that, if that restoration be accomplished at all, it will be accomplished by Austria. Being on terms of intimacy with many Poles, when they have spoken to me on this subject I have uniformly told them, "If Austria will take your part, and should consider the restoration of Poland attainable, you may then entertain some hopes of accomplishing such a result; but do not imagine that England and France will alone undertake to accomplish it." I stated recently to a Polish nobleman, of whose friendship any one may be proud, that I had no conception that England and France would attempt the restoration of Poland, and that, if they did not attempt it, I thought it would be the greatest crime to encourage expectations which must be disappointed. Then with regard to the independence of Hungary, I must say that it would have been most preposterous if, negotiating with Austria, seeking the alliance of Austria, and entering into conferences with Austria—we had said that one of the objects of this war was to effect the independence of Hungary. No such object has ever been put forward by Her Majesty's Government. The right hon. Gentleman says he should find great difficulty in explaining to a labouring man the objects of the war; but it fortunately happens—for I have no doubt the right hon. Gentleman is incorrect in his statement—that the labouring men, the artisans, the country have throughout had a very clear conception of what the objects of the war are. They know that the war was entered into to prevent the further aggrandizement of Russia; they know that to protect the territory and to maintain the independence of Turkey, were the objects which the allied Powers proposed to themselves to attain. The objects are so easily understood, that the mass of the people have never deceived themselves in reference to

561
them; and, as to the accomplishment of those objects I must confess that, before we entered into war, since we entered into war, and up to the present time, I have always thought it an object of very great difficulty, and only to be attained by great efforts. I have thought so because, as every one may conceive, Russia is enormously powerful, her population is animated and strengthened by repeated successes, and for centuries past she has by treaties been continually adding something to her power. Turkey, on the contrary, is a Power which has of late years been crippled and weakened—so much so, indeed, that when the war began the armed force of Turkey was not one-tenth of that which Russia possesses. Added to this was an additional source of difficulty—namely, that some 10,000,000 of the subjects of Turkey were of the religious faith of the Emperor of Russia, and had been taught assiduously to look to the Emperor of Russia for protection. It has always appeared to me that the task upon which we entered was a most difficult one. I do not think it will take long to show in what respect it was difficult, and I think I can mention some difficulties which both in war and in peace must attend the attainment of the object which we have in view. Some persons of high military authority thought at the beginning of the war that it would be quite sufficient, and that it would be the most effective means of defence for Turkey, if lines were drawn from the Black Sea to the Sea of Marmora, somewhat resembling the famous lines of Torres Vedras, and that the French and English armies should be entrenched within these lines. But the circumstances were totally different. The Duke of Wellington was enabled to defend the lines of Torres Vedras because the population of Portugal were generally opposed to the invasion, and the longer the invaders stayed in the country the weaker their army became, and the less able to obtain supplies. But if Russia had crossed the Balkan and had arrived within twenty miles of Constantinople, she would have had the means of raising an insurrection throughout the Christian population of the Turkish provinces, and she would have been strengthened every day and every week in her attempt to destroy the independence of Turkey. And now let us see what were the difficulties that would have occurred in a time of peace. We have had some discussions on former occasions with respect to the
Principalities. Those Prin-
562
cipalities are inhabited by Christians, and it has been said, naturally enough, "Make a Christian State there, and thereby establish a barrier against Russia." But the Russian interest is strong in these provinces, and there are so many persons who are bound to Russia by the strongest ties, that to attempt to make an independent State there would only have been to strengthen Russia, and to enable her to pursue her projects with greater security. If, on the other hand, you gave to Turkey all she used to have, and admitted the Turkish army into the Principalities, you would at once destroy their independence. Considering these things and many other questions of a similar nature, it has always appeared to me that the end of this war must be not merely a treaty between the belligerents on one side—namely, France, Great Britain, and Turkey—and Russia on the other, but that there must be a general treaty in which the Powers of Europe could take part, and in which each should give a fair security for the maintenance of the integrity and independence of Turkey. Having taken that view, it is obvious that I must consider the co-operation of Austria as being of the highest value. That the co-operation of Austria would be of the greatest value during war, no one will deny. If at the present moment the Austrian army were advancing into Bessarabia, it is clear that some 40,000 or 50,000 Russian troops would be unable to march into the Crimea; if it were operating on the side of Galicia, that again would prevent the Russian force from being sent from Poland to the seat of war. And, Sir, in the arrangements to be made with regard to peace, I believe that the alliance and co-operation of Austria would be, to say the least, as effective as it is necessary. The pathway by which Russia could send her land armies to the attack of Turkey is across the Danube, by the side of the Austrian provinces, and through the Balkan. That is the way in which, on more than one occasion, she has attempted to invade Turkey, and it is the road by which, on the last occasion, having crossed the Balkan, the Russian army reached Adrianople. But if Austria undertook, in alliance with France and Great Britain, to prevent any such aggression, and to oppose it by the force of arms, and if France and Great Britain on their side, had sufficient means of opposing a naval aggression, we should then, to use the language of Mr. Fox, which was quoted he other night by the hon. Gentleman the

563
Member for the West Riding, "make it the interest of Russia to maintain peace." I quite agree with the opinion expressed in the extract read by the hon. Gentleman from Mr. Fox, that the best security against aggression is the interest of a Power to maintain peace. [Mr. COBDEN,—"The only security."] The hon. Gentleman says, "the only security," but that is a phrase liable to some qualification, because Mr. Fox would not have said, nor will the hon. Member say, that in a treaty of peace you are to disregard all material guarantees. But to go on with my argument. I have always considered that besides the immediate arrangements, whatever they may be, for the security of Turkey, in order to have a durable peace, we ought to have Austria and Prussia and the States of Germany parties to a general alliance, by which Turkey would be secured from aggression.
Sir, having stated these general views, I now come to the mission with which I was charged to Vienna. It appeared to me—and I remember that I expressed that opinion very strongly to Lord Cowley, Her Majesty's Ambassador at Paris—that I should be able to ascertain what it was that Austria and Prussia were ready to agree to, and that I thought also I should be able to ascertain what Russia would concede for the sake of peace; but at the same time, I stated that I thought that, whatever might be the effect of the negotiations, it would not be possible to come to any decision at Vienna, but that it must be left to the Governments of France and Great Britain to decide ultimately whether there were any terms which they could assent to as terms on which to conclude a safe and honourable peace. Upon my arrival at Vienna there were, of course, two kinds of negotiations to be entered into. There was the negotiation which was to be conducted in conference, and in conference only, between the three belligerent Powers and Austria, who had signed the treaty of the 2nd of December, and Russia, That was one part of the business upon which we were to enter. But the other, and perhaps the more important part, was to ascertain by repeated interviews and discussions the views of the Austrian Government, and to endeavour either to procure her assistance in concluding peace, or to arrange fair terms with her, upon which she would make an ultimatum as against Russia. I find that a very few days after my arrival at Vienna—so early as the 7th
564
of March—I discussed with Count Buol, as well as with the French Minister then resident there—Baron Bourqueney, and the English envoy, the various stipulations which came under the denomination of the Four Points. Upon the mention of the third point, we, the French and English Plenipotentiaries declared, that it appeared to us that the best solution of that point was to obtain from Russia a limitation of her fleet in the Black Sea. We stated, that if that limitation were agreed to, the general rule of the Treaty of 1841—namely, the closing of the Straits—might be maintained. We stated, that it would then be possible to withdraw our armies and fleets from the Black Sea, because there would no longer exist the preponderance of Russia—there would no longer exist a standing menace to Turkey. Count Buol so far agreed that he said, "Undoubtedly that is the best solution of the third point. Undoubtedly the best security you can have is the limitation of the Russian fleet. But," he added, "there is another solution, and that would be, instead of weakening Russia, to strengthen Turkey. It is the opinion of the Austrian Government that the third point may be carried into effect either in one mode or the other. The proposal you make is undoubtedly the best; we should be very glad to see it assented to by Russia; in the conference we shall give it every support; but we will not say that we do not reserve to ourselves the power of proposing the other mode—namely, instead of a limitation of Russian force, to have a counterpoise on the part of the allies." So far, Sir—and, indeed, I would say not only so far, but throughout—I have no complaint to make, as the right hon. Gentleman supposes the Government to make, of treachery against Austria. Her conduct I find fault with—perhaps, very great fault in some respects—but I think there has been no treachery and no bad faith in the matter. I think Austria was entitled to say, as a Power which had not gone to war, as a Power which was at peace with Russia, "We will endeavour to seek for the solution of these difficulties by the attainment of all the Four Points which we consider necessary for peace; but we do not bind ourselves to one particular mode of obtaining one of those points. We think ourselves at liberty to propose another mode, and if that other shall be found sufficient, we will not rely solely upon the one which you propound." I could not but say that I thought the Aus-

565
trian Government were wrong in their supposition that the second mode of solution was as good as the first. I stated objections, and I stated them over and over again at repeated interviews with Count Buol—objections which are obvious enough—to the propositions he made. One objection is, that Great Britain and France might not always be disposed to go to the considerable expense which would be necessary in order to maintain a fleet in the Black Sea which could be at all reckoned as a counterpoise to the Russian fleet. Another objection is, that it would obviously be placing Turkey, as it were, under the immediate protection of those two Powers, and would thereby, in some respects, weaken her position. But a third objection—which I still think a very strong one—is, that three or four fleets—the fleets of Turkey, assisted by those of France, England, and Austria on the one side, and the fleet of Russia on the other—would have all the appearance of a competition for preponderance, and would thereby weaken the general feeling in the solidity and duration of peace. Well, discussions went on, as the House has seen by the papers which have been laid before Parliament. The Austrian Government, through Count Buol and Baron Prokesch, its representatives at the conference, supported with great force of argument the propositions which were made for limitation, or else for making the Black Sea entirely a commercial sea. I should say, however, with respect to this last proposition, that it was not cordially adopted by the Austrian Government, but they did cordially adopt the proposal and support the arguments in favour of limitation, which I was ordered by my instructions to put forward. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gibson) having read several extracts from Count Buol's circular, strangely enough said, he would not read the particular propositions which Austria made, but he left it to the House to believe or to infer that those propositions were the same which were made by Russia. Now, I think a very few minutes would suffice to show that, whether they were satisfactory or unsatisfactory, whether they were adequate or inadequate, they were totally different from those of Russia. The proposal of Russia at the time when I was at Vienna was, that the fleets of all the Powers—their armed vessels—should have liberty to pass through the Straits. The proposition they made after I left
566
Vienna was, that the closing of the Straits should be maintained as a principle, and that Turkey should have the power of calling on her allies when she pleased to send their fleets there. Now, the Austrian proposition does not at all resemble these two, upon which I shall not argue, for they have been discussed in the House upon former occasions, and the House, by a very great majority, were of opinion that they were inadequate. The Austrian proposal was founded upon that which Count Buol had made to us when we first had an interview with him. He proposed, in the first place, that the rule of 1841 should be maintained, but that it should be maintained with exceptions in favour of the allies, and with no exceptions in favour of Russia. Thus, according to that principle—which I certainly very much doubt whether Russia was at that time prepared to adopt—there would have been the power on certain occasions of sending armed vessels—ships of the line—belonging to France, Great Britain, and Austria into the Black Sea; while there would have been no power on the part of Russia of sending her vessels either from the Black Sea into the Mediterranean, or of sending vessels from the Baltic into the Mediterranean, and from the Mediterranean into the Black Sea. The passage, in short, would have been entirely closed to Russia; and would not be closed to Powers which had not establishments in the Black Sea. The particular mode in which the proposal was to be carried into effect was this. (I do not conceive it is a proposition on the part of Austria to be considered by her allies, and of course the details were not finally settled.) What she proposed was that, supposing—which seems to have been ascertained by Admiral Lyons—that Russia had six sail of the line in the Black Sea, while she had that number and no more, England, France, and Austria should each maintain two frigates in the Black Sea, and have power to renew them from time to time. If Russia should increase her force — for instance, if she should augment her fleet from six to eight sail of the line — then half the number maintained by Russia might be maintained by the three allied Powers, so that, while Turkey would have eight sail of the line as an equivalent to the eight of Russia, England would have four, and France four at the same time. It was proposed, in the same way, that if Russia should continue to augment her force—for

567
instance, if she had twelve sail of the line—each of the maritime Powers should have six, while Austria would, of course, have her own naval force, and thus we should maintain a counterpoise in regard to Russia. But, in addition to this, Count Buol was ready, as I was told verbally on the day before I left Vienna, to agree to the treaty which he mentions in this circular between Austria, Great Britain, and France, by which they should agree to give a guarantee for the independence and integrity of Turkey. That was a point on which I had laboured during the time I was at Vienna. When I first saw Count Buol, I told him my general opinion with regard to the limitation of the fleet according to my instructions; but I said I thought that, before the whole of these transactions were closed, it would be very desirable to have security for the future by an alliance between the three Powers. Count Buol was of opinion that it would be better to have an article in the general treaty making Russia a party to that guarantee. I was of a different opinion; but Count Buol maintained his opinion, as I maintain mine. The day before I left Vienna I was informed that Count Buol had come to the opinion that he has suggested here in his circular, that it was desirable that the three Powers should enter into a united treaty of defence of Turkey, securing her independence and integrity. It was, of course, understood that Russia might be a party to that treaty, and that thereby greater security would be obtained for the observance of that treaty. Omitting several details of more or less importance, it appeared to me that these two propositions did contain a security for Turkey for the future. It appeared to me, if we had made this arrangement with respect to the admission of ships of war in the Black Sea, that Russia, so far from increasing her fleet to its size before the commencement of the war, would abstain from maintaining more than six ships of the line, replacing them, if she thought proper, by larger and stronger vessels, but not attempting to have a large fleet in the Black Sea; for nothing could so tend to diminish the opinion of the power of Russia in the East as the observation that other fleets, especially those of France and Great Britain, were present in the Black Sea as a check and a counterpoise to her fleet. On the other hand, the security on the land side against the advances of Russia by armies similar to those which advanced in
568
1828 and 1829, would have been obtained by the general treaty, and by the consciousness that Russia would have, that no sooner did she attempt to do that which she has done within the last two years, and occupy the provinces of Turkey, than such a step would be equivalent to a declaration of war against all the great powers of Europe. In this manner I certainly thought that while the Austrian plan of counterpoise was inferior to the plan of limitation that we proposed, yet that it might be a mode of concluding the war with honour to the allied Powers, and that it would give—I will not say a certainty—but a very fair prospect of the duration of peace. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gibson) asks me whether I have changed that opinion. Sir, I have not changed that opinion. I think that those terms were calculated either, on the one side, to secure Austria to us in the war, or, on the other, to obtain a peace which, although it might be unpopular, would have been a peace that would have afforded security for the future. I should say, that in making these propositions, the Austrian Government declared that they were ready to make them an ultimatum—that is to say, they were ready to send this alternative to St. Petersburg—either that Russia should consent to that plan of counterpoise that I have described, or that she should consent to limit her naval forces in the Black Sea to the number of ships existing at the time that these propositions were accepted. It was supposed that Russia had no more than six sail of the line left, and that she would consent to a condition made with Turkey, but inserted in a treaty made with all the Powers, that she would not increase her naval force beyond that number. I have already stated that the Russian Minister would not consent to the limitation, and that this plan was at once refused. With respect to the other the assent of Russia was more doubtful, but it was thought that Russia might have agreed to that proposition. If Russia refused both propositions the Austrian Minister was to have orders to leave St. Petersburg in eight hours, the military convention with France and Great Britain was to be signed, and the Austrian army was to be concentrated and placed in such a position that it could commence the war at any moment. The Austrian Government did not promise that an immediate declaration of war should be made, but it declared that it would regard the rejection of its proposition as a casus belli.

569
The Austrian Minister said that it would bring on war, and considering the character of the Austrian Government, I have no doubt that unless Russia had yielded at the last moment it would have led to a war between Austria and Russia. Well, Sir, I have stated that there may be something in my own recollection of what took place which differs from that of Count Buol; but I have no doubt that the statement of Count Buol is in the main an accurate account of what I did at Vienna. I said that I had no instructions that would enable me to agree to such terms, and that the instructions I had would lead me to suppose that such terms would not be accepted; but I said that my own opinion was that they might be accepted; and I said to Count Buol that I could assure him, and that he could convey that assurance to the Emperor of Austria, that I would lay the case before the Cabinet of this country, and that I would use my best endeavours to put these propositions in such a light that he might hope for their adoption. That promise, Sir, I certainly performed. I stated to my Government every detail of the propositions of which I was the bearer. I said that I had not the written propositions, but that, if they should be considered fit to form a basis for agreement, I had no doubt the Austrian Minister at this Court would furnish all the details of the articles to be proposed. I must say that the proposition was deliberately considered by the Cabinet. Everything that I stated had, I must say, due weight, and was fairly placed in opposition to the disadvantages of such a peace. The Government came to the conclusion that the peace proposed would not be a safe peace, and that they could not recommend its adoption. The right hon. Gentleman says that he has heard from my right hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Sir J. Graham) that the French Government were disposed to accept these terms, but that they had been induced by the rejection of them by this Government to refuse to accept them. M. Drouyn de Lhuys rendered a report to the Emperor of the French, stating the advantage of the terms to be such as I have described; but the Emperor would not accept his advice, and, before he could have known the decision of the English Government, he determined to change his Minister and to reject the proposal of Austria, as not affording a sufficient foundation for peace. The two Governments
570
therefore came to the decision that the proposal of Austria should be rejected. I am not going to enter into the case of Austria, and how far it was a good case or not. I have stated the case as fairly as I can, and the House can judge for itself. The Austrian Government then declared that they were ready to carry into effect the Four Points, but that they did not think the third point admitted of only one solution, and that the two Governments of France and Great Britain had sufficient security on this point:—that they were ready to make a proposal to Russia, but that since that proposal had been rejected by the allied Governments they no longer considered themselves bound to propose it, but that in that ease they considered that they were no longer bound by the treaty of the 2nd of December to go to war with Russia. I believe; that in strictness those terms do admit the construction that they are bound to go to war with Russia. But the House will remember that, when that treaty was first mentioned in this House, I rather opposed the general view that Austria was bound at once to go to war with Russia upon that treaty, and I said she was bound only to take steps to carry into effect the Four Points. I think the two Governments may call upon Austria to perform her engagements; but I think that, even if it is not a good case, and even if it is not a sufficient case, for Austria, at least there is much to be said in favour of the propositions which the Austrian Ministers declared they were ready to make as an ultimatum.
Now, Sir, the right hon. Gentleman asked a question, undoubtedly personal to myself, but which he is fairly entitled to ask, and which I consider I am bound to answer. The right hon. Gentleman asks how, having had those opinions, if I had not changed them—if I had not taken a totally altered view—how could I remain in office in the present administration? I think in the first place that if I had left office upon the decision of Her Majesty's Government, which I have mentioned, I should not have been acting consistently with that I have repeatedly declared to be the main guide of my conduct. In the last resort, when it came to that great question of whether the proposal before us should be received or not, it was for the two Governments, and not for a Plenipotentiary, to decide. And if not for a Plenipotentiary, neither was it for me to

571
decide, as having been employed in those negotiations and as having been a Member of the Cabinet. But I must say that, if I had thought that, having held that opinion, and being overruled upon a question of such great importance, it was my duty to tender my resignation to Her Majesty, I consider the circumstances of the time would have forbidden my doing so. I must now refer to that which has taken place since the commencement of this session, and which I think must impress every man who takes part in public affairs with very grave reflections. There have been several changes since the commencement of the Session. I myself resigned my office at the commencement of this Session upon the ground that I could not resist the appointment of a committee of inquiry into the state of the army in the Crimea. A vote of this House induced Lord Aberdeen and his colleagues generally to resign their offices a few days afterwards. Lord Derby was called to attend upon Her Majesty, and he thought (I believe with very sound judgment) that, unless he obtained the assistance of some of Lord Aberdeen's colleagues—especially of my noble Friend (Viscount Palmerston) and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford (Mr. Gladstone)—he could not obey Her Majesty's commands and form a Government which promised stability. I found myself unable to form a Government when it was proposed to me ultimately. My noble Friend (Viscount Palmerston) formed a Government, and he obtained the assistance of some of those colleagues of Lord Aberdeen to whom I have referred. But in a few days these Gentlemen resigned office upon the ground, the very opposite to that which I had taken, that the committee of inquiry, proposed by the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield (Mr. Roebuck), was about to be granted. It cannot be denied, Sir, I think, that these circumstances have given an appearance of instability to our councils—an appearance of instability which ought above all things to be avoided. But, more than that, it was impossible for me not to perceive, though at a distance, the tendency that there was to cry down all authority, and to distrust all persons in whom the administration of the Government might be placed. If there were one man more than another to whom, in the general estimation of the country, ought to be intrusted the supreme place in
572
the councils of the Sovereign it was my noble Friend who is now First Lord of the Treasury; and yet, no sooner had that appointment taken place, and, as far as I can see, with no other reason than that he held a place of authority in Her Majesty's Councils, he became subject to the most violent attacks, and a very general endeavour was made to run down his administration and to drive him from power. This was not the effect of the extreme violence of parties; far from it—it would be wrong if I accused the great body of the Opposition of such conduct; but it did show the tendency of the public mind—a tendency much to be feared—to run down all authority, to distrust all persons who might be the depositaries of power, and to give way to a restless desire for something different without exactly knowing what. Now, Sir, I did conceive that in that state of the public mind, whatever might be my sentiments as to a great question—and a very great question it was—it was my duty to give every support to my noble Friend; and I am sure that if I had then left office, though I might have promised him every support, it would have tended to increase that instability to which I have made allusion—it would have been considered as a symptom and precursor of other changes. I believe that, whether as regards our position abroad, or whether as regards our position at home, it is the duty of the Members of the Cabinet of my noble Friend to consider, as well as they are able, the position of affairs; to arrive at the best decisions which they can; for the minority to yield to the majority, if there is a minority or a majority; for an individual to defer his sentiments to those of the Cabinet in general; and to leave it to this House to decide whether or not they are fit to be trusted with the conduct of public affairs. I believe that my noble Friend and those who act with him are as well qualified to make those changes in our administrative affairs, to make those reforms which the conduct of public business may require, as any set of men whom Her Majesty may call to her councils. I believe that after a time that persuasion will be fixed in the public mind. I believe it would be a very great misfortune if any change were to take place, unless it were a total change, to the men who are opposed to Her Majesty's present Government. If the House think they will be the better depositaries of power, they ought to have

573
every confidence and every support given to them in the execution of their duty. I will say that these affairs,—important as they are, involving such great consequences, bearing upon the position of England in the world, bearing upon her internal fate and the maintenance of her institutions—have cost me many painful reflections. I have made the best decision, which, with my lights, I have been able to make. That decision may be contested. It may be said by many that I betrayed the interests of my country when I told Count Buol I was ready to agree to these terms—not officially, but to recommend them to the Government. It may be said that, having so declared my occurrence, I ought to have persisted to the end, and to have resigned office immediately those terms were not agreed to. Upon either of those grounds I am liable to be attacked, and I have no reason to complain if censures are cast upon me for the course I have taken. All I can say is, I have made a fair statement to the House of my conduct and my motives, and I leave the House to pass judgment upon them.
MR. COBDEN: I have heard many speeches in this House which have astonished me, but I must say, unfeignedly, I have never heard a speech which struck me with such astonishment and grief as that which has just been delivered by the noble Lord. My right hon. Friend (Mr. Gibson), in the proper exercise of his duty as a representative of the people, calls upon the noble Lord to explain the inconsistency between his conduct at Vienna and his conduct in this House. My right hon. Friend points out that it has come to his knowledge, not from the statement of the noble Lord here when he had returned from Vienna, but by the publication of an official Austrian document, that the noble Lord, when at Vienna, did confidentially—for that is the word of Count Buol—did confidentially promise the Austrian Minister that when he returned to England he would do his best to induce the Government to assent to the propositions for the establishment of peace which had emanated from the Austrian Government, and which the noble Lord had also privately informed Count Buol that he approved. The noble Lord does not deny that statement. But the first and obvious question which we ask ourselves is this—Why was not the noble Lord himself the first to come and inform us in this House that the terms
574
submitted by the Austrian Government had his approval, and that he still approved them? Why did not the noble Lord make that statement, not from the bench on which he sits, but from the bench from which he descended to occupy his present position? What are the reasons assigned by the noble Lord for completely setting aside, upon coming home to England, his own convictions upon the most important question of modern times, and surrendering his judgment and abnegating his opinions to his colleagues in the Cabinet? What is the only reason assigned by the noble Lord for such astounding conduct? It is this. There had been so many changes in the Government—he himself had so lately abandoned his seat in the Cabinet, only to return thither once more; there had been so many secessions from the Cabinet; and there had been so great a disposition on the part of the public to denounce all authority and to call in question the characters of all public men—that he did not think himself justified, under the extraordinary circumstances, in maintaining his own opinions upon this the gravest of all questions, by surrendering his seat in the Cabinet which had overruled his own convictions at the risk of bringing about another change. Why, does not the noble Lord see that the reason why the public have lost faith in public men is because public men have become suspected of doing that which the noble Lord has now, in the face of the whole world, declared that he has done? Why ought the public—why does the public—why should the public—have any faith in public men, except it be because they believe that those public men have certain opinions, that they are swayed by certain principles, and that they may be reckoned upon to act up to their convictions? What does the noble Lord tell the public—he who has been for twenty years the almost exclusive leader of this House—who has gathered about him so much of the hope and confidence of the country—who for so many years has led a majority of this House? He says—"I am willing to abandon my opinion, I am willing to surrender my judgment—a judgment which you, the public, have believed to be founded upon long experience and great abilities—I am willing to surrender it all at the instance of my colleagues, and to retain my seat in the Cabinet, to carry on a war at the instance of my colleagues and against my most solemn convictions." Does not the noble Lord see that, by the

575
conduct he has pursued, he has taken the exact course to strike at the very foundation of all confidence in public men, and to render it impossible that the representative system should be carried on with success? The noble Lord seems to me to have abdicated his reasoning faculties. Why, does he not see—does not a child see—that the country does not want him bodily in the Cabinet merely to represent somebody else's opinions? What the country wants is, that in the noble Lord the Member for the City of London they shall have the benefit of his long experience, his eminent abilities, and his cool judgment. But the noble Lord has struck at the confidence of the public in public men still more fatally by the way in which he has allowed this matter to transpire. Again has he shown us he does not deal fairly with the public; he did not allow the public to know what were his opinions on what was doing until by some accident they are found out. He retained his seat in the Cabinet last year, and allowed the war to be carried on contrary to the plan and system which he himself declared to be necessary; he never told us that he believed the war was being carried on upon a system so faulty that it could not lead to success until an hon. Member called public attention to the conduct of the war; and then he abandoned his seat, and confessed that he had been sitting in the Cabinet until he was accidentally found out, while the war was being conducted on principles which he emphatically condemned. And, now, what has he done? He comes home from Vienna, and, instead of telling us frankly, as I say he was bound to do, and the country expected he would do, what his own opinions were upon the grave questions of peace and war, he made a speech denouncing Russia, dealing forth all the claptraps used to excite national hate and popular passions, and denouncing the encroachments and aggressions of Russia—I do not say with the motive, but it certainly had the effect, of making the country believe he had come back from Vienna disgusted with the proposals for peace made there, and despairing of arriving at any terms of peace, and that he was, therefore, anxious to stimulate the passion of the country in order that the war might be carried on more vigorously. All this time the noble Lord was the sole depositary of his secret—he knew well he came back from Vienna bringing with him proposals for peace which he had told Count Buol he con-
576
sidered were practicable and fair, and which he promised to advocate with his colleagues. And now he tells us that he considered those terms which he promised to support to be such as would have afforded fair ground for a permanent peace, and, to use his own words, they did offer "a guarantee for the security of Europe." And yet, with those convictions upon this most momentous of all questions, the noble Lord comes home, takes his seat in the Cabinet, and makes a speech which, if framed especially to mislead the public mind as to his own convictions, it would be impossible to excel in double dealing with the confidence of the country; and now he gets up and says the great difficulty of the day is that there is a want of confidence in public men, and that the public are prepared instantly that a Minister attains to power to distrust him, to assail him, and to drag him from his high position. He quotes the example of the noble Lord the Member for Tiverton (Viscount Palmerston). Now, compare the language he uses towards the noble Lord at the head of the Government with that which, three or four years ago, he used towards the same noble Lord, when he (the noble Lord the Member for the City of London) was Prime Minister, and the noble Lord the Member for Tiverton was Foreign Secretary, and remember the opinion he then expressed in this House and induced his Sovereign to sanction. What will the country now say when the noble Lord speaks of his great confidence in the noble Lord the Member for Tiverton, and denounces the conduct of the country in questioning that noble Lord's conduct immediately on his succeeding to the head of the Government? If anybody can be selected who is responsible for doubts and misgivings on the part of the public towards the Minister now at the head of the Government it is the noble Lord the Member for London, who more than any one has contributed to that mistrust. The noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) seems to me to come here with the idea that he can confuse us, and separate himself, as a Member of the Cabinet, from the Plenipotentiary at Vienna. He has certain opinions as a Plenipotentiary; but he comes back, enters the Cabinet, and then he is willing to abandon those opinions. We know him here as the Colonial Minister—as a Member of the Cabinet—we hold him responsible to us and the country as a Cabinet Minister of the Crown, and

577
we cannot separate him in his two capacities of Minister and Plenipotentiary. Did the noble Lord the Member for London, honestly and in good faith, promise to Count Buol to support this proposition for peace, and did he come back to England and in the Cabinet advocate those views? If he has done so, I say he has abandoned his duty, forfeited his trust, and abdicated the high position he has hitherto held, by not resigning his seat in the Cabinet when he found it would not carry out his views. He was bound to do as M. Drouyn de Lhuys did, with great consistency and great honesty, when he resigned the proud position which he held before Europe, upon finding he could not induce his Sovereign to concur in the views to which he had pledged himself at Vienna. Now, the noble Lord talks to us of the disadvantage to the public service if he had resigned office, as I say he was bound to do. Does he not think he has done a greater injury to the public service by remaining? Has he not struck a heavier blow at the faith in all public men by remaining in the Cabinet, by giving up his own judgment, and agreeing in the criminal conduct, as I call it, of carrying on an exterminating war, merely because, as he now tells us, he has confidence in the noble Lord the Member for Tiverton? If he had resigned his office and retired to the back benches, the country would have had one more instance of a public man who from earnest conviction did not hesitate to abandon the honour and emoluments of office, and he would thereby have given far greater strength to the characters of public men in this country than he did by remaining in office and abandoning his own convictions. There is one point to which I must refer. It is delicate ground to touch upon—it is one of the great dangers of our day. That is, the way in which public men have forfeited their title to the confidence of the country. It is a matter to which I have alluded before in public, but only distantly, when looking into the future and contemplating several possible contingencies which might occur this autumn—dangers to which we might be exposed from accidents which have happened already during my short experience. I have always considered that the great danger which we have to dread is, lest there should be no one man in this country round whom the public could rally and would rally in case of any great social difficulty or danger. We have brought ourselves to the position which in France
578
was only arrived at after successive changes, and, to use a familiar, but expressive phrase, we have "used up" every political character in the land. I now speak with the greatest sincerity when I avow I look upon the conduct of the noble Lord—disastrous as I believe it to be to himself as a public man and an individual—with far more regret and apprehension on account of the dangers to which I believe his conduct exposes the system of representative government in this country. I am one who think that the continuance by the noble Lord and his Government in the system upon which I they are now acting does bode difficulty and danger which will require, in the stress; and strain to which the vessel of the State may be exposed, able heads and cool hands to conduct us safely through domestic dangers and social difficulties. It is not, then, merely that the noble Lord is a Member of a Cabinet which has plunged us into what I must call a useless war, but it seems to me they are utterly incompetent to understand the extent of the danger and difficulty to which we may be exposed. Now, does any one think that in renewing this war the Cabinet have taken the necessary steps to bring it to a successful issue? What are they doing? What is the object for which the war is now to be pursued? They are not now talking of driving Russia out of the Principalities, or of compelling them to withdraw from Silistria, for the noble Lord and his colleagues are renewing the war with these objects accomplished. You did not drive the Russians from the Principalities, for they withdrew; and as soon as it was known that Austria had entered into a treaty with Turkey to occupy the Principalities the Russians retired from Silistria, and not because they could not take the place, as every military authority will tell you that that was but a matter of a few weeks. When the Russians had crossed the Danube, what caused them to cross the Pruth? Was it because they were afraid of England and France? No; it was because Austria and Prussia had entered into a treaty by which the whole of the power of Germany would have been brought to bear on this question, and they made the crossing of the Danube by Russia a casus belli; and knowing this Russia withdrew its troops beyond the Pruth. Nothing is more clear to me in tracing the course of these operations than this—that every thing which Russia has done has been either from a fear of Austria and Germany, or with a

579
view of conciliating them. You are not fighting for practicable objects with the aid of Germany. Austria and Prussia would never have allowed Russia to occupy Constantinople. All Germany would have united to prevent anything of the kind from taking place. This has now been disposed of. You have renewed the war and what are you going to do? Does any one think that the Cabinet have settled what they are going to do, or that the noble Lord the Member for the City of London has proposed the question—what is our object in renewing the war? That is the question which we, as representatives of the people have to face. And, oh that I could make hon. Members use the same language in public in this House which I nave heard them use in private in the lobbies! Oh that they would speak out on this question! and I entreat you, as you value the interests of the country, if you have superior lights to the mass of your countrymen—and you have no right to be here if you have not—let them, I implore you, know what you really think on this question—deal honestly with them. Do not frighten yourselves by imagining that you will be telling secrets to Russia, for they know what is going on in France and England better than many of us do—they know the number of our recruits, how many men we are short of the number voted, and the state of our militia; do not fancy that you will be telling secrets to Russia by facing this question and seeking to learn what the object of the Government is in renewing the war. Are we to believe it is, as we are told by the irresponsible writers of the Press, with a view of humbling Russia? Can you do so by the plans adopted by the Government? Humble Russia, with its 60,000,000 of inhabitants and inexhaustible raw material for troops! Humble Russia!—by what? By 30,000 men!—and you have never had more than that number of effective British bayonet at once in the Crimea. How do you in tend to accomplish this object of humbling Russia? I have told you before that think there is scarcely any limit to the power of England and France, if they put forth all their strength; but has our Government dealt honestly with the country and told them what they require to carry on this war? We are told to rely on France; but is there not danger in entering into an alliance for carrying on operation on land in which that country sends four or five times the number of troops we do?
580
Do we measure our pretensions according to such proportions, or do we in this country write as if we were going to leave to France the task of humbling Russia? Is France in a position to humble Russia? Let us tell the whole truth as regards France, with respect to which nothing is more certain than this—and it is confirmed by every Member of this House who has lately come from France—that this war is not popular in France. It never has been popular, and is now odious. If I wanted a proof of this I could find it in the address of the Emperor of the French lately made to his Chambers, for it contains the following ominous paragraph.
"My Government will propose to you to vote the Annual Recruitment Bill; there will be no extraordinary levy, and the Bill will take the usual course necessary for the regularity of the administration of a Recruitment Bill."
Why was the Emperor so careful to tell the people that he was not going to make an extraordinary levy of soldiers? Why, because he knows that in the only part of France where his main strength is—namely, among the peasantry of the provinces, if he had attempted an extraordinary levy of men such a measure would depopularise him with the people on whom he has relied for his power. But is this the way to carry on war with Russia? Did Napoleon I. do so? Did he say he wanted no extraordinary levies when he was about to invade Russia with an army of 500,000 men, with an army in reserve of 300,000 men? I tell the Emperor of France, as I tell you, that if you invade Russia, and fight her on her own soil, you must, if you intend to bring the war to a successful issue, have extraordinary levies of men both in France and England. When you see the Emperor of Russia issuing his ukases, and by one stroke of his pen ordering a levy of 250,000 men, do you think that you can carry on a successful contest with him with 30,000 men, or that you can do without having an extraordinary levy of troops? My complaint and accusation against the noble Lord at the head of the Government are this—that from the time he came into office he has not dealt fairly with the country—he has not laid before them the difficulties they will have to face, or what will be required to carry on the war. We have on the one hand had the newspapers stating that the country is enthusiastically in favour of the war, and on the other hand we have had the Government proposing a vote for the

581
increase of the army, when they knew right well that the number permanently voted had not been enlisted. They do not, however, tell the country this; for I can point out a speech of the noble Lord's, made three months ago, in which he said the enlistment was going on most successfully; but I am sure, when you get the weekly returns, you will find that the enlistment was then in a most unsatisfactory state. And how are you dealing with the handful of brave men you have sent to the Crimea? Why, you are hurling your best blood against that vast fortress in the attempt to do that which every high military authority—Sir Howard Douglas, Sir William Napier, and others—tells you is hopeless, and that, until you invest Sebastopol and besiege it according to the ordinary and invariable rules of war, there is no chance of taking it. You know this, and yet you are carrying on the war under the pretence that you are fighting the battle for the liberties of all Europe. It is not very complimentary to tell all Europe that you are fighting for its liberties; neither do I think that the Germans, the Swedes, the Danes, the Swiss, or others, will feel it as a compliment to be told so; but if you do set up these mighty pretensions, do not show your impotence or use threats which you cannot carry out. I, as an advocate for peace, tell you that I think this war might have been avoided, but I share with the rest of you the ridicule which is heaped on this country by the boast and braggadocio which in the end are attended by such humble performances. We are like the Chinese, brandishing paper shields with tigers' heads on them, sounding gongs, and blustering in the face of the world and expecting it to be frightened at these our warlike preparations. We are now, probably, within a month of separating, and are we to leave the country in the hands of this Ministry, drifting on in this war, with no object avowed, and with nobody understanding what the object of the war is? I declare, for myself, let the noble Lord say what he will of a change in the Cabinet, that I would rather take the chances of such a change, and would infinitely rather see a Government formed of Members from the other side of the House brought over to this side to carry on the war. I think that this would give us a better chance of reconstituting an honest party, both in this House and in the country. I look back with regret on the vote which I gave on the Motion which changed
582
Lord Derby's Government. I regret the result of that Motion, for it has cost the country 100 millions of treasure, and between 20,000 and 30,000 good lives. Do not let us, then, be frightened by the threat of a change of Ministry; anything will be better than allowing the country to go drifting on in this war as it is doing, without any one honestly declaring to it the object of the war. Does anybody profess to solve the mystery of what the war is carried on for? Is it to take Sebastopol? If it is, you must surround the place with 240,000 men, and starve the garrison out. Are you prepared to do that? Will you winter again in the Crimea, which I am told is now the talk in your camp? You had the opportunity of making peace, but the Government rejected the terms that were offered. You have estranged the other Powers of Europe from you, and left yourselves without any other important ally than France. How do you propose to succeed. Under these circumstances, I entreat this House to speak out its honest conviction. I see the danger that is before us in the loss of confidence in public men; and I only utter my own firm persuasion, when I say that I look upon the noble Lord's (Lord J. Russell's) conduct as striking the heaviest blow that has ever yet been dealt at that confidence. As I wish well to our representative system, I would earnestly exhort every Member of this House who aspires to be a statesman sedulously to shun the course which the noble Lord the Member for London has adopted in this momentous matter.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: Sir, I can very easily understand that the hon. Member for the West Riding, with his peculiar views, wishing to form a party that might place itself in a position to administer the affairs of the country, and I make it no matter of reproach or blame to him, and those who agree with him, that they should endeavour to do all they possibly can to realize the assertion—which I utterly deny to be founded in fact—that other public men in this country have lost the confidence of the nation. It is very natural for the hon. Gentleman to say that there are no men here to whom the country would look up and around whom it would rally at periods when it might be necessary for the public weal that there should be persons in whom it should repose its confidence. But I deny, Sir, that that is the fact. Setting aside all party feeling, I assert that on both sides of this House

583
there are those in whom the nation would feel confidence, and around whom it would rally at moments such as the hon. Gentleman describes. In one respect at least, however, I believe the hon. Member's statement is perfectly true. Without meaning any disrespect to him or to those among whom he sits, I think they are the very last men to whom the country would be disposed, in such critical circumstances, to intrust its confidence. But, Sir, I consider that to indulge in this practice of endeavouring to decry every statesman in public estimation, and to represent every man in public life as being animated by feelings that are neither honourable to himself nor consistent with his duty, is rendering a very bad service to the country. I believe that it does no honour to those who pursue it; and of this I am convinced, relying, as I do, on the good sense of the people of England, that these political arts, instead of answering the ends of those who resort to them, or damaging those they are intended to ruin, will recoil upon the heads of their authors, and only lower in public opinion the character of the men who stoop to what I must term such unworthy expedients of furthering their political purposes. The hon. Gentleman has to-night adopted this system very lavishly, but I think most undeservedly, against my noble Friend (Lord John Russell). My noble Friend has pursued a course which I conceive to have been eminently becoming a person occupying his position. The hon. Gentleman, however, taunts him by implication with having been actuated by an unworthy desire to retain political place and power. Why, does not the recent conduct of my noble Friend acquit him at once from any such imputation? Surely the hon. Member cannot have forgotten that my noble Friend voluntarily resigned office on a late occasion. That circumstance plainly shows that whenever he conceives that his public duty is incompatible with the retention of office he is ready to retire and to revert to that position which he thinks more consistent with the opinions he may entertain. Sir, my noble Friend went as Plenipotentiary to Vienna; and he returned home in the double capacity of a Plenipotentiary and a Member of Her Majesty's Government. My noble Friend held the opinions which he has stated as to the proposal which Austria thought might be made with success to Russia. As Plenipotentiary my noble Friend was perfectly right in undertaking to propose
584
that arrangement to his Government, as M. Drouyn de Lhuys was justified in undertaking to propose it to the Government of France. But neither M. Drouyn de Lhuys nor my noble Friend could undertake to do more than this, than to lay each before his respective Government the ideas which the Austrian Government entertained; because the Allied Governments must necessarily have been left masters of their own decision upon a question of such vast and paramount importance. My noble Friend, as a Member of the Cabinet, was perfectly warranted in recommending a particular measure to his colleagues for adoption; but it would be a perfectly novel doctrine to assert that every Member of a Cabinet must insist that the proposal which he thinks one worthy of acceptance shall either be actually accepted by the Government to which he belongs, or must relinquish his connection with it. Why, Sir, if that were to become the ruling principle of Cabinets, I say that no Cabinet could possibly hold together for any conceivable length of time,—because twelve or fourteen public men associated in a Government, however perfectly united on general principles, must necessarily on many occasions differ in opinion upon particular measures; and the only way in which parties can be kept in combination, or Governments can act harmoniously, is by the interchange of individual sentiments to come at last to some final determination, those upon the one side or the other giving up their individual views on particular questions in order to secure joint action upon great general principles. The hon. Gentleman twits my noble Friend with having since he returned from Vienna made a speech here in which he pointed out the ambitious projects of Russia, and the dangers that would arise to Europe from the continued advance of that Power's system of aggressive policy; and he seems to think there is something inconsistent between that speech and the opinions which my noble Friend entertained as to a particular project of accommodation; but, in reality, nothing on earth could be more reconcilable than the two—there is nothing in the one that is at variance with the other. Surely my noble Friend might regard a particular form of arrangement as deserving of the consideration of the Government, and yet on that account be none the less impressed with the perils to Europe arising from the aggressive ambition which is well known

585
to have for a long time characterised the course of Russia; and he was perfectly right, when these questions were under discussion in this House, in expressing the same opinions which from the beginning of these discussions he has always held. Sir, the Governments of France and England, each upon reasons of its own, thought the proposal of Austria was not one which, under the circumstances in which we then stood, it was advisable to entertain. The question was most earnestly and anxiously deliberated upon, and the decision was not come to in a hasty manner, or upon light grounds. We considered that the proposal did not hold out to us the prospect of that future security for, and that reality of peace, which we felt ourselves bound to obtain after such great exertions and such large sacrifices as those that we had made; and on that ground the two Governments— equally, upon their own reflection—determined that the proposition was one which they could not authorise Austria to make in their name to Russia. We thought that to leave the Russian fleet in the Black Sea to an indefinite augmentation, with no other security than this, that we and France, when called upon by the Sultan, might each send a fleet equal to one half the amount of that of Russia, might lead, and probably would lead, to the accumulation of a vast maritime force in the Euxine, which, threatening the safety of Constantinople, and capable at any moment of conveying a large body of troops to the shores of Turkey, so far from offering a guarantee for a real and substantial peace, would, on the contrary, give to the relations between Turkey and the Western Powers on the one side, and between them and Russia on the other, the character of an armed peace rather than that of an unsuspecting pacification. The hon. Member, however, thinks that we have carried on the war without knowing the purpose for which it is waged. He says there is not a man in the country who really understands what we are fighting for; and the right hon. Member for Manchester, in the same strain, tells us that he should be at a loss to explain to anybody who might put the question to him what the country is now called on to contend about. Well I do not of course know how far the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. M. Gibson) might be able to give the explanation he describes; but this I undertake to say, that there is scarcely a peasant in England who needs such an explanation,
586
or who does not comprehend for what object the war is now being prosecuted. The hon. Member wishes, in truth, to learn, not the purpose for which the contest is carried on, but the method in which it is to be conducted. He wants to know whether Sebastopol is to be regularly invested;—he wants to be told what our army is to do, whether, for instance, it is to winter in the Crimea; and, in short, he would like Government to publish for his information all our plans and intended operations. Surely, however, these are not questions which the Government can be reasonably expected to answer. I say that the object of the war is to curb the ambitious designs of Russia in regard to Turkey, to establish a state of peace for the security of Turkey, and, through Turkey, for the security of Europe; and until that is accomplished I conceive that the purposes would not be attained for which we embarked in this conflict. The hon. Gentleman treats very lightly the results of the operations which have been already undertaken. According to him, it would appear that nothing has occurred but failure and disaster to our arms. Why, Sir, every fair and candid man comparing the position in which Russia stood at the commencement of this war with that in which she stands now must confess that we have gained considerable advantages, and that Russia is by no means so well off either in a political, diplomatic, or military point of view as she was when the war began. We have cooped up her fleet in the Baltic now for two summers—that position at Bomarsund, which threatened to become another Cronstadt, has been entirely destroyed, and Russia has not ventured to reoccupy it. The right hon. Gentleman says we boasted that we should take Cronstadt—but indeed we never did any such thing. No man who knew anything of the strength of that fortress ever could have held out any expectation of that sort, and it is a complete perversion of the answer given by the late First Lord of the Admiralty, to which the right hon. Gentleman alluded, to say that it implied any such expectation. We have, however, obtained great and important advantages in the Baltic. In the Principalities the Russian forces have been compelled to retire, not as has been very properly stated—by the action of the French and English troops—though of course their presence at Varna contributed to that retreat in some degree—but mainly by the position which

587
Austria assumed in that quarter. Is it nothing, then, that Austria should have been pursuaded so far to take part with England and France as by the engagement which she made with Turkey, and by the military attitude which she assumed to obtain for Turkey and the allies the total evacuation of the Principalities? That, I say, is a proof that both by diplomacy as well as by arms great progress has been made in curbing the ambition of Russia and defeating her plans. The right hon. Gentleman says that at the commencement of the war I found it convenient to talk about the emancipation of Poland and the independence of Hungary: but I assure the right hon. Gentleman that I never talked of any such thing. The right hon. Gentleman dreams and imagines things, and then quietly states them as if they were acknowledged facts.
MR. MILNER GIBSON: I beg the noble Lord's pardon—I certainly remember hearing the noble Lord distinctly say, with reference to Poland, that the position of that country was a standing menace to Germany.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: No doubt I did say that the position of Poland was a standing menace to Germany; but did the right hon. Gentleman ever hear me say that England and France were going on a crusade to expel the Russians from Poland? When I made the statement to which the right hon. Gentleman refers, I accompanied it with another, which he might just as well have recollected, to the effect that it was by the German Powers—Austria and Prussia—alone that that position could be altered; and that it was by them alone that Poland could be wrested from the dominion of Russia. I stated distinctly that it was impossible for England and France to undertake such a work, but that whenever Austria and Prussia should feel themselves called upon to take up arms in this quarrel, they would find that the position of Poland was the one against which they would have in the first place to guard themselves. As to the independence of Hungary, when did the right hon. Gentleman ever hear me say that one of the objects of the war was to sever Hungary from the Austrian empire? Every word I have ever uttered with regard to Hungary has been quite in a contrary sense. I have stated, on the contrary, that I should consider it a calamity to Europe if the separation of Hungary from Austria were to destroy the Austrian
588
Empire, the existence of which in the centre of Europe I consider of the utmost importance to the general interests and welfare of the European community. I had opinions of my own, indeed, as to the justice of certain questions which arose some years ago between Hungary and Austria; but I never for an instant stated at any time that I thought the separation of Hungary from Austria would be other than calamitous to the general welfare of Europe; and certainly never did anything fall from me or from any Member of Her Majesty's Government which could in the slightest degree warrant the assertion of the right hon. Gentleman that the independence of Hungary was any part of the object for which the war against Russia was undertaken. Well, then, how do we stand in the Black Sea? In the Black Sea one half of the fleet of Russia has been destroyed by their own hands, the rest has been cooped up, and we may fairly expect that, when success crowns our arms in the Crimea, the remainder of that fleet will fall into our possession. The Sea of Azoff, which was the great source of supply for the Russian army in the Crimea, has been completely closed by the enterprise and gallantry of the naval and military forces of the allies, and the Russian forces are thereby now placed in great difficulties with regard to the supply both of munitions of war and of provisions; therefore our actual position is this—that whereas at the beginning of the war Russia had actually invaded the territory of our ally, now we have not only forced her to evacuate the territory of our ally, but we are occupying an important position within her territory. Therefore I am justified in saying that our position now is very much better than it was at the beginning of the war. The hon. Gentleman who spoke last (Mr. Cobden) wants to know if we expect to conquer the Crimea with 30,000 men. But instead of 30,000 men, let me point out to him that there are at least 180,000 men of the allies there at the present moment. The events of the future are beyond the prescience of man, but there is every reason to believe that before a very long time has elapsed we shall find ourselves successful in the expedition which we have undertaken. Some Gentlemen, I know, contend that it was unwise to send an expedition to the Crimea; but I totally differ from that opinion. To have sent an army to invade the Russian territories in the south—to have sent an

589
army into Bessarabia to wander about in the vast deserts which stretch up towards Moscow—would indeed have been an act of great military folly. The object was to strike at the centre of the Russian power in the Black Sea; and that point was the Crimea and Sebastopol. Whatever may be the difficulties which we have had to encounter—and no doubt they have been greater than was expected—yet I am of the same opinion now as I was when the expedition was first planned and ordered, that that was the point to be struck at—that it was in the Crimea and at Sebastopol that the most effectual blow could be given to the preponderance of Russia in the Black Sea; and that whatever exertions might be required for its accomplishment that was the purpose which ought to be carried out, and that was the point to which the French and British forces should be directed.
The hon. Gentleman says he thinks it high time that the Government should be placed in other hands, and that he regrets extremely the vote which he gave some time ago when hon. Gentlemen opposite were placed on the Opposition benches. I suppose I am to infer from that, when next a vote is proposed which shall have for its tendency to remove us who sit here and to put hon. Gentlemen opposite in our places, the hon. Member for the West Riding will be found among those who are willing to affirm such a proposition; we shall thus have the Members of the Peace Society voting to place in power a set of Gentlemen who, to their honour I say it, are, as far as we can judge from the language which they have held in this House, as determined to carry on the war with vigour and energy as those who sit here. How far the hon. Gentleman and those who act with him may think, by frequent changes of Government, at last to shake the confidence of the public in those men into whose hands the administration of affairs has hitherto been entrusted, and to induce the people in despair at last to turn to them, I do not know; but I think the hon. Gentlemen will find that that speculation will not answer. They will find that whether they put in office the Gentlemen who now sit on the other side, or maintain in office those who now hold it, the manly and determined spirit of the country is not to be broken by the speeches which they make here and elsewhere, and that the people will not support any Government
590
but one which will carry on the war with a full determination to bring it to a successful issue; and they will find, too, that the country will not submit for a single week to a Government conducted on the principles which are advocated by the hon. Member for the West Riding and the two hon. Members for Manchester.
I have only to add that, in my humble opinion, no blame can attach to my noble Friend for the part which he has taken in these transactions. I am convinced that in the policy of the Government in declining the propositions made by Austria, and in the mode in which we have conducted the operations of the war, we have only been fulfilling that which is the decided and determined will of the people of this country. I entertain the most perfect confidence that, notwithstanding the prophecies of failure which come to us from time to time, from Gentlemen who sit on those benches, we shall, by the help of Providence and the justice of our cause, lead the country to a successful termination of the struggle in which they are engaged, and that those hon. Gentlemen will find themselves just as much out in the calculations which they make, with respect to the probable issue of this struggle, as the hon. Member for the West Riding must now admit himself to have been when he told the country, with such an air of triumphant exultation, that he could crumple up the empire of Russia like a sheet of brown paper.
MR. ROEBUCK: It appears to me, Sir, that the subject before the House resolves itself into two very simple questions; the one being the conduct of the noble Lord the Member for the City of London, and the other the wisdom or folly of having entered into the present war. I propose offering a few observations upon these two subjects, treating them separately and distinctly. On the first I agree with the hon. Member for the West Riding (Mr. Cobden), and on the other, with the noble Lord at the head of the Government. Now, first, with regard to the conduct of the noble Lord. The noble Lord at the head of the Government has stated that in a Government formed of several men agreeing in their general principles, there must exist some differences of opinion as to separate questions, and that, therefore, it is essential for carrying on the business of Government that there should be a certain compromise of opinion. Well, Sir, with that

591
statement of the noble Lord I quite agree, and the only difficulty is to determine to what extent that compromise of opinion may fairly be carried; and I must say that, in my opinion, the noble Lord the Member for the City of London has shown us that his view of how far such compromise may be extended is inconsistent with all those principles of political honesty which ought to govern the conduct of public men. I shall now address myself to the course which has been pursued of late by the noble Lord. The noble Lord joined the Administration of Lord Aberdeen, and war was declared and carried on by that Administration until Parliament assembled at the beginning of this year. During the whole time that the war was being carried on by that Government, and until the meeting of Parliament, the Cabinet had the support and authority of the noble Lord. If there were any dissensions in the Cabinet, the public knew nothing of any such dissensions, and fully believed that its acts and every part of its policy and conduct received the sanction of the noble Lord. When Parliament assembled, I announced my intention of moving a certain Resolution in this House; and then, and not till then, the noble Lord took fright, and left his colleagues in the lurch; and then, for the first time, it transpired that there had been for a long time dissensions in the Cabinet. Dissensions upon what? Were they upon matters of minor importance? Were they upon some trivial matter upon which a set of men agreeing generally in principle might well differ, and yet cordially act together? No, Sir, not at all;—they were upon the vital matter of the war itself. When I proposed my Resolution the noble Lord left his colleagues, saying that he could not oppose the Resolution because he differed from his colleagues as to the conduct of the war. Upon what subject so vital or of such importance could he possibly have differed from them? and, differing from them upon such a question, ought he not, as a man having at heart the character of public men and the welfare of his country, many months before to have declared his opinion and to have deserted the Cabinet? But the noble Lord did no such thing. He allowed an army to dwindle into nothing, he allowed suffering unheard of to be the portion of that army, and, knowing at the time that the conduct of the war was unworthy of this country, that it was in hands unfitted for the task, he stood by and saw that
592
great and gallant army melting away under every species of suffering—he remained in the Cabinet down to the period when notice of the Motion for the Sebastopol Committee was given. That is the first charge which I bring against the noble Lord, and for conduct such as I have described I accuse him, before the Commons of England, of a dereliction of duty as a public man. Well, Sir, what did the noble Lord do next? Having left the Cabinet of Lord Aberdeen, and having seen the struggles to form another, he did not accept office in the Cabinet which was constructed, but he did accept the office of Minister Plenipotentiary at the Conferences at Vienna. When he arrived there, he found four points proposed as the basis of the negotiation, two of them were readily agreed upon; but on the third point great differences of opinion were manifested between the representatives of Russia and those of the Western Powers. Austria at last proposed a plan which she supposed contained elements for a pacific solution; and to that plan the noble Lord assented, and stated confidentially to Count Buol that on his return home he would endeavour to press the adoption of that plan on the Government of this country. The noble Lord returned to this country in the double capacity of a Plenipotentiary and a Minister of the Crown, and the Conferences in which he had taken part were discussed in this House; and in that discussion the point upon which they had been broken off was especially referred to, and I ask this House, if any one could have learned from the speech made by the noble Lord what was the real condition in which he had left the conferences? And it is only to-night that the noble Lord has confessed what really took place. On that occasion the noble Lord led the House to assume that he agreed with his colleagues, when at that very time he entertained in his own mind an opinion totally different from that which they entertained, and at home he supported an opinion at variance with that which, as he had already confided to our allies, at Vienna received his sanction. I want to know whether a public man could possibly have committed any act so likely to compromise generally the opinions held by the country as to the characters of public men? It is all very well for the noble Lord at the head of the government to say, that no sooner has any one taken power than he is assailed on all sides, or to view the voluntary departure

593
from office of the noble Lord his colleague as a wonderful act of virtue; but the noble Lord seems to forget the circumstances under which his colleague resigned office. The noble Lord the Member for London left office because he was compelled to take that step; he then came into power, united to a Cabinet from which he differed wholly on the most vital question which could be brought before any Cabinet, the question of peace or war. If the noble Lord had differed from the noble Lord at the head of the Government on some question of internal legislation, he would have looked upon it as a matter of principle, and would not have joined his Government; but should not a difference of opinion on so important a subject as the war have been sufficient to induce him to leave a Cabinet whose views on that subject differed from his own? I want to know what affects the policy of this country more than peace or war? Talk of principle—why, is there no principle here? Is not the question of peace or war of more importance than any internal legislation?
Well, Sir, having expressed my sincere opinion as to the conduct of the noble Lord, I will now proceed to address myself to the second question—namely, the wisdom or folly of the war itself. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Manchester (Mr. M. Gibson), has stated that he cannot understand the objects for which we went to war. Well, Sir, I will endeavour to tell him in a manner which, although it may appear adapted rather for schoolboys, will very clearly explain my views on this subject. There was at one period in the history of the world a set of republics, in the midst of which a Power arose, and gradually but certainly increased in extent until it obtained dominion over the rest. Europe is a similar combination of separate States, in which there has been rising up in a similar manner a great Power, which has appeared likely to overshadow all those States and to acquire universal dominion. The first combination of States to which I have referred were the Greek republics; the power which obtained dominion over them was the power of Philip of Macedon; the second is Europe, and the Emperor of Russia is the aspirant to general dominion; and, just in the same way as the far-seeing statesmen of that age pointed out the increasing power of Philip and the dangers arising from that increase, so can the far-seeing statesman of modern Europe point out the overgrown and gra-
594
dually increasing power of Russia; and from the history of the Greek republics, they can deduce the lesson that it is for the interest of Europe to oppose that increase. The immediate cause of the war—the invasion of Turkey—was a flagrant breach of the law of nations on the part of Russia—not the first breach of which she has been guilty, but one which proved that the danger had at last grown so gigantic, that our peace-loving and peace-following people took affright and saw the necessity of opposing the further aggrandisement of Russia. In doing so, I, for one, think that we have acted wisely, and, indeed, I think we should have acted wisely in doing so before. The far-seeing mind of the great Napoleon had recognised the danger to Europe of the increase of the power of Russia, and we at length have recognised the wisdom of his apprehension. It is all very well for the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Manchester to talk of the horrors of war, of which we are all aware, or of the dangers we incur—with those we are acquainted; but it is not considerations of such a nature which should drive us from the pursuit of that which our interests manifestly require. This is a question which it behoves every man freely to speak out upon, and, if he is invested with power by his fellow men, he is bound to face it openly, and avow his opinion, no matter what may be the consequence. I have no doubt, with my right hon. Friend, that the people of this country will in a very short time get quite tired of this war, and that we, who are now on the popular side, will have to encounter much obloquy. I am prepared for that; but being prepared, and knowing what may occur, knowing that disasters may happen to our arms by reason of the war, yet I consider that for the honour and safety of this country the war was necessary, and I am quite satisfied that it was just.
LORD CLAUD HAMILTONobserved, that nothing could be more unsatisfactory than the speech of the noble Lord at the head of the Government, and it was a most significant fact that, notwithstanding all the aid of personal talent and influence of position, he had failed to elicit a single cheer. Every one must be aware that the state of our policy and our position abroad was anything but satisfactory, and yet what reply did the noble Lord give to the question so properly put by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Manchester? He told the House that it was monstrous

595
to pretend ignorance of the objects of the war, and that every peasant knew them. If so, the peasantry were more enlightened than hon. Gentlemen in that House, for they had been trying, he did not know how long, to elicit from Her Majesty's Government some distinct statement of the real objects which the Government had in view. Were they to go back to the Four Points and the Conferences at Vienna? The noble Lord the Member for the City of London was so satisfied with the last proposition at those conferences that he said he would accept it; that the French Plenipotentiary would co-operate with him; and that they would press it on their respective Governments. If that was the case, how could the noble Lord treat the question so lightly now? He wanted to know why it was that the Government had refused to take this advice, and had ignored the opinion of their Plenipotentiary? Having done so, they were bound to tell the House what further they were seeking? It was true that the war at present was popular, but it demanded daily victims; the people had a conscience, and they would become restless and unquiet, unless it could be clearly shown that the Government were justified in carrying on that war. But the noble Lord gave not the slightest explanation; and, when the question was pressed upon him, the noble Lord attempted to raise a cheer and draw off the attention of the House from the question by an allusion to the position of Russia. But what, he would ask, was the state of that Power to support which this country had plunged into war? What benefit had we conferred upon Turkey? Where were the large internal reforms promised, the flourishing finances, the spirit of freedom and toleration that was to be introduced? Was there the slightest trace of it? Was it not, on the contrary, the fact that every single spark of vitality had been extinguished in that country? Did the despatches from the East even condescend to mention the Turkish losses; and was not a large portion of the Turkish army looked upon as less valuable than even the beasts of burden of the allied armies? Surely, there must be something rotten at the bottom of the cause, when the very State for which all these exertions, all these displays of heroism were made, was in so unsatisfactory a condition. It was perfectly clear that, whatever might be the result of this war, as it affected the other States of
596
Europe, it could not be of the slightest advantage either to the moral, financial, or physical condition of Turkey. There was one part of the noble Lord's speech on which he (Lord C. Hamilton) could not help observing, and which he had heard with considerable astonishment. The noble Lord had actually spoken of the satisfactory state of the Danubian Principalities, and appeared to congratulate the inhabitants of Moldavia and Wallachia on possessing the kind and friendly assistance of Austria. If the noble Lord really entertained the opinion that the people of those Principalities had cause to rejoice in the friendly offices of Austria, he must view the state of those provinces in a light which to him (Lord C. Hamilton) was inexplicable. However, the question which the House at this moment had to consider was the war—what was its object, and what were the means by which that object was to be achieved. The noble Lord had not told the House these things. All that he did, was to call upon the House to support him in carrying on the war, although the noble Lord had not even shown any confidence in his own negotiator. The House was bound not to give the noble Lord that support until he had stated what the real objects of the war were, and what were the means by which they were to be attained.
MR. DISRAELI: Sir, although I wish to make a few observations before this debate closes, I shall most scrupulously avoid, on this occasion and at this late hour of the evening, entering into any discussion as to the conduct of the war. This evening is memorable, and will long be memorable, in, the history of this country, for the revelations and for the confessions on the part of a Minister of State holding a very high and peculiar position—confessions and revelations which, probably, have not been before equalled in the memory of any man living. What have we heard to-night so unexpectedly, and which, if I am not mistaken, is destined to impress itself So seriously and painfully on the minds and opinions of this nation? We have had to-night an admission from the noble Lord the Secretary of State for the Colonies, who was recently employed by his Sovereign in the high position of Minister Plenipotentiary to negotiate on a subject of no less moment than that of peace or war, that, after having given, as he has admitted, great care and anxiety to the prosecution of his labours, he arrived at a favourable solution

597
of the difficulties with which he had to contend, and had in his own mind accomplished measures which would have secured peace for this country, and that to recommend these measures to the Government which had employed him he returned to England. Strange to say, it seems the noble Lord found no sympathy on the part of his colleagues. They did not agree in the policy which he recommended. They decided upon a course totally adverse to that which he wished to sanction. They decided on a course no less decisive than the prosecution of that war which in his opinion ought to have terminated. The noble Lord accedes to the suggestions of his colleagues. He remains in the Cabinet of which he was a Member during the negotiations; he remains in that Cabinet—a Minister of Peace—and, as a Member of that Cabinet, he recommends the vigorous prosecution of that war in his place in this House. Sir, the reasons which the noble Lord has given for this extraordinary course appear to me no less singular than his conduct. This is no slight question. The hon. and learned Gentleman who has preceded me in this debate has fairly said, that it may be considered as the most important of all political questions. There is hardly a Member of this House who would place any measure to regulate our internal condition, however high its aim, in the same category as a question whether peace should be accomplished or whether war should be prosecuted. The noble Lord has told us to-night, notwithstanding it was his conviction that peace might be obtained and ought to be obtained, that he considered it his duty to support the policy of war, and which he has accordingly done, both as an eminent Member of the Cabinet and of this House. The noble Lord has rested the vindication of his course on a principle which, according to his version, is calculated to raise his character as a public man, who, by so acting, has absolutely sacrificed his own feelings to his sense of public duty. I may differ from the views which the noble Lord has taken on this subject; but I think that the question of peace or war, especially under the circumstances in which this country finds itself at present, is one that ought not to be an open question. Lax as have been the rules and regulations in recent Cabinets with regard to open questions, I certainly cannot conceal my surprise at learning to-night, from high authority, that peace and war are open questions in the existing Administration.
598
But what I want to ask, after these extraordinary revelations of the Minister, is this—is this House for peace or for war? Because whatever may be the opinions of hon. Gentlemen, whatever the opinions of those Gentlemen who with great ability advocate their views in favour of peace, or those of Gentlemen on this and on the other side of the House, who think that the war should be prosecuted with vigour and energy, still I shall assume that we must all be of this mind, that there is very little chance of either obtaining a satisfactory peace or prosecuting a successful war if in the very bosom of the Cabinet such contrary sentiments prevail; and if the most eminent Members in the councils of Her Majesty are influenced by ideas so conflicting on questions so vital. The question of peace or war must always in all countries, but especially in a free country, be a subject of controversy; but all parties, nevertheless, will agree in this, that, whether we are to have peace or war, Her Majesty's Ministers ought at any rate to be unanimous on the point. I cannot, indeed, see any chance of efficient and vigorous action in either respect or for either result if the present state of affairs continues such as it has been described to us to-night with startling candour by the noble Lord the Secretary of State, whose revelations will, I doubt not, long linger in the ears of the people of this country.
But what I particularly rose for on the present occasion was to notice some observations which have fallen from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Manchester (Mr. M. Gibson) and others, which appear to me to require some comment. The right hon. Member for Manchester, who has very properly called the attention of the House to-night to this strange state of affairs, dwelt on the singular inconsistency and alarming incongruity existing between the secret and avowed opinions of the Government. The right hon. Gentleman very properly touched on the want of confidence and the distrust which must be created in the public mind, when the course of policy pursued by our Government at Vienna, for example, is contrasted with another course of policy, apparently advocated by the Government in this House. How, I wish to know, are we to describe such a state of affairs, except by such expressions as "ambiguous language and uncertain conduct"? Permit me to observe that some six weeks ago, having learnt that we were on the eve of con-

599
cluding a peace, to which I will in a moment refer—on terms which I believed to be impolitic, unsatisfactory, and, what is more, impracticable—having heard, at the same time, in this House that war was to be conducted on a still larger scale than before, and with a still more vigorous spirit—having learnt in one place that a successful Plenipotentiary was to bring home with him a treaty to be ratified; and, finding here a leader of the House—apparently promising to the country an interminable vista of hostilities, I thought it my duty to ask the House whether, under these circumstances, it was not desirable to put an end to this "ambiguous language and uncertain conduct?" Events have since vindicated the course I then took. The present position of this House, and the extraordinary speech of the Secretary of State to-night, have vindicated the course I then took. There is not a Member of this House who does not now feel that the country has suffered from this "ambiguous language and uncertain conduct;" and yet the very first Gentleman who went out into the lobby against the expression by the House of that truth was, I am sorry to say, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Manchester. Well, in what position does the House of Commons—nearly at the end of its Session— find itself, by voting in the teeth of evidence which could not be resisted, and in opposition to coming events of which men who ought to have been informed should not at the time have been utterly uncognizant? In what position, I ask, does the House of Commons place itself, when it finds now at the end of the Session that it has lost every opportunity of vindicating the policy it ought to have pursued? I say, I had reason to believe that a peace was about to be concluded at Vienna on terms impolitic, unsatisfactory, and which ultimately would have been found impracticable. For that reason I was opposed to such a peace, and wished the House to interfere, and with its influence, as far as it could prevail, to prevent it. I do not say that I am on that account an advocate of those interminable hostilities we have heard of, of a war which is to be waged without end and without purpose. On the contrary—though this is not the occasion for doing so—I shall never shrink on the right opportunity from laying down the principles on which I think a peace, and a lasting peace, so far as human affairs permit, might be attain-
600
ed. I have already on a former occasion referred to some of the modes by which such a peace might be established, and to-night I shall not again advert to them even by implication. But that a peace may be obtained that will secure the independence of that part of the world which we look on as the main element of the political balance we wish to uphold, I firmly believe, and I equally believe that it could not have been obtained by the plan which the noble Lord so easily accepted and so cordially sanctioned at Vienna. I wish, then, to know what is the position in which this country now finds itself with respect to the prosecution of this war in consequence of the confessions of the Minister to-night? Two years ago, or less, when the whole country and the House were complaining of the great neglect displayed by the Administration of this country in preparing for the war then impending, what was the excuse made for ten precious months which had been wasted? It was that we were preparing and securing those great alliances without which there would be little prospect of the war being waged with success. Well, I want to know what probability there is of our obtaining the assistance of what were styled by a Member of the then Government the great German Powers, after the admission made to-night by a leading Member of the Government? How can we appeal again to Prussia, or ask any European Power to assist us in this struggle, when we have acknowledged to Europe that just terms have been proposed by Austria on which peace might be obtained—when that has been acknowledged by our Plenipotentiary extraordinary and one of our leading statesmen? Will not Austria, Prussia, or any other State turn round, and reply to the demands of our Ministers, "We do not at all agree with you in the necessity of making renewed efforts to curb the ambition of Russia; we think that the elements of a durable peace are in the power of able managers of circumstances, and our authority for so thinking is the distinguished Statesman you sent to Vienna to represent your interests, and to advocate such a settlement of these disturbed relations as might appear most advantageous." Well, then, I say that the effect of the debate to-night on our prospect of conducting this war with success is of very evil tendency. Nor is it merely on our alliances that the admissions of the noble Lord will have injurious consequences. Whenever we enter into

601
negotiations again with Russia, there is upon record—placed there by the noble Lord as a guide to Russia—a statement of what we consider our just demands might require. Whether, therefore, we look to our alliances or contemplate negotiations with our enemy—whether we look to the influence of public opinion in this country, of those who advocate war or who wish to accomplish peace—an equally injurious effect will be created by the extraordinary communications made to the House to-night by the Secretary of State. Let us, then, look to the position of the individual—the noble Lord himself—with respect to this question. If we had employed some distinguished diplomatist not connected with politics or with the Government, the evil effects I have referred to would not have been so embarrassing. He might have formed his own opinion on the matter, which statesmen of more extended and more varied experience would not have felt authorised to adopt. But our Plenipotentiary at Vienna was a Member of the Cabinet, and one of the most eminent Members of the Cabinet. When he goes to Vienna he does not go there, as the noble Lord told us the other night, with instructions merely. He may, indeed, have had formal instructions, but he goes there with an intimate acquaintance with the views, the mind, and the policy of the statesmen whom he has left behind him in the Cabinet, and with whom he has worked for years. Therefore, when the noble Lord accepted the proposition of Count Buol, the Austrian Minister, it was not merely in the character of the English Plenipotentiary that he accepted it and agreed to recommend it to the Government that had employed him, but it was as a Minister of England that he accepted that proposition. It was the Minister of England who, by that acceptance, indicated their policy, and, whatever may have been the subsequent conduct of the Government, there is an impression which is ineradicable in the Cabinets of the Continent, that when the noble Lord accepted and sanctioned that proposition, he represented, and fairly represented, the mind and policy of his Cabinet.
If that be a fact—and I question whether any impartial man can for a moment doubt the position—we come again to this point: what is the object of the war? What are the ends which we propose to ourselves? I am not going now to obtrude them upon
602
the House; but I have in my own mind an idea of what should be our object in carrying on this war. There are many who may not agree with me, and who may have other objects—some may have very extreme views, others more moderate and temperate ones; but I take it for granted that the great majority of those who support the war have, in their own minds, some result which would, in their opinion, repay this country for the great efforts that have been made, and which would, to a great degree, if not entirely, accomplish the purposes which they are desirous to secure. But that is not the position of Her Majesty's Ministers. Her Majesty's Ministers, in accepting the proposition of Austria, have practically recognised that they are not justified in continuing the war any further; and, if that be the case, I ask you with what chance of success can such a Cabinet appeal to the energies of this nation to support them? How could you expect that a great people—millions of men, who may be guided by a sound instinct upon such great questions as the war, but who have neither the time nor the mind, perhaps, to enter into all the considerations that ought to form opinion—how can you expect that the millions will support you, and will endure the sacrifices which they must be prepared to bear, when they know that in your thoughts you have a scheme which proves that the sacrifices which you call upon them to make are not necessary, and that the object for which they are struggling is a mere phantom, which a message from Vienna may to-morrow dissipate? Sir, there is nothing, in my mind, which should be a source of greater sorrow to this nation at the present moment than the thorough indefiniteness of our position with respect to the war in which we are engaged, coupled as it is with the consideration, which from this night every one must feel, that Her Majesty's Ministers are carrying on a war which, by their own admission six weeks ago, they thought to be perfectly unnecessary. Well, then, Sir, I want to know why the noble Lord's colleagues did not ratify his labours when he returned to England—always assuming that those labours were accomplished in complete deference to their previous judgment, and in harmony with the views which they had the opportunity so often of conferring upon together? What happened, I want to know, in this country, which induced the

603
noble Lord (Viscount Palmerston) not to sanction the labours of his eminent colleague the Plenipotentiary? I think that the noble Lord has a right, generally speaking, and under ordinary circumstances, as First Minister, to exercise a great reserve in the expression of his opinions both as to the policy of his Government and the circumstances which may influence his own conduct; but when we find that the Member of a Cabinet sent to negotiate a peace succeeds in negotiating a peace—for virtually that was the result of the mission—and when we find the Plenipotentiary, with his labours not ratified, remaining a Member of the Cabinet, then we have a right to expect from a Government so constituted and so situated a frank exposition of the reasons which induced the noble Lord not to accept the result of the labours of his colleague. Were they not sufficient? Had Russia, by the terms which the noble Lord approved, not been considered to have made a sufficient sacrifice? Well, that is a fair objection; but then you must tell us what is the sacrifice to be made by Russia that will satisfy you. If you think that the terms were not sufficiently severe, you ought to tell us, without, of course, binding yourselves to what you deem such details. If you ask the country to continue its efforts, you ought to tell us, generally, what are the general conditions which you would consider more satisfactory. Unless you deal frankly with the people of this country in the condition in which you are placed, I say that it is totally impossible to carry on this war with the vigour which is necessary to success. What chance have you of creating or maintaining enthusiam in the people if the suspicion gets abroad, as it must do after the debate of to-night, that you are making of the question of peace or war merely the means of maintaining yourselves in office; that peace and war are convenient or incommodious just as they may create or influence a majority. If such an idea ever becomes prevalent in the country, I know nothing which would more deaden the spirit of the country, and which would more tend to prevent your calling with effect upon the people to make great exertions and sacrifices, than so mournful a conviction being impressed upon their minds. And how are you to extricate yourselves from the peculiar difficulties in which you are now placed? How are you to remove all those disadvantages
604
except by coming forward frankly and speaking to the House and to the country after this fashion: "Our eminent colleague exerted himself for a great object. We are of course, as all are, favourable to peace; but our colleague was too zealous for the good cause in which he embarked—he made admissions which we considered fatal to the interests of the country, and we could not support him in the course he took. We do not think that he showed that prescience, that acquaintance with the subject, that statesmanlike sagacity that are necessary. It is painful for us to make these admissions: but we must do our duty to our country, and we tell you that the noble Lord entered into arrangements which we entirely disapprove. Our policy is different. The policy which we intend to pursue is one of great vigour, which aims at great results, which will not be satisfied unless the power of Russia is materially reduced, and it is entirely opposed to the policy which the noble Lord pursued." But then, unfortunately, under such circumstances, the noble Lord the Secretary of State would probably find it necessary to quit the Cabinet of which he is so important a member. Well, then, has it come to this? Is this to be the end of this important Session?—the end of breaking up so many Governments?—the end of our great efforts—our great disasters—of the struggle in which the nation has engaged?—of that Government, at the head of which we were to have a Minister of surpassing energy, and, no doubt, transcendent experience? Is this the end of the Ministry which was to put the right men in the right places? Is this the end—that even peace and war have become mere party considerations, that the interests of the country are sacrificed to the menace of a majority, and that the turbulent assemblies of Downing Street are to baffle all the sagacity of all the Conferences of Vienna?
SIR GEORGE GREY: Sir, it was not my intention to take any part in this discussion, but I cannot refrain from making a few observations in consequence of the erroneous construction which has been placed by the right hon. Gentleman on the statement of my noble Friend. He began by stating that my noble Friend, having gone to Vienna as the Plenipotentiary of this country, to negotiate an honourable peace, left Vienna, having accomplished, in his opinion, the object for which he went there, and having brought

605
home the means of a satisfactory and honourable solution of the question, which might be accepted by the Government at home. The same fallacy pervaded the whole speech of the right hon. Gentleman. He assumed that my noble Friend had brought home, not the terms of a proposition which it was his wish to make to Russia with the previous concurrence of the Allied Powers, but the terms of a proposition to which Austria pledged herself that Russia would assent. Nothing could be further from the fact. What was the course of those negotiations? My noble Friend, in conjunction with the Plenipotentiaries of Austria, France, and Turkey, proposed terms, on which the Allied Powers conceived the third point might be satisfactorily solved. Austria cordially supported that proposal; but it was distinctly and decidedly rejected by Russia, with an intimation that to the principle of a limitation of her flag in the Black Sea she could in no case and to no extent agree. From that time—the negotiations being broken off—Austria, in accordance with the views she had uniformly put forth, that she was called upon to exhaust every effort for peace, endeavoured to find some other means of solution. In the communications between my noble Friend and the Austrian Plenipotentiary, the proposition which has been so much referred to this evening was then made; but that proposal was never made by Austria with the slightest intimation that it would be accepted by Russia, and, when it came before Her Majesty's Government, one most important element in our consideration was, what would be the result of making such a proposition to Russia—assuming that the terms contained were terms on which an honourable peace might be made? It contained terms which, though they varied from those which had been already proposed to and rejected by Russia, we thought were not more favourable than those we had before proposed; and they were terms involving again a limitation of the Russian fleet in the Black Sea to which that Power had already declared that she would never accede. Austria, as I have said, invited us to concur in making that proposal to Russia, but she did not make the slightest intimation that Russia would accept them; the fact, indeed, is strongly impressed on my mind that there was an intimation from Austria that she had no expectation that those terms would be accepted, with a further intimation that we were not, in
606
the event of their rejection, to count upon her with any certainty becoming a belligerent. We thought it was not consistent with the dignity and honour of this country, acting in conjunction with France and Turkey, nor likely to forward the great object we had in view, to go almost as suppliants to Russia, which had rejected our terms, to go to her at the bidding of Austria, and to offer her fresh terms, with almost the certainty that she would again reject those terms, and at the same time, without having any hope that by so doing we should induce Austria to advance one step in the direction of becoming a belligerent Power. That is a totally different statement of the facts of the case from that of the right hon. Gentleman. If those proposals had come from Russia—had Russia come to us, saying that she was now ready to accede to a limitation of her Black Sea fleet—that would have been an entirely different matter. I was only anxious to correct a misconception of the statement of my noble Friend—a misconception which would have led to very great public inconvenience. The right hon. Gentleman also assumes that there exists now a difference of opinion—that the Cabinet is not united as to the justice and necessity of the war, or as to the mode of prosecuting it, or that a vigorous prosecution of it, or the accomplishment of the objects for which it was undertaken, is at all essential to the interests of the country. Sir, I am not conscious of any such difference. I believe I am acting with colleagues, every one of whom is convinced of the justice and necessity of the war, and is agreed as to the course we are pursuing and ought to pursue. I hold that every man who is engaged in the conduct of a war ought to feel that it is a just and necessary war, and ought to have a perfect coincidence of opinion with his colleagues as to the mode of prosecuting it; and whatever differences there may have been as to the policy of making one proposal or another to Russia, the question of the policy of prosecuting the war is a totally different matter; and I say, that in respect to the prosecution of the war, we are a united Cabinet.
VISCOUNT GODERICHwished to put a question to the noble Lord at the head of the Government, in consequence of what had just fallen from the right hon. Baronet the Secretary for the Home Department, for he conceived there was on one point a great difference between what had fallen from him and what had been stated by the

607
noble Lord the Member for the City of London. He understood the noble Lord to say that the proposition which Count Buol suggested to him at Vienna was to be made by the Austrian Government, and sent by them to St. Petersburg as an ultimatum, and that if the terms were refused by the Russian Government the Austrian Ambassador at St. Petersburg would quit that city, and Austria would enter into a military alliance with England and France. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for the Home Department, on the contrary, tells the House that the reason why the proposition was not accepted by the Cabinet was, that the Austrian Government held out no hopes that they would consider its rejection by Russia a casus belli. It was impossible to reconcile these two statements, and he asked the Government to give some explanation that would enable the House and the country to understand the true state of the question, which at present was altogether inexplicable.
SIR G. GREYwished to correct the representation made by the noble Lord of what he had said. He did not say the reason why the Cabinet rejected the proposition was that Austria held out no hopes that she would become a belligerent Power in the event of its being refused by Russia. What he said was this, that one important consideration in his own mind, and no doubt that of others, with respect to the proposal was, that Austria gave no certain expectation that it would be accepted.

MAYNOOTH REPORT.
MR. SPOONERtook occasion to state that a communication had passed between himself and the noble Lord at the head of the Government that evening, with regard to a Motion which he had announced it to be his intention to bring forward, in relation to the evidence which had been taken before the Commissioners who had been appointed to inquire into the state of Maynooth College. From what had passed between the noble Lord and himself in that communication, he had been induced to believe that the noble Lord was prepared to give his assent to the form of notice which had been agreed upon between them. The noble Lord, indeed, had assured him that he would give his assent to that form, and had authorised him to move it. He had, however, since received an intimation through the Vice President of the Board of Trade, to the effect that
608
the noble Lord had thought fit to withdraw his assent from his (Mr. Spooner's) notice, and to give his support to the Amendment of which notice had been given by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Ireland. Under these circumstances, and not being able to support that Amendment himself, he should feel it to be his duty to proceed with his original Motion when the House went into Committee of Supply, unless the noble Lord would consent to name a day upon which that Motion might be discussed.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, the hon. Gentleman had stated the circumstances correctly. After seeing the hon. Gentleman's Motion and consenting to it, he had reconsidered the matter, and thought it better to support an Amendment by the Chief Secretary for Ireland. The result was only that the hon. Member's Motion now stood in the same position as it occupied before the consent was given. He could not in the state of public business give the hon. Gentleman a day for his Motion.
Question put, and agreed to.
Supply considered in Committee; Committee report progress; to sit again on Monday next.

STATE CARRIAGE DUTIES, &c.
Mr. FITZROY brought up the Report of the Resolutions.
SIR H. WILLOUGHBYasked whether the Government would have any objection to lay before the House documents to show why the stage-carriage duties had been remitted in certain cases to persons in this metropolis. It would be very satisfactory to have the memorials presented by those persons on the subject, with copies of the answers given and the grounds upon which this remission was based.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERhad already explained to the House that these compositions of duty were not the acts of the Government, but of the Board of Inland Revenue. He was not able to state whether any documents existed beyond the memorials presented to that Board, which could throw light upon the transactions to which the hon. Baronet alluded; but if there were any such papers he should be quite ready to produce them.
First, Second, and Third Resolution agreed to.
Fourth Resolution—
"That no exemption from Stamp Duty contained in or granted by any Act relating to

609
Friendly Societies, nor any other exemption from Stamp Duty than such as is contained in section 8 of the Act 6th and 7th of Will. IV., c. 32, for the regulation of Benefit Building Societies, shall be deemed to extend to any form of assurance, or any conveyance, mortgage, transfer, agreement, bond, or other instrument made to or on behalf of any Benefit Building Society by any member of such Society to whom any sum or sums exceeding in the whole the sum of 240 l. shall be advanced by such Society, except such deeds or instruments as may be made on behalf of a member of such Society admitted before the 5th day of July, 1855, in pursuance of engagements made between such member and the said Society before that date."
Read a second time.
MR. SCHOLEFIELD MR. SCHOLEFIELD rose to object. These Resolutions were passed last evening without the cognisance of most of the Members of that House. He did not wish to impute anything like deceit to the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but he had not the smallest expectation that any matter relating to Friendly Societies would be included in a Bill entitled Stage Carriage Duties, &c. It had been suggested to him that there was only one reason why it should be so included, namely, that the Stage Carriage Duties Bill must necessarily be a Bill de omnibus, and, therefore, that it might be made to contain any clause about anything. He was not going to discuss this particular clause now. In the other House it had been struck out from the Friendly Societies Bill on the ground that it had nothing to do with that Bill, and ought to be introduced in a measure relating to Building Societies generally, and there was of course a ten times more valid objection against its insertion in a Stage Carriages Bill.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER, in answer to the statement that the House had been taken by surprise, said, if the hon. Member referred to the notice paper, he would find this notice given at length—
"The Chancellor of the Exchequer—That this House will now resolve itself into a Committee to consider the Acts relating to the Duties payable on Stage Carriages in Great Britain and the Stamp Act."
MR. SCHOLEFIELDobserved that in yesterday's notice there was not one word of that stated.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, the abbreviated heading was not his production. He was only responsible for the full notice.
MR. WILSONsaid, the Resolution had been framed in order to carry out an arrangement that he had entered into with
610
a deputation which had conferred with him upon the subject. A proviso, in accordance with that arrangement, was introduced into the Friendly Societies Bill, and passed this House, but was rejected by the House of Lords. It was now proposed, therefore, that a similar provision should be inserted as a revenue clause in a revenue Bill. He should be ready to insert any words in conformity with the arrangement to which he had referred.
SIR J. SHELLEYsuggested the postponement of the Resolution.
SIR C. WOODhoped the Resolution would be agreed to, as the difficulty which had been raised might be met previous to the introduction of the Bill.
MR. J. MOWBRAY and MR. MURROUGHobjected to passing the Resolution before time had been given for the examination.
Motion made and Question put, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution.
The House divided:—Ayes 65; Noes 39: Majority 26.
Bill or Bills ordered to be brought in by Mr. FITZROY, the CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER, and Mr. WILSON.
House adjourned at half after One o'clock till Monday next.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1a Powers under Improvement Acts Regulation; Dwelling Houses (Scotland).
2a Court of Exchequer (Ireland); Stock in Trade; Copyhold, &c. Commission Continuance.
3a Assizes and Sessions; Friendly Societies.

JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS OF THE HOUSE.
LORD BROUGHAMsaid, that, before their Lordships proceeded to the transaction of the business before them, he desired to state that a very incorrect representation had appeared in one of the daily papers of some judicial proceedings which had taken place in their Lordships' House. He had no complaint whatever to make of the paper in which had been published the article commenting on the proceedings in question, for the article was perfectly respectful towards that House, and even kind towards the law Lords; but some persons—probably some interested party—had made important misrepresentations of the facts, and had thus led to the insertion of a totally erroneous statement of what had actually occurred. It was stated that his noble and learned Friend upon the woolsack and Lord St. Leonards differed in opinion on a certain case; and that, while

489
the question was under deliberation, he (Lord Brougham) came in, and, although he had not heard the arguments, turned the balance in favour of the Lord Chancellor, the consequence being that the case was decided in accordance with the opinion of the noble and learned Lord. But this statement was altogether erroneous; for the fact was that he was absent from the
House—and, indeed, he might say from the country—for three weeks before and for a fortnight after the 1st of May, the day on which those proceedings were represented to have occurred. It was clearly impossible, therefore, that he could have pursued any such course as had been attributed to him in the article to which he had alluded. The true state of the case was that, in consequence of the equality of the number on both sides—there being one law Lord on each side of the question—there was what some might regard as no decision whatever of that House; or, in other words, the appeal was dismissed, and the judgment of the Court below affirmed, which judgment was contrary to the opinion of the Lord Chancellor, and according to the views of his noble and learned Friend Lord St. Leonards, so that the practical effect was that the opinion of the latter noble and learned Lord prevailed. Under these circumstances, it was manifest that no statement could be more unlike the truth than that to which he had called the attention of their Lordships. He could only observe, in conclusion, that it was the invariable practice of the law Lords not to take part in the decision of any cause, unless they had been present at the argument.
LORD CAMPBELLadmitted that it was highly proper that the mistake of the writer of the article referred to by his noble and learned Friend should be corrected; but he hoped that it would never be thought a breach of privilege to comment, not only kindly, but stringently, and, if necessary, severely, on the proceedings of that House when acting as a court of justice.
THE LORD CHANCELLORobserved that the statement of his noble and learned Friend (Lord Brougham) was literally and perfectly correct; for he could testify that his noble and learned Friend had taken no part whatever either in the argument or the decision of the case in question. The argument commenced after he had left the country, and the decision took place before he had returned. It had been suggested that in cases where only two law Lords
490
attended, and where those two were of a different opinion, there should be a reference to a third; but he doubted whether that would be an advisable course to pursue, for the decision would then altogether rest with one arbiter, whereas, according to the present practice, when there was a difference between the two Lords who had tried the appeal, the judgment of the Court below was affirmed, and thus that opinion prevailed in favour of which there was the largest number of Judges.

RELIGIOUS WORSHIP (No. 2) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE EARL OF DERBY: My Lords, I very much regret to find, in making, by the direction of a Select Committee of your Lordships' House, the present Motion, asking your Lordships to agree to a Bill which has for its object the relief of all denominations of Christians—members of the Church of England as well as the various Dissenting bodies—from the possible operation of certain existing penal Statutes, that I have to encounter the opposition of a noble Friend (the Earl of Shaftesbury), by whom a Bill on the same subject, but of a more extended character, was introduced to your Lordships, and was by your Lordships referred to a Select Committee. I regret still more that my noble Friend who had charge of that measure, upon your Lordships deciding to send it before a Select Committee, not only declined to take any part in concert with me in the nomination of the Members of the Committee, but even refused to attend its deliberations or to assist it with his advice, or even by a statement of the case which he was anxious to recommend to its attention; for I can assure my noble Friend that, if he had presented himself before the Committee, and brought forward any instance of real or substantial grievance, he would have met with no indisposition to listen with every attention to his observations or his arguments; on the contrary, he would have found evinced by every Member of the Committee an earnest desire to remove by legislation everything that can be proved to be a real grievance, so far as is consistent with the principles which have hitherto guided Parliament in dealing with questions of this character. The invariable policy of this country, ever since the principle of religious toleration has been in force in it, has been that the public worship of Almighty God should be

491
duly and solemnly conducted in buildings set apart for that special purpose, either (as in the cases of the Churches of England and Rome) by consecration or dedication, or (as in some exceptional cases, even in the Established Church also, and in almost every instance among the Dissenters) by licensing and registration. This practice is, I believe, in accordance with the views and wishes of all right-thinking and serious minded members of the community, whatever may be the particular religious denomination to which they belong. That it is the feeling and desire of the Protestant Dissenters in general, I may venture to infer from the fact that there is now upon your Lordships' table a Bill introduced and carried through the House of Commons on the part of those very denominations, not with the object of abolishing, but of amending and enforcing the law requiring places of worship to be licensed and registered. The Protestant Dissenters, therefore, may be presumed to desire, not the repeal of this law, but that the mode of registering and the manner in which licences are granted should be regulated. In the year 1852 an Act was passed transferring the supervision of this registration from the Episcopal Board, which formerly discharged this duty, to the Registrar General's office. Now, it is in consequence of that Act that a new measure has been deemed necessary in the present year; but it has so happened that the necessity for this new measure has led to a practical demonstration on the part of the Dissenters, that they do not require that places of worship shall not be registered and licensed. The two principal Statutes which regulate places of public worship in this country are the 1st Will. and Mary, requiring the licensing and registration of Dissenting places of worship, and the 52nd of Geo. III., which consolidated and amended various previous Acts, and enacted that any person assembling in his private dwelling for public worship a body of more than twenty persons, exclusive of the members of his own family and household, shall be subject to a penalty. A Bill was brought into the House of Commons in the course of the present Session to repeal certain provisions of the 52nd Geo. III. It passed almost—in fact, I believe entirely—sub silentio through the other House; but, after the third reading, an addition was made in the Bill by an Amendment, and which was never printed for the information of the other House, and
492
which was inserted after twelve o'clock at night. This Amendment introduced another and a totally different branch of the subject into the measure, and entirely did away with the law requiring any building set apart for purposes of public worship to be registered and licensed. That struck me as being rather a singular proceeding, and formed one reason among others why I thought the Bill of my noble Friend should be referred to a Select Committee. The Committee, under these circumstances, were of opinion that one ground upon which that Bill should not be persevered with, but that another Bill with similar objects should be substituted for it, was that by adopting that course the House of Commons might have an opportunity of deliberately reviewing the measure, which in point of fact the Members of that Assembly had never seen or known anything about during its progress through that House. For, I must say, that this practice of introducing by a kind of afterthought such extensive changes of the law, when a Bill has been read a third time, and after twelve o'clock at night too, is a most mischievous mode of legislating, and one which I trust your Lordships will decidedly discountenance. My Lords, the Committee to whom the Bill was referred were most earnestly desirous of meeting any true and substantial grievance; and, in consequence of the absence—the unfortunate absence I will say—of my noble Friend from its deliberations, they had to consider as best they could the cases of grievance, real or possible, to which he had referred in the statement which he had made in this House. It will be recollected that the first case to which my noble Friend alluded was that of clergymen of the Established Church, and he even stated that the clergy of the diocess of a right rev. Prelate opposite were in the weekly and daily habit of violating the existing law, by carrying on their ministrations in private houses and in other places than churches. Now, I think it would be very difficult for my noble Friend to prove that the practical operation of the law is such that its penal consequences could be made to affect clergymen of the Church of England ministering in their own parishes; but, to remove the possibility of any doubt on that subject, the Bill which I hold in my hand distinctly provides that the existing Statutes shall not be construed to apply to the case of any acts of religious worship, whether conducted by the incum-

493
bent or by the licensed curate of the parish, or by any clerk in holy orders acting on behalf of such incumbent or licensed curate. The next case of supposed grievance stated by my noble Friend was that of various religious and charitable societies, which in holding their occasional meetings, commenced and concluded their proceedings with prayer or other solemn acts. I do not believe that such a case would come within the penal clause of the existing Act of Parliament; but, at any rate this Bill distinctly provides that persons engaged in such proceeding shall not be subject to any penalty whatever. The third class of cases referred to by my noble Friend present considerable difficulties—that of the celebration of Divine worship in any place whatever, not being licensed or registered as a place of worship, and, of course, not consecrated, where there is an attendance of more than twenty persons, exclusive of the family or household belonging to such place. No doubt there is considerable difficulty in dealing with this case. It is by no means easy, I frankly confess, to draw an accurate definition between what is public and what is private worship. The law as it at present stands does not interfere with private worship; the private devotions of every family are left entirely untouched; but the question is, where are we to draw the line between public and private worship? I confess that I do not consider the definition drawn by the law, as it at present stands, to be one of the most fortunate character. I think it is rather arbitrary to say that the presence of more than twenty persons, exclusive of the family and household, shall constitute an act of public worship, and shall draw down the penalties of the Act; and, speaking for myself, I should be glad to see some other definition introduced into the Bill, having regard more to the fact of the act of worship being celebrated in a private house than to the number of persons engaged in it. My noble Friend, as I understand, opposes this Bill on the ground that it does not go far enough in this direction. He cannot deny that it does, to a certain extent, relax the present law; but the principle which he desires to lay down is this—that public worship of all descriptions (with the exception of the sacrament of baptism and the rite of marriage), so far as the law of England is concerned, may be solemnised by any person, in any place, at any time, and under any circumstances, without let or hindrance on the part of the law.
494
Now, my Lords, the Dissenting congregations may have within themselves a power of dealing with members of their own denominations who shall conduct their religious worship in a form not in accordance with the rules of their body; but the Church of England has no such power; and what my noble Friend proposes, therefore, is this, that while the Church of England is bound down by strict rules and regulations, and is prevented from enforcing her own discipline on her own members, the law shall not protect that discipline; but the members of her communion shall be empowered to usurp the authority and ministration of the clergy, and to carry on their ministrations in defiance of the parochial clergy. This may be right with regard to the voluntary bodies; but it is absolutely destructive to the parochial system of the whole constitution of the Church of England. In many large towns, and in the extensive rural districts, the clergyman of the parish is physically unable to discharge all the important duties which devolve upon him, and in numberless cases he would—and, indeed, often does—gladly avail himself of the assistance of pious laymen. I do not desire to interfere with such a practice. What I desire by this Bill is not to prevent this, but, on the contrary, for the first time to give a legal status and a legislative sanction to such assistance. At present it is doubtful whether any layman is capable of assisting the clergyman of the parish, even though with his consent and by his authority, in visiting the sick and holding meetings for the purpose of religious worship; but this Bill provides that for the future no penalty shall attach to any layman performing these duties with the concurrence of the clergyman of the parish in which he labours. It may be said that this clause might be nullified by the idleness or apathy of the clergyman of the parish, who may refuse assistance of this description; but, with a view of meeting this difficulty, there is a provision in the Bill that if any layman who is disposed so to employ himself can obtain the consent of the Bishop of the diocess he shall be at liberty to engage in those good works without subjecting himself to a penalty. I do not say that it will not be an unfortunate circumstance that there should be such a difference of opinion between the clergyman of the parish and the bishop, and that there should be in the same parish a conflicting authority, as it were, between the layman

495
sanctioned by the bishop and the clergyman who has refused his assistance; but this is a less evil than the existing state of things, in which neither the bishop nor the clergyman has power by law to avail himself of the assistance of laymen. I have now stated the manner in which this Bill proposes to give relief in the three cases brought forward by my noble Friend; but there remains yet another class of cases with which there is great difficulty in dealing, but with which my noble Friend would deal in a very summary manner, inasmuch as he would repeal all restrictions, and leave every man to do that which seems best in his own eyes. There is an evil against which it is the duty of the House to make provision, or, at least, to continue the provision which at present exists. We cannot conceal from ourselves the unfortunate dissensions which at present prevail upon certain topics in the Church of England; but, if there is any course which is more certain than another to aggravate those dissensions, and to introduce into this country all the evils which have resulted in Scotland from the institution there of a Free Church in opposition to the Establishment—the evils I mean of animosity where there ought to be agreement, and jealousy where there ought to be mutual support—it would be if the Legislature were to give to any member of the Church of England the authority and sanction of Parliament in establishing a congregation and performing Divine worship without applying for a licence, and while still professing to be a member of the Church of England—in any place, according to his own views, and in direct opposition to and defiance of the clergyman of the parish. It may be said, however, that it would be hard to prevent any one from holding a meeting for religious worship for the convenience of his poorer brethren who might not be able to attend church; and, to provide for that case, I certainly should have no objection to consent to a clause by which such meetings might be allowed, provided that they were held in a dwelling-house and did not take the form of public worship, and provided also that the person officiating was not a clergyman of the Church of England. If such a clause should be framed, then by the Bill I propose all possible cases of grievance under the existing law would be removed. The Committee thought that my noble Friend, in sweeping away all these restrictions, went too far, and that he thereby intro-
496
duced and sanctioned dangerous principles; but, at the same time, being anxious to meet the views of my noble Friend, the Committee directed the present Bill to be prepared, which, I believe, will do away with all substantial cases of grievance, and which, being sent down to the House of Commons, might meet with a fuller consideration than had been given to the other Bill. I am not without hopes that my noble Friend, on further reflection, will feel that by the adoption of the measure I now propose his object would be attained, and I, therefore, move the second reading of the Bill.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.
THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURY: My Lords, the first complaint made by the noble Earl was, that I refused to serve on the Committee appointed to consider this question. The reason why I declined to serve on that Committee was this:—After the speech made by the noble Earl in moving that the Bill be referred to a Select Committee—in which speech he completely overthrew the principles of the measure, and, as I thought, expressed sentiments which, if carried to their full extent, must issue in the revival of the Conventicle Act—I felt it was hopeless for me to serve on the Committee, knowing that I had no party to follow me in this matter. I therefore declined even to look at the names of the members of the Committee, because I believed, if I had, I should be obliged to make comments on some of them which might seem, perhaps, somewhat invidious. Under these circumstances I declined to attend the Committee, knowing, if I did, I should only have to share in the responsibility of the decision of the Committee, which I felt would be adverse to my measure. The noble Earl has again revived the charge which I answered during the last debate, that my object in what I proposed is to throw confusion into the Church of England, and to enable the laity to supersede the clergy; by stating that the rites of marriage, baptism, and burial were by my Bill alone excepted from celebration by the laity, he left the House to infer that I wished to put into the hands of the laity the power of administering the Lord's Supper. Now, what did my Bill effect any more than the repeal of the 52 Geo. III., which declared that not more than twenty persons should be allowed to attend religious worship in private houses, over and above the members of the family?

497
When that Act should he repealed the laity would remain in the same condition as before with respect to the ministration of religious rites, and the clergy would also remain precisely in the same state in respect to ecclesiastical discipline and to the authority of the bishops. It was not until I had gone far into this question that I was aware of the great depth of feeling prevailing throughout the country on this question, or of the great extent to which the existing law was used for the purpose of intimidation. Obsolete it was, to a great extent; but where? In great towns, and among the powerful and those who by their station could resist any attack attempted to be made on them. But it was not obsolete in respect to the poor cottage, or to the laity in poor parishes, or to poor clergymen, who felt that they might in many cases be brought to a stop, under the existing law, in the performance of their duties. After the discussion which has taken place, I feel that it will be quite impossible for the law in future to remain obsolete, even in those large districts where before it was in abeyance. I feel that, if the Bill of the noble Earl be passed, the law must be enforced; and, whether either the old law or this proposed new law should be brought into operation, a most decided restriction of what is the present practice would be introduced. Now, I think that there must be something very decided in the present proposition, otherwise we should not have such a marked movement on the part of the episcopal bench on the subject, or have the leader of the Conservative party come down here and lay on the table a Bill, and do everything in his power to sustain the demands of those who wish to retain the present restrictions in all their vigour. This question has sunk deep into the heart of the country, and the minds of the people are made up on it. Whether the House accept my Bill now or reject it, I feel that eventually its passing is as sure as the rising and setting of the sun, and my only hope and prayer is that the Bill may be passed without further agitation. All the various arguments connected with the subject have already been so fully laid before your Lordships that it is unnecessary for me to repeat them. The principle of my measure is very simple, namely, that every man has a perfect right to worship God when and how he pleases within his own house, and to call his friends and neighbours together to join in the worship and in hear-
498
ing the Word of God read. That is not only every man's right, but his positive duty, unless it can be shown that the public safety or public morality will be endangered, and then the statute law may step in and check that great Christian privilege. But the noble Earl has not ventured to show that either of those results would follow from the passing of my Bill. The utmost he has ventured to say was, that he thought the parochial system might be endangered; but I will endeavour to show that it will be greatly benefited by my Bill. In conformity with my principles, the Bill which passed the House of Commons gave ample relief both to Dissenters and to Churchmen. The noble Earl, in moving that the Bill be referred to a Select Committee, told the House that no time would thereby be lost, as the Bill had passed the House of Commons, and it would not therefore be necessary that it should repass there through its different stages again. But that Bill is now virtually thrown out by the casting vote of the noble Earl, who has substituted for it another Bill which is now under consideration. The new Bill is, without exception, a most objectionable measure. In the first place, I object to it on the ground that, under the guise of being an amendment of the law, it is, in fact, an entirely new ecclesiastical discipline Bill. I do not mean to say that I should object to the introduction of an ecclesiastical discipline Bill, but I object to the introduction of such a measure under the guise of revising the statute law, and when it gives greatly increased power to the bishops of the Church of England. The first clause of the Bill enacts—
"The said Acts or any of them shall not hereafter be taken to prohibit or to impose any penalty in respect of any meeting for religious worship within any parish or ecclesiastical district in England or Wales where the religious worship shall be conducted by the incumbent or licensed curate of such parish or ecclesiastical district, or by any other clerk in holy orders acting on the behalf of such incumbent or licensed curate, and not under prohibition from the bishop of the diocess; or by any reader, visitor, or other lay person within his own private house, or elsewhere within such parish, who shall act with the sanction and authority of such incumbent or licensed curate, or of the bishop of the diocess."
Why should licensed curates be named? By far the greater number of the curates to whom the measure would apply are not licensed. [The Bishop of OXFORD dissented.] He believed that the reverse of what the right rev. Prelate intimated was

499
the fact. But, even if it be not so, why are the curates without licence ignored? Is it not the fact that the Bishop has far greater authority over the licensed curate than over one that has no licence?
THE BISHOP OF LONDON: Just the reverse.
THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURY: Can the incumbent dismiss a licensed curate?
THE BISHOP OF LONDON: No.
THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURY: Can the bishop dismiss a licensed curate?
THE BISHOP OF LONDON: Yes.
THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURY: The right rev. Prelate says, it is the reverse of what I have stated. I asked him if an incumbent could dismiss a licensed curate; and the answer was "No." I asked then, can a bishop dismiss a licensed curate? and the answer was, "Yes."
THE BISHOP OF LONDON: I may state, that an incumbent can dismiss a licensed curate, subject to an appeal to the bishop; and that the bishop can dismiss a licensed curate, subject to an appeal to the archbishop, but that he has entire control of the unlicensed curate.
THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURY: My object was to show that greater power is retained over the unlicensed than over the licensed curate. But be that as it may, let me proceed to observe, that this Bill goes on to settle a moot point between incumbents and the bishops. In many instances incumbents invite friends of their own to preach in their pulpits, and occasionally this right is disputed by the bishops; but here power is positively given to the bishops to prohibit the exercise of that right, a power which they do not at present possess. Now, let us see what are the powers exercised by this Bill over the laity. It is provided that the Act shall not apply to "any readers, visitors, or other lay person within his own private house or elsewhere, within such parish, who shall act with the sanction and authority of such incumbent, or licensed curate, or the bishop of the diocess." Here the laity are to demand the right of worship in their own private dwellings, and the question is now limited entirely to the subject of private worship, because it will be found, on examination of the Acts, that any layman may register any place for worship at the quarter sessions without declaring that he is a Dissenter. If he register according to the Registration Act of 1852, he must declare that he is a Protestant Dissenter, and the denomina-
500
tion to which he belongs; but if he register at the quarter sessions, it is enough if he state that the place is to be used for Protestant worship. The whole question, therefore, is one of having worship in our private dwellings; but look at the restrictions under which this is placed by the Bill before us. The layman is to go as a suppliant either to the incumbent, the licensed curate, or the bishop of the diocess, and they have power to refuse the application. Then, if the application is granted, they have power to revoke it, and they may also impose conditions on the applicant. They may insist, for instance, on the use of certain prayers, and a particular description of service. I must say I have never known such an attempt as this to bring the whole body of the laity under the control of the clergy. The people of England are warmly attached to the Church, but they will not submit to this—that no man shall be allowed to have worship in his own house, with his friends and neighbours, unless he can get the consent of the incumbent or the bishop, or the licensed curate, and submit to such conditions as they may impose. Now, all this is for the purpose of maintaining the parochial system. I believe the rigidity of such rules as these has done more, and will do more, to drive hundreds from the Church, and to keep thousands from coming into the Church, than almost any regulation you can impose. The parochial system is, no doubt, a beautiful thing in theory, and is of great value in small rural districts; but in the large towns it is a mere shadow and a name. I will undertake to say that, even in London, where there is a most active and devoted parochial clergy, there are in many districts thousands of people who never saw their parish clergyman in their lives, and who hardly know the name of the parish in which they reside. In such circumstances it would be true wisdom to avail your selves of the zeal and piety of the laity, male and female, and to encourage them to go into the lanes and alleys of our large towns to compel the people to come to the Gospel feast. There is a great deal of superabundant zeal and activity that requires employment; and if it is not brought within the pale of the Church it will work vigorously out of it. John Wesley never wished to leave the Church, and, even now, Wesleyans hardly like to be called Dissenters. If, however, you adhere stiffly to rules which prevent such per-

501
sons from labouring in the cause of religion within the Church, they must inevitably fall into the ranks of Dissent. Then, what does this Bill do to relieve the great body of Nonconformists? It does nothing whatever—nay, it absolutely ignores them. The Dissenters, no doubt, desired exceedingly that their recognised places of worship should be registered, not merely to perform there the rites of baptism and marriage, but because they think it a matter of propriety that they should be so. Neither should we of the Church of England object to our places of worship being recognised, but we and the Dissenters agree together on this point—that we shall have our private dwelling-houses free for worship, and that we will not go to any party whatever for permission, be he priest or prelate. Will you send down a Bill like this to the other House? Your Lordships must be aware that there are in the House of Commons numerous Dissenters—men of high station, considerable intellect, and distinguished ability, and men also of the truest loyalty and patriotism; but, when they have sent up to us a Bill demanding relief for themselves, we are asked to send them down a Bill in which they are altogether ignored. [The Earl of DERBY hero interposed a remark.] The noble Earl says this is a Bill of which they know nothing, but I can tell him it is a Bill of which they know something now. Has not the noble President of the Council received deputations from the Wesleyans and from other bodies of Dissenters, as well as from Churchmen, stating that this measure imposes upon them improper and unjust limitations, to which they will not submit? I have in my possession a letter from the secretary of one of the committees of the Wesleyan body, in which he states that a deputation has waited upon the Lord President of the Council to explain the feelings of that community with reference to this Bill, and expresses their determination to give no rest to the country until they obtain their rights. The second clause of this Bill provides that no penalty shall be imposed in respect of the use of prayer at the opening or closing of meetings held for any religious or charitable purpose. I ask your Lordships whether, in the history of legislation, such a privilege was ever granted by statute? It is not only the great and solemn privilege, but the duty of Christians to enter upon no undertaking without imploring the blessing of God in
502
prayer; but we are now asked to incorporate in the statute law of the realm a Bill drawn by a Bishop, which permits us the privilege of opening and closing with prayer any meetings having a religious object. My Lords, I protest against this permission. The noble Earl (the Earl of Derby) says this clause was introduced to meet my case; but, so far from meeting my case, this provision completely kills it. I wish to know why prayer should be allowed only at the opening and closing of these meetings? Why should it not be permitted during the progress of such meetings? This clause, I must remind your Lordships, will put an end altogether to the operations of the London City Mission. That society has held, during the past year, nearly 30,000 meetings, which were of a purely devotional character, commencing with prayer and singing, continuing with prayer and reading of the Word, and closing with prayer. These meetings, therefore, will be altogether interdicted by the clause to which I have directed attention. Now, was this intended? If not, why was the clause that gave liberty for occasional meetings struck out of the Bill?
THE EARL OF DERBY: I rise to order. The noble Earl is perfectly at liberty to comment upon the Bill as it stands, but I think he is not entitled to state before your Lordships what took place in the Committee, or to comment upon those proceedings.
THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURY: I have gained what I want. I have shown that the noble Earl and the right rev. Prelates are afraid of having the facts disclosed. The services held by the agents of the London City Mission are as completely religious services as can well be held in any church or chapel, and I must express my regret that that society, notwithstanding the good it has accomplished, has never received that countenance from the Bishop of the diocess which it might have anticipated. On the contrary, I believe the right rev. Prelate is extremely hostile to the London City Mission, and I therefore regard with much suspicion this clause, which was introduced into the Bill by the Committee of which he was a member, for it is obvious that, if the clause is brought into operation, it will extinguish altogether the efforts of the City Mission. That institution employs nearly 400 agents; its operations are conducted among the most necessitous and degraded classes of the population; and it accomplishes what

503
the clergy of the Church of England cannot effect with all their zeal and energy, in consequence of their inadequate numbers. During the last visitation of the cholera, although many City Missionaries fell victims to the discharge of their duties, they carried consolation to the hearts of hundreds; but, if this Bill passes, the meetings for prayer and reading the Scriptures, which they now hold in private dwellings, will be altogether interdicted. [The Earl of DERBY: "No, no!"] Yes; although you may open and close a meeting for religious objects with prayer, every meeting which is of a devotional character throughout is interdicted. I believe the Bishop of this diocess will admit that, but for the efforts of the agents of the London City Mission, the people of many portions of this metropolis would be in more abject ignorance than the inhabitants of the interior of Africa. That the present Bill should pass this House seems inconceivable; that it should pass the House of Commons is absolutely impossible. They sent up a Bill giving full relief to Churchmen and Dissenters. Will you return them a Bill which gives a really hateful relief to Churchmen, and absolutely ignores the very existence of the Nonconformists? You will bring on a collision between the two Houses; and, the more so, as the change will have been effected by the active hostility of the episcopal bench. I have urged this question under the full and solemn conviction that the provisions of my Bill would conduce to the diffusion of Christianity throughout our large towns and populous districts, and not a little to the real interests and extension of the Church of England. We are living in times of great excitement, much growing unbelief, a growing spirit of nonconformity, and much peril. Remember the warnings of the Registrar-General. He tells you of 5,000,000 human beings in this Christian land who are under no religious teaching or influence whatever. It is an increasing, and not a decreasing number. It is to no purpose, he tells you—and most truly—to build churches, had you even the money to do so. You need the living agents to go among the people to stir them, teach them, persuade them, evangelise them. You will never invite these millions by tightening the reins of an ecclesiastical system; for, unless our Church be enabled to act as a missionary Church, and fairly compete with all other denominations, she
504
will be lost, and that very speedily. I trust that this Bill may be rejected, and my own passed into a law; but, if it be not so, I pledge myself never to desist from the work. My noble Friend behind me laughs. I dare say I may appear perfectly ridiculous in his eyes, but I have been guided by what I conceive to be right, and I pledge myself never to desist from the work. Should my life be spared to another Session, I will reproduce the same measure, with the most ample conviction that the blessing of Almighty God will rest on the endeavour. I now beg to move that the Bill be read a second time this day three months.
Amendment moved, to leave out "now," and insert "this Day Six Months."
THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, I have felt that the subject now before your Lordships involves questions of so much delicacy, as well as difficulty, that I have hitherto been unwilling to intrude upon your Lordships' attention. I am convinced that whatever measure my noble Friend should bring before your Lordships would be dictated by motives which all must admire. It seems incumbent upon me, however, to say a few words in consequence of what has fallen from the noble Earl, who appears to think that no one who has at heart the interests of true religion could be adverse to the Bill which he has introduced into the House. I can, however, state, in one sentence, the reason why I can not support that Bill. Simply, my Lords, because I have subscribed the Articles of the Church in which I hold so prominent a position, that I certainly ought not to set the example of contradicting its Articles. The 23rd Article of our Church pronounces that—
"It is not lawful for any man to take upon him the office of publick preaching, or ministering the Sacraments in the Congregation, before he be lawfully called, and sent to execute the same."
Now, if I rightly understand my noble Friend's Bill, it will give to every one the liberty of public preaching and of ministering in the congregation, with no other call than that of his own conviction; for it proceeds upon the principle that no other call is necessary to the office of a public teacher than what may arise from the call of his own conscience. My Lords, there are great differences of opinion as to what constitutes a lawful call. But among the various denominations of Christians, I hardly know of two who do not hold that

505
some authority is needful to justify public ministration, or who hold it to be enough that a man is satisfied in his own mind that he ought to be so employed. Therefore it is, my Lords, that I have found myself unable to support my noble Friend in a measure which I know he himself thinks both right and salutary. It is with regret that I do not support him. I honour the noble Earl for his zeal in the cause of religion, for the disinterestedness with which he devotes his life and talents to the benefit of his fellow-subjects; but I cannot help thinking that in the present case, his zeal for religious freedom has misled him, carried him too far, and even into some danger of being intolerant. For, to propose a measure which is inconsistent with the principles of others, and then to accuse them of obstructing religion because they cannot support that measure, is a species of persecution which I am sure, in any other case, where his feelings were unbiassed, he would be the first to condemn. My Lords, if I might venture to advise, it would be that both Bills should be withdrawn, both that of the noble Earl, and that which has been substituted for it, which I confess appears to me open to many of the objections which have been urged against it. Let the law stand as it has stood hitherto, since it is found so hard to mend it. The law has never done much harm. I have never heard of more than one conviction under it, and that took place thirty years, or more, ago. The discussion has done this good—it has led to the general acknowledgment that clergymen in their own parishes are entirely free from the operation of the law; and, as for the meetings of religious societies, I cannot believe that any one could in earnest believe that they were affected by it. The best authorities have now declared that, to avail yourself of the provisions of the Act, and certify your house for a religious service, in nowise stamps any one as a Dissenter; and, indeed, it is hard to understand how such a conclusion could be founded on an Act to regulate the religious worship of Protestants. I really think, therefore, that it would save much heartburning and promote the cause which we all unite in wishing to promote, if the measure were not persisted in, and matters were allowed to remain in the state in which they were before the introduction of this Bill.
THE BISHOP OF LONDONsaid, he was
506
desirous of making a few observations in answer to what appeared to him to be a personal attack upon himself. In the heat of argument the noble Earl (the Earl of Shaftesbury) had been induced to make an assertion which, upon further inquiry, he (the Bishop of London) thought he would feel disposed to retract. The noble Earl had stated that the hand of the right rev. Prelate who presided over that diocess might be detected in one of the clauses of the Bill, and the noble Earl then went on to express a belief that he (the Bishop of London) was hostile to the London City Mission. He did not know the grounds upon which the noble Earl made this assertion, or how he was prepared to substantiate it, but he felt called upon to say that it was entirely without foundation. He had certainly declined to belong to the London City Mission, because he disapproved of its constitution, and because he thought it improper for any association to send religious teachers into a parish, not only without the consent of the incumbent of the parish, but in some cases against his will. In several instances he believed that the working of the association had been favourable to Dissent and against the Established Church, and therefore he had thought himself fully justified in not belonging to it. At the same time he was not at all opposed to lay agency, and he did not care what missionaries were employed, provided only that they co-operated with the clergyman of the parish and were Churchmen. It was quite true that two or three years ago several cases occurred, in which he had thought it his duty to find fault with the London City Missionaries, because he considered that their proceedings were favourable to Dissent and opposed to the interests of the Church of England. To prove, however, that he was not opposed to lay agency, he might state that he had been one of the first to assist in the formation of the Scripture Readers Society, which employed lay agents to explain the word of God in the dwellings of the poor. By all means let them read and explain the word of God. He had always given, and should continue to give, a warm and active support to the Scripture Readers Society, for its members never conducted their operations without the consent of the incumbent of the parish, and they rendered most valuable services. The discipline of the Church of England was clear on the subject. If any member of the Church thought himself called upon

507
to exert himself and employ his talents and his time in making known the great truths of Christianity to those now ignorant of them, it was his duty to do so according to the rules and orders of the Church to which he belonged. It was the duty of every Churchman to act according to the rules of the Church, and with a due regard to its discipline, for without such regard the greatest confusion and disorder would be introduced into our parochial system. If there was in this diocess a want of adequate ministration, this was no reason why they should introduce laymen to undertake that ministration in a manner hostile to the parochial system. It formed a very good reason why they should build more churches and extend the parochial system, but no reason at all why they should allow a body of persons to exercise functions which the Church of England had committed to others, and which, if otherwise exercised, would lead to great confusion. The whole question before their Lordships was whether they would sanction public ministrations by lay members of the Church of England so long as they professed to belong to the establishment, and whether they would allow these persons to take upon themselves the offices of Church minister? No one proposed to interfere in the slightest degree with Nonconformists, or with their freedom of public worship; and if the Bill, to adopt the phrase of the noble Earl, "ignored" them, it was because those persons did not wish to be interfered with. But what the opponents of the Bill objected to was, he repeated, that lay members of the Church of England should take upon themselves the office and functions of the clergy, and should perform those sacred offices which the Church thought fit to confide to her ministers alone. They made this objection because they deprecated the evil of setting up in each parish a rival church under the sanction of the Church's name, but without her authority. Upon this point he might quote a passage from the works of a very wise and pious servant of God, the late Mr. Simeon, regarding prayer meetings presided over by a clergyman, but which applied with tenfold force to those ministrations which were not to be presided over by a clergyman, but by a layman. This gentleman stated, from his own sad experience in his particular parish, that two or three effects of them were undeniable. He said—
"They proved hotbeds in which superficial preachers were raised up, who, going forth on the
508
Lord's Day, intercepted those who were used to attend Mr. Newton. They produced a captious, criticising, self-wise spirit. They rendered the people indifferent to the worship of God at church, and, indeed, to any worship in which they did not themselves take a part."
And then he went on to meet the objection, and said—
"But, nevertheless, good is done. God may do good notwithstanding; but are we to do evil that good may come? Good is done; but mischief also is done. The mischief is the direct consequence; the good by occasion at most. Such men, Mr. Cecil used to say, have but one side in their account book; they set down their gain, but not their losses; and, these being greater than their gains, they become bankrupt. They are bad Bills, endorsed sometimes by good men."
Such, he submitted, was the true character of the measure which the noble Earl had the other night laid upon the table. It was a bad Bill endorsed by a good name. No person was more anxious than himself to engage lay members of the Church to co-operate with the clergy; he was quite aware that without their aid the ministers of the Church of England could not perform their duty with the success which would otherwise attend their ministration; but, let that co-operation be given on true Church principles, and in conformity with Church regulations. Why should lay members not do as much good in obeying these regulations as they could expect to do by not obeying them? It was for these reasons, and with no wish to intercept the operations of any missionary society whatever, but simply because he felt it his duty to adhere to the principles to which he had subscribed with his hand, and which he approved with his whole heart, that he was opposed to the Bill, and now seconded the Motion of the noble Earl that it should be read a second time that day three months. Before he sat down he wished to correct a misrepresentation which had been made of what had fallen on a former occasion from his right rev. Friend (the Bishop of Oxford). It had been stated in a newspaper that his right rev. Friend had declared that a meeting had been held, at which the bishops were unanimous in their determination to resist this measure. Now, the Bishop of Oxford stated no such thing; he only said that all the bishops present at a certain meeting, called for quite another purpose, were of the same opinion with respect to the Bill; and the statement in the newspaper in question, that the meeting must have been

509
one of a few selected Prelates, was altogether without foundation.
LORD BROUGHAMsaid, he felt a difficulty in agreeing with either of the parties into which their Lordships' House was divided by the measure of his noble Friend near him (the Earl of Shaftesbury) and that brought forward in competition with it. This was only another instance of what the Roman historian spoke of as "the rare felicity of the time." It was his rare felicity, belonging to neither of the parties into which their Lordships' House was divided, to think as he listed, and speak as he thought. Nor, though he acquiesced in much that had fallen from the most rev. Prelate (the Archbishop of Canterbury), could he entirely agree in the results which he would draw. Differing, then, from both parties, he wished, in a few words, to state his opinion on the question before the House. It was a mistake to suppose that those who were friendly to the Bill which came up from the Commons—the promoters of it elsewhere, and the friends of it in their Lordships' House—were satisfied with the law as it stands, and wished no further relief than that which was afforded by the Act of 1812, commonly called Lord Sidmouth's Act. They wished that relief, no doubt, because the Act of 1852, by an error, by an unaccountable oversight, exposed all assembling in chapels and meeting-houses, built since that year, to the penalties substituted for the penalties imposed by the Act of Charles II.—those imposed by the Act of 1812; for after it had abolished the existing method of registration before the bishop, archdeacon, or court of quarter sessions, it enacted that registration with the Registrar General and his deputies should have the same effect as the registration which the Act had abolished—in other words, the new modes should be null and void—and the places of worship affected by that Act amounted in number to 6,500. But then the most rev. Prelate made use of an argument which he had often heard before—that these penalties were in Acts which were obsolete. The law on this subject, he said, was a dead letter. There was nothing more dangerous than keeping upon our statute-book these dead letters, as they were called—these penalties which they hoped, and vainly hoped, would never be enforced. Dead letters, indeed! they were not dead, these venomous reptiles. They were torpid, not dead, capable of being warmed into life by the malignant passions
510
of one man, or the sordid avarice of another, or the well-meaning but misguided zeal of a third. His objections to the law, were both these Bills withdrawn, was, that it put the whole body of the Dissenters upon one footing, and the whole body of the English Church upon another. The Dissenters complained of being left on that footing; they would rather have the Old Conventicle Act, which had been repealed in 1812, than the substitute which was given them instead. The main difference between the two Acts was, that instead of the old limit of five persons, the somewhat mitigated enactment was twenty persons, assembling themselves for worship. They said that men ought to be at liberty to assemble for the worship of their Maker sincerely and piously in what numbers, in what place, and in what way they pleased, privately or publicly, provided their way of worshipping and assembling did not violate any moral duty. The Act of Charles II. proceeded upon no pious views, or religious zeal for the Church of England, but upon the supposition expressed in the preamble that these meetings were hold professedly for religious worship, but in reality for seditious and treasonable purposes. The Act of 1812, somewhat mitigating the rigour of the previous Act, permitted such meetings to be held, provided not more than twenty persons assembled. How slow—how marvelously slow—was the progress of toleration; how very much more rapid was the progress of intolerance. What Lord Bacon said of the difference between purpose and execution applied to persecution and toleration—the one had wings—the other had leaden feet. He would remind the most rev. Prelate who said these Acts were obsolete, and that there was no risk of the attempts which were made in the time of Queen Elizabeth to enforce attendance at church, originally by fines, six years afterwards by forfeiture of goods and lands; and six years later, in the 35th of Elizabeth, this offence led to imprisonment, to banishment, to abjuring the realm on compulsion, and to a capital penalty if the person returned—all merely for conscientiously refusing to attend the parish church. In the early years of the next reign it was found that the penalties were not sufficient, and that the capital penalty could not be enforced, and, therefore, a somewhat mitigated mode was adopted, and it was enacted that persons offending should be disqualified from holding office, could not perform the duty of executors, practise medi-

511
cine, or, horresco referens, practise the law. But these were now obsolete! No such thing. It was not many years since he, in that House, had to complain of one of these Acts being warmed into life by the malice of some, and the co-operative blundering of others, and the consequence was that five or six men lingered in prison for ten or eleven weeks. These men had been charged with poaching before the county magistrates. Mr. Windham used to say that a poacher was regarded by these gentlemen somewhat in the nature of a, fera naturœ. On that occasion, as they were not able to convict them of poaching, they asked the men whether they had been to church on the preceding Sunday. The men said "No." The Sunday before? "No." Or the two Sundays before that? "Oh, no." If these magistrates had been better acquainted with the law he would have asked whether they had been at the parish church—for if they had not, and had attended even a better church, they would still have been liable to the penalty. However, they brought them in liable for the Elizabeth shilling, as it was called. They fined them the shilling and costs, and in default of payment committed them to prison, where they lay for ten or eleven weeks, until their petition could be presented in their Lordships' House. Now that obnoxious Act was abolished, with a great number of others, by an Act brought in by his noble and learned Friend (Lord Lyndhurst), Lord Chancellor in 1846; but a penalty could still be enforced in cases where persons attended a private meeting for religious worship in number exceeding-twenty. So far all Dissenters were on a more favourable footing than Churchmen, because these latter had not those privileges. Was he one of those who thought that the right of private worship should be given to Churchmen without any restriction whatever? He thought it essential to the well-government of the Church and its continued usefulness that that Church should possess larger powers and more efficient means of enforcing discipline among its own members; but with that government and that improvement in discipline, he could conceive no sound reason whatever for Churchmen not being put on the same footing, at least, with Dissenters in this respect, and that they should be allowed to open a chapel and to worship in private houses or a public building without any restraint being imposed upon them. Again, he would say, how slow was the
512
progress of toleration. It was 100 and odd years after the Revolution before any essential mitigation was made in the penal Statutes. The first great step was not taken till 1832, when the Roman Catholics were placed on a footing with the different denominations of Dissenters; and the latest important modification was effected only nine years ago, in 1846, when the Jews were admitted to similar privileges. So much more rapid was the descent, as he must call it, into the regions below, for he would not give them a worse name—those regions where intolerance and persecution prevailed. Day and night there was access to the fiends who there reigned; sed revocare gradum—to come to the more pure and more free air of tolerance and charity was a difficulty too widely experienced; and that never was more evident than in the history of the toleration laws beginning in 1688, and leaving many of these obnoxious Acts still unrepealed.
THE EARL OF DERBY: My Lords, I think I have some right to complain of the tone and the manner in which the noble Earl who followed me in this debate represented the objects of this measure. Because, although the Bill does not go the full extent which he desires (and it is not introduced on my individual responsibility, but on the responsibility of the Committee), still so far as it does go, it deals with the grievances of which the noble Earl complained; and it is not correct to speak of it as though it imposed new restrictions upon those whom it was meant to benefit, or those with whose case it did not deal. With regard to the London Missionary Society, the noble Earl says, if the Bill passes, the consequences to that society would be incredible; they must put an end to all their missionary labours and their efforts to evangelise the neglected poor. My answer to the noble Earl is, that were this Bill to pass into a law, that society and all similar bodies would find themselves on precisely the same footing as they are at the present moment, for there is no imposition of any restriction whatever which does not exist by the law of the land at the present time. I think the noble Earl entirely misrepresented the views and objects of those who have taken part in the framing of this measure. But, after the discussion which has taken place, after the speech of the noble and learned Lord, and after the speech of the most rev. Prelate, and the generally-expressed feeling of the House, that neither of these

513
measures should immediately pass into a law; but especially if this measure does not receive the sanction of the head of that Church, for whose benefit it has been introduced, I think, seeing the period of the Session at which we are arrived, as it would he hopeless to carry it through Parliament during the present Session, I shall act more wisely, both for Churchmen and Dissenters, and in accordance with the feeling of the House, if I abstain from pressing the Bill during this Session. Seeing the difficulties that are found to encompass the question on every side, it is likewise desirable that further time should be given for its consideration; and if both Houses of Parliament address themselves to the subject in an earnest, calm, and dispassionate spirit, I do not despair of the passing of a measure which, while it retains the proper discipline of the Church of England, will at the same time obviate all well-founded complaints. For these reasons I will now ask your Lordships to permit me to withdraw this Bill.
THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURYsaid, if anything which had fallen from him had given his noble Friend offence, he now made most ample apology to him. But when the noble Earl said that he had misrepresented his views, he must say, that he had no right to complain of misrepresentation in that House, because he (the Earl of Shaftesbury) had not, in the course of his whole life, both in this and the preceding debate, ever heard such misrepresentation of his views and objects with regard to this subject as he had heard on the part of the noble Earl.
THE BISHOP OF OXFORDsaid, he deeply regretted the tone which the noble Earl who had just sat down had adopted. The noble Earl at the close of his speech in opposition to the Bill entirely misrepresented it from beginning to end. He was sure the noble Earl could not be a stranger to the Christian duty of not speaking on a question like this in a manner likely to excite angry feeling against those who, whether right or wrong, were trying to do their duty to the Church. The most rev. Prelate near him had pointed out to the noble Earl that the reason why the ecclesiastical bench had opposed the Bill of the noble Earl was, that they could not assent to it without violating their consciences, because it involved a violation of one of the Thirty-nine Articles. He deeply lamented the tone which the noble Earl had
514
used. The reiterated insinuations which he made all thorough his speech of base motives on the part of those who opposed his own views were most unworthy of the noble Earl. The attempts, too, which he had made to excite a jealousy of the episcopal bench in the minds of the Dissenters was as adverse as possibly could be to that spirit of the Gospel in which this Bill was so ostentatiously introduced. The grounds upon which the episcopal bench had opposed the noble Earl's Bill had nothing whatever to do with the Dissenters. Their opposition rested on this—that, while a particular mode of ministering God's word was laid down by the Articles of the Church, and while the direct spiritual action of the Church was tied down and fettered by the law, the noble Earl's Bill called on them to alter the state of the law with regard to the Church, without conferring on her power to enforce her discipline in a different way. He could not understand by what perversion of ingenuity the noble Earl had discovered anything in the Bill now before the House (the Earl of Derby's) which was to give greater power to the bishops over the clergy than they at present possessed. The licensed clergy were not at all affected by the Bill, and, as the power of the bishops over the unlicensed clergy was at present absolute, it could not receive any addition from this Bill. What the Bill really proposed to do was to enable the Church to take advantage of the zeal of her laymen, and to give a legal status and sanction to those of the laity who undertook to labour in conjunction with the clergy. When the noble Earl talked of there being thousands in the metropolis in a greater state of ignorance than the natives of the interior of Africa, and that no one but persons connected with the City Mission looked after them, he used exaggerated language, and was unjust to many a hard-working clergyman in London. He thought that the provision in the old Act which the noble Earl wished to do away with, was altogether bad, and was a wrong way of maintaining discipline in the Church. It was the misfortune of the Church established by law to be tied up in its attempts to do good, but it was not by simply repealing Acts which were the remaining rags of restriction that good was to be done—it was by giving the Church at the same time the power of doing the same thing in a legitimate manner—he meant by giving her the power to recognise the

515
services of her laymen. He wanted the Church to get the power of using the devotional feelings of many of her lay members in a proper and accredited way, assisted by the clergy. That was what he wanted, and if the noble Earl had introduced any provision into his Bill for enabling the Church to meet the altered circumstances of the times, he should gladly have supported it. If this matter should be brought forward again, he trusted it would be discussed without any insinuations or attacks on individuals who were only doing their duty to their God, their country, and their Church, for words uttered in that House were taken up by unscrupulous partisans out of it, and a right rev. Prelate had informed him of some misrepresentation having appeared in The Record, the editor of which declined to put in a contradiction. When the noble Earl became aware that this was the kind of treatment which the bishops on these benches were receiving, he ought, when he came forward in the name of a Christian Church and of a work of charity, to keep his tongue free from uncharitable imputations, which others would be too ready to adopt.
THE BISHOP OF LONDONadmitted that it was perfectly true that when the London Mission Society was first established he objected to the principle of obtruding men on parishes without the consent of the incumbents; but, having since learned that the members of that society had acquired the favourable opinion of many clergymen, he had abstained from any expression of hostility towards them.
EARL GRANVILLE: I wish to say one word with respect to what has fallen from the right rev. Prelate who spoke last but one (the Bishop of Oxford). I cannot admit the justice of what he has stated with respect to a misrepresentation of the noble Earl opposite as to the character of the Bill. My own opinion is strongly this, that while that Bill professes to deal with the proviso intended to impose political and not religious restrictions on Dissenters, it imposes religious restrictions on Dissenters directly, and also indirectly and by a side wind restrictions on the religious liberty of the members of the Church of England. I think, too, that any person will see, on reflection, that the Bill does not in the slightest degree remove the evil of which complaint is made; while, by re-enacting a portion of the enactments of the law described by some of the right
516
rev. Prelates as useful, because it is not quite obsolete, it gives very great life and vigour to those remaining enactments. I do not wish to continue the debate on a Bill which will now be only a few moments before your Lordships, because the discussion appears to create a great deal of irritation, and has now become unnecessary on account of the withdrawal of the Bill.
Then the said Amendment, together with the original Motion, were, by leave of the House, withdrawn; then, the said Bill was, by leave of the House, withdrawn.

FRIENDLY SOCIETIES BILL.
On the Question that this Bill be read a Third Time with the Amendments,
LORD MONTEAGLEexpressed the satisfaction he felt at the alteration which had been made in that part of the Bill affecting the payment of funeral money for children, considering the horror and dismay which a few years ago had been created throughout the country in consequence of the inhuman crimes that were committed for the sake of such payments. The Bill, as now altered, would go down to the House of Commons with the full sanction of all the legal authorities in their Lordships' House, and it was of importance to know that in the change which had been made no reflection was cast upon any particular class of people in this country.
LORD CAMPBELLwas highly gratified at the alteration which had been made in the Bill. It was impossible to forget the horror which a few years ago seized the country, when it was proved to the satisfaction of Judges and juries that there were wretches who put children to death for the sake of the money that was paid by societies for their interment. He believed the clause in the present Bill relating to such transactions was framed more skilfully, and would operate more effectually than the clause in the former Friendly Societies Act.
THE LORD CHANCELLORhoped the clause would be attended with the most salutary effects, and observed that it would be a great mistake to suppose that it was a restriction upon any particular class of the community.
LORD PORTMANthought it was but just to his hon. Friend who had carried the Bill through the other House of Parliament, to say that he had not neglected this im-

517
portant point. There was a clause in the Bill regulating payments on the death of a child, but it was not thought sufficient to insure the safety of the children of all classes of the community; and, accordingly, the alteration referred to had taken place, an alteration which he hoped would operate most beneficially.
Bill read 3a, with Amendments; further Amendments made; Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.
House adjourned to Monday next.