Sitting of 4 June 1861

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1° East India Loan; Sheriffs Courts (Scotland) (No. 2).

COLLEGIATE AND ENDOWED PUBLIC SCHOOLS.—QUESTION.
MR. GRANT DUFFsaid, he would Leg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether the Government is prepared to advise Her Majesty to issue Her Royal Commission to inquire into the Colleges of Eton, Winchester, and Westminster, as well as of Harrow, Rugby, Charter House, Christ's Hospital, and all endowed, collegiate, cathedral, and prebendal Schools in Great Britain and Ireland in which the Greek and Latin languages are taught, with a view to ascertain whether the great resources of these institutions may not be rendered more serviceable to education and learning?
SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, he stated on a former occasion that the Government were prepared to accede to the principle of an inquiry into the collegiate and public schools. The doubt which they had was as to whether an inquiry by a Royal Commission would be sufficiently effective for obtaining the desired information. Since his hon. Friend asked the previous question, he (Sir George Lewis) had communicated with the authorities and the principal public schools, and he found that they would generally be disposed to give information to a Royal Commission; and, therefore, that there would be no necessity for doing what the Government would not willingly resort to unless there should be a necessity—namely, of asking Parliament to pass a Bill giving compulsory powers to the Commissioners for that purpose. He ought to mention that there was one school, the case of which must be regarded as under the consideration of the Government, and upon which they had not yet been able to arrive at any conclusion—he meant the Winchester School. The doubt with regard to that school arose from the fact that it had been made the subject of detailed legislation by the Oxford University Commissioners, whose powers extended to the College of Winchester, and, therefore, as the affairs of that school had been lately the subject of investigation and of regulation by competent authorities it might not be necessary to include it in the inquiry.
MR. GRANT DUFFsaid, lie wished to know how far the right hon. Gentleman would desire that the inquiry by the Commissioners should extend—whether he would include the principal endowed schools?
SIR GEORGE LEWISreplied, that he understood the answer formerly given was that this Commission should inquire into all endowed public schools in which the Greek and Latin languages were taught. With respect to the cathedral and prebendal schools he did not wish to give any positive answer.

VOLUNTEER EXCURSIONS.

  QUESTION.
  COLONEL FRENCHsaid, he rose to ask the Under Secretary of State for War, If any application was made to allow the London Irish (28th Middlesex) Rifle Volunteer Corps to visit Dublin during this year, and refused; and, if so, to inquire the grounds for such refusal?
  MR. T. G. BARINGsaid, that no application had been made in regard to this particular corps, and, therefore, no such refusal had been given. At the same time, it was only right to state that the Secretary of State for War was not disposed to encourage excursion trips by Volunteer corps. They put the members of corps to expense which they did not like to decline, though many of them were much inconvenienced by it. There were also other reasons which the House would understand from the fact that an English Volunteer corps lately, on an excursion trip, had come into collision with a regiment of militia, the consequences of which were not at all gratifying to those who had the control of these matters.

ECCLESIASTICAL RETURNS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCKsaid, he wished to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, When the Re turn, ordered on the 4th day of March last, relative to the Receipts by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners for England of Revenues derived from the Estates of the Dean and Chapter and Prebends of the Cathedral Church of St. Paul, London, will be laid upon the Table?
  SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, the Returns in question were very intricate, but he was in hopes they would be ready before the end of the Session.

DISCOVERY OF GOLD IN NOVA SCOTIA.

  QUESTION.
  MR. CAIRDsaid, he wished to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether he has receive dany authentic information regarding Gold discoveries in Nova Scotia?
  MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUEsaid, that the Government had received accounts of gold discoveries being made on a small scale at a place called Tangier Harbour, some forty miles from Halifax. The Governor reported that he doubted whether they ever would be valuable to individual miners; but he thought them of considerable importance, and capable of being made valuable by the application of capital and machinery.

MAYNOOTH COLLEGE.—COMMITTEE MOVED FOR.
MR. WHALLEYsaid, he rose to move the following Resolution:—
"That this House will immediately resolve itself into a Committee to consider the Acts for the Endowment of the College of Maynooth, with a view to the withdrawal of any Endowment out of the Consolidated Fund, due regard being had to vested rights and interests."
At the outset he must claim the indulgence of the House while endeavouring to occupy a position which was extremely difficult and embarrassing for many reasons, and especially because he succeeded an hon. Gentleman who had very frequently brought the question forward, and who carried with him great weight and influence from his ability and personal character. Without some explanation it would appear presumptuous on his part to ask the attention of the House to a subject, which could be discussed to much greater advantage by other Members; but he might state that he had been encouraged to undertake the task by having had presented to him a memorial, signed by 7,000 leading Protestants, who might be said to be the exponents of the Protestant principle of the country. He felt, under these circumstances, he might without diffidence claim to be heard by the House while he brought before it the grounds upon which the grant to Maynooth was regarded now, more than ever, with unmitigated, uncompromising opposition by the Protestant feeling of the country. Before he had undertaken to bring the subject forward he had inquired into the state of public feeling, and he could assure the House that the subject was not brought forward as a mere annual exercitation of the question, nor as a matter of

549
form, But with the conviction that it would be successful, and that the agitation would be actively carried on until the grant was repealed. He intended to call particular attention to those reasons for the withdrawal of the grant which had never existed in the same force as they did at the present time. The hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Spooner) had been in the habit of reading extracts from various books which constituted, as was generally supposed, the elements of the education given at the College of Maynooth. Those extracts were undoubtedly essential in order to arrive at a full comprehension of the national wrong and injury—he might say, iniquity—involved in continuing the grant to the College; but he would not inflict upon the House an irksome repetition of painful arguments. If he were to read the whole canon law of the Roman Catholic Church, and the books of Dens, Liguori, and others, they could not have any further effect than the simple enunciation of the principle which underlaid the whole system of Roman Catholic teaching—namely, that the end justified the means—the end being the promotion of the interests of the Roman Catholic Church, and the means, whatever should tend to that end. By that principle treason was directly encouraged, and not only was murder tolerated as also every other offence which men of all times had agreed to denounce, recommended and adopted as justifiable, when the end was to promote the interests of the Roman Catholic Church; but in proportion as a pupil of the College had an opportunity of committing those crimes, of violating the ordinary moral sense which governed the community at large, and thereby placing himself in antagonism to public opinion—he, in the game proportion, established a claim to respect among his fellow students, and had a prospect of those temporal and eternal rewards which the Roman Catholic Church held out to its followers. He was fully prepared to establish that position. Let them look back to history, and see whether such teachings as those he had described as now carried on at Maynooth had not been in past ages carried out in practice to the fullest extent in the degree in which the Roman Catholic power was predominant. There they found proofs of a disregard of those moral laws which common sense had dictated, and which all mankind had agreed to look upon with respect and reverence. The modem history
550
of our own country also gave a practical exemplification of these doctrines of the Romish Church. In 1853 a Commission, was appointed by the Crown for the purpose of inquiring what doctrines were taught at Maynooth; and, after two or three years, they made a Report, in which they stated that they were unable satisfactorily to discharge their duty, in as much as it appeared from the evidence of the professors that there were no text-books to which they could refer as the authorities by which the teaching in the college was guided. They were asked to believe that' professors and students were left to form their own opinions, and, therefore, whatever astounding doctrines might be found in the works of Roman Catholic writers the ready answer would be that that part, at all events, might not be recognized in the college. Now, he put it as a distinct proposition to the House, whether any reasonable assembly ought to continue the grant to the? College of Maynooth, which, in the words of the Act of Parliament, was for the "better education of Roman Catholics," not "Roman Catholic priests," unless they had an opportunity of ascertaining clearly and beyond any doubt whatever, what was the course of teaching adopted? It was a palpable insult to the understanding of the Commissioners for the Professors to say that they had no text-books and no books of authority, and that fact of itself was a sufficient ground for withdrawing the grant. But while he did not press these details on the House at that moment, he reserved to himself the right at a fitting opportunity of investigating the course of teaching at the fullest length and in the completest manner. There were certain departments of that teaching which not even the Commissioners could give to the public, so revolting were they to the sense of decency and morality. He might say for himself, having investigated the subject, that no one could read so much on the subject as he had without feeling it to be his bounden duty to his country to endeavour to ensure for it a Parliamentary investigation, in its fullest details, if that should be found to be necessary. He should not, however, enter into those details on that occasion, because he believed that, whatever might be stated on that part of the subject in support of his Motion, there were independently of that abundant reasons of a political and public nature, such as more generally came within the view and consideration of the House,

551
which would afford sufficiently to make out the case he was contending for. The lion, and learned Gentleman the Member for Southampton (Mr. Digby Seymour) had given notice of an Amendment to his Motion, to the effect that the House should take into consideration all grants of a religious nature to all religious bodies whatsoever. Now, he (Mr. Whalley) felt himself at liberty to anticipate to some extent the discussion of that Amendment, because it appeared to assume that that question of Maynooth was a mere religious question, that all religious grants were pretty much on the same footing, and that if the Maynooth Grant should be withdrawn all others ought to be withdrawn also. In the first place he would observe that he might simplify the point which his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Southampton proposed to establish, by referring to the sentiments expressed by the hon. and learned Gentleman in reference to that very question on a former occasion. The grant in its actual application was undoubtedly applied to purposes of religion, but that was not the intention of the Maynooth Act—the object of that Act was to provide for the better education of Roman Catholics, and it did not say a word about religion in any other sense. Nothing could be more conclusive as to that, in fact, than the speech of the hon. and learned Gentleman he had referred to. The hon. and learned Gentleman on a former occasion had very fully expressed his opinion on this subject, and I cannot better express my own views than by quoting the words of the hon. Gentleman. He then said—
"The State, cither wisely or unwisely, and I confess I am of the former opinion, has determined that there shall be an Established Church. Of course there can be but one, and that one maintained at the national expense. The State has further determined that the Established Church must be Protestant. Now, a Roman Catholic college, founded in perpetuity for purely Roman Catholic purposes, is inconsistent with the security of that Protestant Establishment, as a conscientious member of which I maintain that such a college should not receive encouragement or bounty."
He said also that there should not be a Roman Catholic College for the education of Roman Catholic priests, for it would be their steady purpose to direct their strongest energies to the overthrow of those principles which the State had accepted for a national religion. And then he went on to state that if a fortress were erected at a great public cost, and he saw the Gene-
552
ral in command of that fortress endowing a school by its side for educating boys to undermine that fortress, he should pronounce that General a fool, a madman, or a traitor. He entirely concurred in the sentiments of his hon. and learned Friend. It would be fur his hon. and learned Friend to explain to this House what connection there was between the Maynooth Grant and grants to other religious bodies. He knew of no other grant that was at all in a similar position except the Regium Donum; and if some Gentlemen thought that this Regium Donum should be repealed or even that the Established Church in Ireland was too amply endowed, he would ask all those who thought so on what rational grounds they could deem it a remedy for that to endow this college or could withhold their consent from the Motion he was now making? So long as this grant remained no other could be repealed, withheld, or diminished.
He had promised to bring the question forward free from all the embittered feelings with which it was commonly associated, and he should strive to his utmost to observe that promise whilst asking the House to consider the position of the Maynooth question in reference to our foreign relations, and also in reference to the progress of Romanism at home. Sir Robert Kane, the President of the Queen's College at Cork, remarked that Maynooth was the only place in the world, not excepting Rome itself, where the principles of the Roman Catholic religion could be inculcated with perfect immunity from the supervision of the State. There, and only there, were Ultramontane doctrines freely taught, with what success might be judged from the fact of the extension of the college privileges, and of the college turning out 500 or 600 students annually. Maynooth supplied priests, not for Ireland alone, but for England and the Continent of Europe. Maynooth was the citadel of Popery, in fact, to which it had been at length driven by the awakened common sense of the nations of Europe. In 1795, when the college was first established, there were circumstances to justify its establishment to a limited extent. There was not a spot in Europe where the doctrines of Rome could at that time be taught; and the object was to resist even by Romanism the doctrines of Atheism and anarchy then predominant on the Continent; in then offering an asylum to it at Maynooth, we had to choose between that

553
and atheism, anarchy, and the other horrors of the French Revolution. But the grant was limited simply to the establishment of a college—for it was not ventured to propose a grant of money. But why should England now be the only place where such license was allowed? Since the period to which he referred, reason had asserted its sway on the Continent, and England and the nations of Europe were quietly watching the issue of the contest now being waged between the party of whom Garibaldi was the leader, a Roman Catholic nominally, but yet a Protestant by right of judgment, and that of which the Pope was the head, his officers being these priests, and especially those of the Ultramontano school. And where did he get those priests from? From England—from free, Protestant England. England became thus the citadel of the Pope; England was his greatest support in this unholy warfare against the civil and religious liberties of Italy. The material consequences of the sympathy thus manifested for him were seen in the formation of "the Pope's Brigade," and the honours that were conferred upon it after its return. Thus was England disgraced in the eyes of Europe. He submitted, therefore, that having due regard to the position of England, as having been for centuries the great Protestant bulwark of Europe, to continue the grant under such circumstances was inconsistent with the honour and dignity of the country. And as regarded the home question, what had the advocates of the grant to say in its defence? At the time of the foundation the college, assurances, the most solemn, were given of obedience to the law, and that the donors should never have to regret their benevolence. Yet how had that promise been observed? The priests had received instructions to teach St. Thomas Aquinas, Augustine, and the canons, doctrine, and discipline, of the Roman Catholic Church, the natural effect of which was treason to the Sovereign, and social and moral anarchy. Passing over the interval from 1795 there were two or three Acts passed which ought to have excited the gratitude of the Roman Catholics, one of them being the Catholic Emancipation Act. But instead of gratitude there was not to be found in the history of any people more outrageous ingratitude, more barefaced rebellion and treason than had from that time been manifested in the College of Maynooth, and most especially so in connection with
554
those measures which had boon taken with a wish to conciliate. He would now come, however, to a circumstance which seemed to imply a distinct repudiation of the grant by the Roman Catholics themselves. The grant as it existed now was given in 1845. In 1851 the canon law was introduced into this country by a bull addressed to Cardinal Wiseman. The whole system of Rome was introduced on this authority, in the same plenitude as it existed in other countries of Europe. The House would remember the extent to which that aggression roused public opinion in this country, and the attempts that the House made to repel that aggression, and the result showing the impotence of those attempts against the power of Romanism, which entirely defeated all the attempts of Parliament and the country to resist it, was also present to the mind of everyone. In 1852, the Earl of Derby, who proposed the grant in the House of Lords in 1845, stated that although he was not then prepared to withdraw the grant, yet could not but express his regret that the grant could not be any longer justified, and that the conduct of the Roman Catholic priests had entirely deprived him of the means of justifying the grant. Lord Derby then explained at length all the circumstances. He would now call the attention of the House to the reply, given apparently by way of challenge, by a society established by Dr. Paul Cullen, and called the Catholic Defence Association, of which Mr. Henry Wilberforce was the secretary. Mr. Henry Wilberforce replied to the statement of Lord Derby in the following terms:—
"It is quite true that you made this grant in the expectation that the people of Ireland would he conciliated, that they would become loyal subjects, and would recognize some degree of obligation to the Queen and the Parliament of England in respect of this grant."
And then he went on to say—
"It was not likely that any Minister could suppose that the people of Ireland were going to sell their liberty of action and right of independence for a grant of £30,000 a year."
And further—
"Lord Derby expected that the Catholic clergy would have obeyed the law, and they have openly refused obedience to the Ecclesiastical Titles Act. And who are they who have disobeyed the law? The archbishops and bishops of the Roman Catholic clergy of Ireland; they have treated it as they were in duty bound—namely, as if it did not exist."
The Roman Catholic Archbishops and Bishops who were the visitors of this college deliberately declared, and fulfilled that

555
declaration on all occasions by their acts, that they would continue openly to defy the law, and to set at nought the conditions on which the grant was made. These Roman Catholic prelates declared, therefore, in the most flagrant and express manner, by words and by acts, that they would set at defiance the supreme authority of the law of the country. Unfortunately the canon law, so long as it did not come home to the feelings of the people, was not deemed worthy of their investigation, and they found it difficult to understand what it was; but whatever it was, whether it was for good or for evil, it had been established by the Bull of 1851. In effect, the Roman Catholics of the United Kingdom said to Parliament, "Take back your grant if you like; nay, it is your duty to withdraw it, for we will not accept it on the conditions which the Earl of Derby, who moved it in the House of Lords, expressly declared to have accompanied it.
The danger and the mischief was greatly increased only last Session; an Act had been passed to raise money for the purpose of repairing the college upon the security of this grant. The trustees of the college are the Bishops and Archbishops of the Roman Church in Ireland, and all of them by their words and acts, openly defy the law of the land. That was the fruition of the system pursued at Maynooth; but, unhappily, its full effects did not come home to the business and bosoms of the people to the full extent it should do, because it was impossible for them to know what the canon law of Rome is; but whatever it might be—whether it was material or immaterial that we should know what that canon law was—one thing was certain, and that was, the Archbishops and Bishops, the trustees of this college, openly and constantly defy, and that too with impunity, the statute law of the land. On these grounds he contended that the House was bound to withdraw the grant. With regard to our foreign relations, he thought he had established his case; he would say that, however expedient it might formerly have been in the estimation of the then Government or the House to have made such a grant, there was no reason why it should be continued, when it was known that it taught doctrines which these Europeans nations have repudiated. With regard to the home interests affected, we were called upon to pay £26,000 a year for imparting an education of the nature of which
556
we were kept in ignorance. The authorities of the college refuse to acknowledge its text-books or submit its teaching to any practical supervision or inspection. In so doing, he contended that they had violated not only the spirit but the letter of the understanding, and agreement on which the grant had been made, and thereby rendered it inexpedient, to put it on the lowest ground, that it should be continued. The terms of the grant—the terms on which it had been paid from 1845 up to the present time—were that the money was to be applied "for the better education of persons professing the Roman Catholic religion." It might have been right to make such a provision at that time, because there was then no provision in existence for educating "persons professing the Roman Catholic religion." Yet how stood the case now? Why, since that time the "Queen's Colleges" had been established in Ireland for the express and avowed purposes of affording to Roman Catholics as well as others such education; but the grant itself, instead of being applied to this original purpose, was applied to the education of Roman Catholic priests alone, and, on behalf of the laity of that Church, he thought he might fairly insist that it should be discontinued. Looking at the practical results of the mission of these priests. The college was maintained for the purpose of teaching the priests a system which, not many years ago, had produced a famine in Ireland. In their interest he asked the withdrawal of a grant which had been wrested from its purpose, which was uncalled for, under the new circumstances which had arisen since it was first made, and the conditions of which were not fulfilled by those who received it. But there was another reason why the grant should be withdrawn. By the Constitution of this country the Roman Catholic religion was declared to be superstitious and idolatrous. How, therefore, could that House possibly justify or continue a grant the special object of which was the education of those whose special mission was the teaching of that religion. In 1845 the plea might have been urged that the Roman Catholics were very numerous in Ireland and very poor; but how was it now? The result of the aggression in 1851 had multiplied in every direction Roman Catholic cathedrals and chapels. The Roman Catholics were increasing in power and influence, and they had seen within these few days the very threshold of that House

557
invaded by those who propagated the tenets and the doctrines of the Church of Rome with a view to influence in secular matters the deliberations of that House. He would ask the House if, under these circumstances, he might not put in a word in favour of respect to the religious scruples of the people of this country? It was objected that the floor of that House was not the proper arena for the discussion of religious questions or the claims of religious parties; but it was not his fault that these questions were mooted there. It was the fault of the Act which granted money from the national purse for the promotion of purposes which religious and conscientious men could not approve of, and he said that these religious scruples were entitled to consideration. The noble Lord the Member for London had admitted in 1845 that, if there were any great and continued agitation arising out of the grant upon religious grounds, that might be a reason for its discontinuance. Upon that ground he asked for the vote of the noble lord. He said that ever since that time there had been an agitation against this grant, and that that of itself wag a reason for its withdrawal. That was one of the principal reasons why he, occupying so humble a position in that House, had brought the subject forward. He had been asked to do so in an address presented to him by 7,000 persons who had earnestly urged him to bring the question forward. That address was signed by persons of all classes and resident in every part of the kingdom, and petitions in favour of the withdrawal of the grant had been signed by 50,000 persons. He asked the House to agree to his Motion on another strong ground. The people of this country annually subscribed voluntarily £200,000 a year for the dissemination of the Bible; and other societies, with somewhat of similar objects,; subscribed annual amounts that would make the sum nearly a million a year contributed for the dissemination of the Bible and for other essentially Protestant purposes; but, confining himself simply to the £200,000 a year voluntarily subscribed for the dissemination of the Protestant Bible, he would ask how was it possible that these persons could acquiesce in the annual payment of £26,000 a year, from the national taxes, to persons who were totally opposed to the dissemination of the Bible 2 In Wales, the part of the country with which he was connected, there were a great number of Dissenters. They neither, asked for
558
nor received any grants; they subscribed for the diffusion of Scriptural knowledge and the great religious truths in which they conscientiously believed; and on their behalf, arid on the behalf of all Bible Christians, he asked the Government on what public ground either arising out of our relations to foreign countries this grant should be continued, or why the conscience and convictions of hundreds and thousands of persons at home should be insulted by the continuance of a grant which they looked upon in the light of a national sin? He would not, however, lay much stress on that argument then, that would hereafter arise and make itself heard throughout the country and in that House, but he did appeal to the statesmen on both sides of the House to do their duty on an important question. He asked them either to show some great national cause or purpose to justify the continuance of a course which was so much opposed to the judgments and consciences of the most loyal and religious of Her Majesty's subjects? or, in the absence of any such reason, he did hope that they would respect the religious scruples of the community at large, and withdraw this most obnoxious grant. The hon. Member concluded by moving the Resolution.
Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That this House will immediately resolve itself into a Committee to consider the Acts for the endowment of the College of Maynooth, with a view to the withdrawal of any endowment out of the Consolidated Fund, due regard being had to vested rights and interests."
SIR WILLIAM VERNERrose to second the Motion of the hon. Member who had just sat down. He was happy to have an opportunity of joining in any measure calculated to put down an establishment in which doctrines were taught contrary to the Word of God, and detrimental to the best interests of mankind here and hereafter. He would take advantage of the opportunity to return his thanks, and the thanks of the loyal body of Protestants in Ireland with whom he was identified, to the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Spooner), for the manner in which year after year he had come forward to endeavour to put an end to the State support of an institution which taught doctrines so repugnant to all Protestants. He (Sir William Verner) was fully aware that the House of Commons had now no power to withhold the annual grant from Maynooth, as it was paid out of the Consolidated Fund; but that was no reason why

559
it should not agree to the Motion of the hon. Member for Peterborough. It might be said that there had already been an inquiry into the Maynooth system. He (Sir William Verner) recollected that a Commission was appointed to inquire into the College of Maynooth, but it was a mere mockery. Several of the persons at the head of the establishment, and who joined in the mischievous course pursued in it, were placed upon the jury to try themselves. The consequence naturally was that they acquitted themselves. The doors of Maynooth were now closed, and they could know nothing of what was going forward within its walls. Their only mode of forming a correct judgment of what is taught within them was by watching the conduct of those who have been educated in it after they have left it. [The hon. Baronet then read to the House a document which was understood to be a declaration made by every person admitted to the college, and to which he was bound by oath before he could be collated to any parish. This declaration set forth the principle and doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church, and was, the hon. Baronet said, a full exposition of the principles and doctrine taught in the college.] He (Sir William Verner) would now ask how any Government professing to be Protestant can feel justified in calling upon the country, still Protestant, to contribute to the support of an establishment where such an oath is required to be taken, and where such doctrines are not only taught, but those who are instructed in them are by oath bound to circulate, in whatever part of the universe they may be sent? In order to make the House aware of the sentiments entertained by the priests, and the means they take to circulate and impress them upon the public, he would mention a circumstance which took place in that House, and at which he was present. There was in the House, at the time to which he alluded, a Member of high character and position. He was put forward as the representative and mouthpiece of the Roman Catholic body, to speak their sentiments whenever an opportunity presented itself. A debate took place upon a subject connected with Romanism, upon which occasion this person spoke as follows:—
"The Church of Rome had been accused by many Members of persecution. He was not prepared to deny the imputation. He admitted that on many occasions members of the Church had been guilty of acts of persecution; but he might mention that each of those acts was to be esti-
560
mated according to the temper and spirit of the time. He might point to the Old Testament as containing much that might appear to authorize the persecution and extinction of unhallowed creeds."
He (Sir William Verner) would beg to ask, who is to define what are "unhallowed creeds?" The same Member thus continued—
"The hon. Member who had just sat down had said that the Church of Rome was antagonistic to Protestantism. He perfectly agreed with him; and as long as the world lasted it would continue so, until Protestantism was extinct."
This was language that could not be mistaken. Mr. Plumptre, who was then in Parliament, thanked the noble Lord for the candour and fairness with which he admitted that the contest between Popery and Protestantism must go on till Protestantism should become extinct. He would tell him that the Protestants of this country were prepared to meet these words with corresponding language. He (Sir William Verner) had several more documents which he intended to submit to the House but for the impatience expressed, lie would conclude by making one observation, which he would take the liberty of addressing to the noble Lord at the head of the Government. The noble Lord had been repeatedly appealed to, to "do justice to Ireland." It was well understood what sort of justice that meant. In this call he fully joined; but what he wanted was equal justice for Protestants as well as Roman Catholics. Did the noble Lord consider it justice to Protestants to appoint eight Popish Judges for Ireland? Would the noble Lord venture to say that it was not because they were Roman Catholics they were appointed? Could not the noble Lord find one Protestant member of the Irish bar sufficiently respectable or qualified to be placed upon the bench? And now a ninth may be said to have been appointed, in the person of a Roman Catholic Attorney General. This right hon. Gentleman was sent down by the Government to the assizes at Armagh, with a strong force at his back, to hang a Protestant of whose innocence there existed no doubt. He (Sir William Verner) could not say that the Attorney General knew that he was innocent—that might be to commit himself—but this he could say, that from his professional experience the Attorney General must have known that had he not-withheld the evidence of two witnesses, and suppressed the declaration of a dying man, he must have been acquitted notwithstanding which, a jury exclusively Protestant—

561
four of them masters of Orange lodges—found him guilty of manslaughter. But so disgraceful was the whole transaction, and so clear the man's innocence, that the Lord Lieutenant, exercising his prerogative of mercy, ordered the man to be liberated from prison, but not until he had suffered incarceration for upwards of eight months. And yet this individual still continues to fill the office of Attorney General, and has been rewarded by being presented to the Prince Consort.
MR. DIGBY SEYMOUR, said, that he congratulated his hon. Friend on finding a seconder in the hon. Baronet, who united to English zeal and fervour the Orange loyalty of Northern Ireland. At the same time he regretted that his hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough had spoken of the Roman Catholics in a tone that was calculated to rouse bitter feelings. He did not yield to his hon. Friend in his zeal for Protestantism; but, however appropriate pulpits and platforms might be for anti-Roman Catholic harangues, he thought that Protestant feeling was not a proper basis for a vote given in a legislative assembly. He did not think that the Irish famine had any connection with the teaching or logic of Maynooth, or that Puseyism in the English Church was at all referable to Maynooth, and, therefore, he deplored the introduction of these topics by his hon. Friend. His hon. Friend had quoted an opinion of his; all he should say was that that opinion was given seventeen years ago, and when he was only twenty-two years of age. His language then was full of zeal, and he did not regret it. What he said in substance was this, that so long as the State, wisely or unwisely, maintained a Protestant establishment in Ireland—so long as the religion of the minority was forced by State props upon the majority of the Irish people—so long, he thought, there was an inconsistency in this country supporting the Popish College of Maynooth. lie guarded himself, however, by saying whether, "wisely or unwisely." The experience of many years and deeper acquaintance with the subject had led him to the conclusion that it was not wise, for the sake of the Protestant religion itself, to maintain in Ireland by the support of the State a Church which was opposed and in obnoxious hostility to the religion of the great majority of the inhabitants of the country. His Amendment was intended to place the subject before the House on a most satisfactory
562
footing. He begged to say that he was opposed to the Maynooth Grant on the same grounds that he was opposed to the Regium Donum, and to the Edinburgh annuity tax. That was the broad and charitable ground to take of the question. Religion unshackled would be better able to battle against the powers of untruth, because the people would be more ready to embrace the doctrines of a pure religion when unaccompanied by State aid. There were four parties in the House on the subject—the first were those who supported church rates and voted against Maynooth; they were entirely inconsistent. The second, the Roman Catholic Members for Ireland, who supported Maynooth and opposed church rates; they were inconsistent, for why were they not as tender to the consciences of Members of the Church of England, who supported church rates, as to those of the Roman Catholic Church? The other two parties were for both and against both. As he voted against church rates, he should vote against the Maynooth grant, and leave the support of pure religion as the free offering of a free people.
MR. HADFIELDseconded the Amendment.
Amendment proposed,
"After the word 'Fund,' to insert the words 'and also to consider the expediency of withdrawing all other State Endowments and Grants for Ecclesiastical and Religious purposes in Great Britain and Ireland.'"
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
MR. CARDWELLsaid, he was glad to have collected from the course of the discussion, that it was not the pleasure of the House that the question should be discussed at length, and that they did not desire to re-open a question which by common consent, both in the present Parliament and in the last, was closed. It must not he forgotten that in the former Parliament, at the suggestion of his right hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Walpole), who as Homo Secretary had then to answer the hon. Member for North Warwickshire, the House declined to re-open a question so full of angry feeling, and last Session it came to the same conclusion. Without meaning the slightest disrespect to the hon. Member for Peterborough he might be permitted to state that if this question could have been brought to a. successful issue in the way desired by the hon. Gentleman it would have been so terminated

563
by one for; whom they all sincerely felt regard, the lion. Member for North Warwickshire. The hon. Member went on advocating his sincere views on the subject up to the latest moment when he could obtain a favourable attention from Parliament, and the fact of his having now allowed the question to pass into other hands was a proof that the House would not permit it to be re-opened. In consequence of what had fallen from the lion. Member for Peterborough, he thought it right to state that, according to the Report of the Commission, there was nothing in the teaching of the college which was not consistent with unreserved allegiance to the Queen or with the rules of morality; and, further, it was only right to state that the conduct of the students of the college was acknowledged by those who were competent to speak on the subject to be most exemplary. The hon. Member for Peterborough had spoken of a new agitation, but he hoped the House would not encourage any such undertaking. The hon. Member, not feeling sanguine as to the result of his Motion had, like a cautious general, provided a line of retreat for himself, having given notice that in the event of bis Motion for repealing the grant to Maynooth College being negatived, it was his intention to propose a Select Committee on the doctrines and discipline of the college, intending to employ the Committee in considering the commentaries of Cabbasutius and Devoti. He hoped it was no proof of discreditable ignorance if he admitted himself to be profoundly ignorant of those writings. He was convinced, however, that if the House of Commons began to uproot the foundations of religious establishments throughout the country, they would have difficulties to encounter and anxieties to meet which they would find it most difficult to surmount.
[Loud cries of "Divide! Divide!" which were continued, with other manifestations of the extreme impatience of the Mouse, throughout the remainder of the debate.]
MR. SPOONERsaid, he would trespass for a few minutes only on the indulgence of the House, which had been so often accorded to him. He wished to disabuse the House of the impression which seemed to have been conveyed by the right hon. Gentleman that he had withdrawn from this question, because he considered that Parliament was no longer willing to entertain
564
it. He assured the right hon. Gentleman that he felt it to be his duty, so far as he was able, to protest against the Maynooth grant. But if he had been desirous again to take the lead in this question, his health and strength would not permit him. His right hon. Friend had said that this question was silenced; but in this his right hon. Friend was mistaken. The Protestant feeling in this country was as strong as ever, and, in his humble judgment, the Protestants of this country were able to bring before the House so strong a case against Maynooth that it would not be possible for any Government to put it aside, or resist it. At the same time he was far from denying the Protestant right of private judgment. That, however, was a right not allowed
by the Roman Catholic Church. They declared that their followers were to be guided, not by their own judgment, founded upon the Word of God, but by what their priests decided to be the right doctrine. He (Mr. Spooner) respected many Roman Catholics, with some of whom he had had a personal acquaintance of many years; but he was opposed to a system which he believed to be in principle completely subversive of the Constitution of the country, and contrary to the Word of God. He believed that the favour of Divine Providence had rested especially upon this country on account of its Protestant character and principles, and that whenever we had diverged from those principles we had incurred, as a nation, the Divine displeasure. The experience of this country of late years, during which we had unhappily lent ourselves to the propagation of Popish doctrines through Maynooth, and iii other ways, would, he contended, fully bear out this view of the question. The Sovereign, at the Coronation, took an oath that she would support on all occasions the Protestant Reformed Church of England. He was deeply grateful to his right hon. Friend the Secretary for Ireland for the kind manner in which he had mentioned his name, but he must say that he believed the feeling of the country was decidedly against this grant, and he should vote with the hon. Member for Peterborough.
MR. SOMES—whose remarks were rendered almost inaudible—said, he rose with considerable diffidence to support the Motion which had been so ably brought forward by the hon. Member for Peterborough; but he thought that having that evening had the honour of presenting to the House a petition, signed by some 1,300 of the inhabi-

565
tants of Hull, against what he should call that unrighteous and inconsistent grant to the Roman Catholic College of Maynooth, he had some claim on the indulgence of the House while he said a few, and but a very few, words on the subject. He should consider himself utterly unworthy of a seat in the Parliament of a Christian and Protestant country, were he not to endeavour to overcome his reluctance to speaking on an occasion when such a matter was under discussion in the House. It could not be said that the Roman Catholics of Ireland were not able to bear the expenses of Maynooth College; for they could contribute some £8,000 or £10,000 a year to a society at Lyons for the propagation of Romish principles, and they also contributed largely to the fund called "Peter's Pence," to feed the Pope's armies, and repress the spirit of liberty and independence which Englishmen so much admire amongst the people of Italy. During the last twenty years the Papists, whose demands for other purposes are constantly increasing, have received from this country more than half a million of money for the support of a college where the Bible is excluded, while all support is withheld from those Scriptural schools in Ireland in which the Bible is taught to all the children. He had intended to make some further remarks on the subject, but, seeing the impatience of the House, he should refrain. However, he felt it his duty to make an attempt at being heard, and he could not sit down without protesting against the continuance of the grant to Maynooth, and stating that he should vote in favour of the Motion of the hon. Member for Peterborough.
MR. NEWDEGATE, who at first had some difficulty in obtaining a hearing, said, he felt that he stood in a somewhat difficult position; for sixteen years he had in that House, without intermission, promoted the object of the Motion now made by the hon. Member for Peterborough, and recently he had been strongly urged to introduce the subject, when it became inconvenient for his hon. Colleague (Mr. Spooner) any longer to bring it before the House. He, however, declined to accede to the request, and he rejoiced that he had done so; not in the least that his opinions on the subject had changed; not in the least that he believed the anticipations of the right hon. Gentleman, the Secretary for Ireland, would be fulfilled, but because he felt that when an hon. Member had for
566
many years urged on the attention of the House a very grave subject, the subject was apt to become overlaid by personal considerations in the estimation of the House, and lost that representative character which was essential to the due appreciation of the just value and importance which the people of the country attached to this question. He felt also that the subject was in danger of degenerating into a mere party question, and he rejoiced that he declined to bring it under the consideration of the House, because the choice of an advocate on the part of the Protestants of England had fallen upon an hon. Member who had brought it forward with ability, temper, and judgment, which he hoped would establish him in the good opinion of those whose gratitude he had fairly earned. The Amendment of the hon. Member for Southampton was to the effect, that whereas he, in common with others, felt a strong objection to the grant to Maynooth especially, because the teaching at Maynooth was directed against the very existence of the Church of England, that, therefore, the House should proceed to abolish all other endowments. What did that amount to? This fervent Protestant, not in the least denying that ultramontane doctrines were taught at Maynooth, asked the House to say that, because they were not prepared to grant £30,000 a year for the continuance of ultramontane opinions, they should proceed to abolish the endowments of the Church of England. The hon. and learned Member formerly entertained great objections to the endowment of Maynooth, because that establishment was specially organized to attack the Church of England; but now he proposed that the House should at once accomplish the object which he deprecated before. He thought he might easily anticipate the fate of the hon. Gentleman's Amendment. It was not to be denied that the teaching of Maynooth was ultramontane teaching—that it was the teaching of the Jesuits. Nothing could be more unprincipled, nothing more impolitic, than that Protestant England should pay for the dissemination of these doctrines. For what reason? Why did Roman Catholic Europe tolerate the position of the Emperor of the French, not only in Europe, but in Asia? He was tolerated because he restrained the tyrannical disposition generated by the Jesuits, and thus conferred an enormous benefit on Christendom. This fact stood forth, that the chosen ruler

567
of Roman Catholic France was exercising restraint upon the dissemination of these Jesuitical doctrines, and the tyranny which they generate, and that Roman Catholic France maintained herself in an exalted position because she rendered not only to Frenchmen, but to Roman Catholic Europe, that great service. What a contrast! The Parliament of England continued in a state of disgraceful ignorance on the subject, paying for the inculcation of doctrines which she condemned, and fostering the extension of a power not tolerated by Europe or the rest of the world. While the Austrians had so far freed themselves, as to compel their Government to rescind their Jesuit-coined Concordat with the Pope—when Baden-Baden, despite the exertions of the Archbishop of Friburgh and his allies, had discarded her Concordat—when the rest of the world were rejecting and restraining this spirit of Jesuitical domination and tyranny—the Parliament of England were paying for the dissemination of those very ultramoutane doctrines, for the extension of this very Jesuitical domination, against which almost the whole of the rest of the world were protesting. He was confident that those who choose to persevere in such a course would, sooner or later, find themselves severely corrected by the strongly expressed opinion of the country.
MR. VINCENT SCULLYsaid, it was impossible for him to vote for the Amendment of the lion. Member for Southampton, and he, therefore, wished to state his reasons for not voting for it. He thought very few lion. Members understood the Amendment. On reading it, it appeared to him that it did not go beyond the Regium Donum in Ireland, and' the Annuity Tax in Scotland, and that it did not include the revenues of the Established Churches in England and Scotland. The Amendment was, however, not very clearly drawn up. He would suppose his lion. Friend to be addressed by a Protestant clergyman at Southampton, who would say to him, "How Can you suppose that I will give you my vote again in this borough when you propose to abolish all grants to the Church of England?" "Oh," the hon. Member would reply to him, "the Amendment did not mean that—it only meant the grants to the rascally Presbyterians and those Popish gentlemen." To make sure, he (Mr. Scully) went up to his lion. Friend twice, and questioned him as to his meaning, and his answer was that he (Mr. Scully) understood the Amendment in the
568
same manner that he (Mr. Seymour) understood it himself. Now, he was quite prepared to vote against religious endowments as a whole, but he would not single out small grants for abolition, while large ones were retained. Having now explained himself, he begged to say that he was prepared to vote against the Amendment of his hon. Friend the Member for Southampton.
MR. WHALLEY, in reply, said: I wish the House to note this fact—that neither the right hon, the Secretary for Ireland, nor any other Gentleman, has attempted to deny my statement, that this college teaches those doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church which, under the name of Ultramontane, have been virtually excluded from every other seminary in Europe, or one there taught under the direct supervision of the State; and that this Protestant country affords the only means by which the Pope can now train a priest brigade to carry out that system from which Europe, after centuries of struggle, is at length emancipating itself. No denial has been given, or can be given, to the fact that this system recognizes and recommends treason, perjury, and murder as laudable actions, when thereby the interests of the Pope can he promoted; and that the extraordinary spectacle, which Europe witnessed with amazement, that Ireland was the only country which sent the Pope a military brigade, is the natural result of a system which amongst ourselves we see daily manifesting itself in treasonable speeches and such preparations for rebellion as prudence allows. My lion, and learned Friend the Member for Southampton, objects to my connecting with Maynooth that Jesuitical clement which has of late years manifested itself in our own Church under the name of Puseyism; but I can show, if required, the very rules—the precise instructions as inculcated at Maynooth—by which men, who receive the pay and exercise all the privileges of our Church, are enabled to earn for themselves honour and immortality by treasonably availing themselves of our Churches, and, by direct violation of their oaths of ordination, using our pulpits for the purpose of perverting and denouncing all Protestant doctrine and practice. I consider this Puseyite form of Jesuitism is a direct illustration, intelligible and brought home by daily experience to every one of that teaching at Maynooth, to which we alone, of all the nations of the would, now

569
give Parliamentary sanction by this grant. When the right lion. Gentleman, the Secretary for the Homo Department, last year sent 200 policemen, each Sunday, to St. George's-in-the-East to repress the righteous indignation of the Protestant parishioners, and refused to recognize the gross outrage to which they were subjected, or to afford them any opportunity of resisting the desecration of their parish church to Romish purposes, their cause became a national one; for by the voice and act of the right lion. Gentleman, the Governor of the country, Mr. Bryan King, the present priest-parson, was justified and supported, and the high-spirited Protestants of that parish were compelled by police and by magistrates to submit in silence and subjection to Roman Catholic forms of worship. And I can only account for so gross an outrage being tolerated by this House from the fact that it considers itself, by this grant to Maynooth, bound to defend the Jesuitical purposes which it so appropriates the public money to teach and inculcate. But I do not believe this House is prepared to accept all such consequences of the grant. I admit these are religious questions, and that this is not the proper place for the discussion of such questions; but so long as you grant money for religious purposes you must submit to the discussion of them, and, to avoid and avert such discussions is, in addition to all other objections, an unanswerable argument, I submit, in favour of my Motion. My hon. and learned Friend also objected to my connecting with Maynooth the famine in Ireland; but that is a point on which I can speak with a personal knowledge—for I was amongst the people. I was one of those humble instruments which England sent forth to save them from starvation and pestilence; and the evidence which all countries have contributed to give that this priestly domination, which we sanction and pay for at Maynooth, is really the direct cause of poverty, misery, and crime amongst all people who are subjected to it, was confirmed by my own observation. I saw myself the practical working of the system which, under pretence of providing for eternal salvation, deprives them of that liberty of thought and action which is essential for the temporal and present necessities of mankind. By this grant to Maynooth we pay for this teaching, we qualify these priests to keep in bondage the naturally high-spirited people of Ireland; and if it be true, as I assert and am
570
prepared to prove that it is, that the qualifications which we thus impart to these priests consist primarily in conferring on them the ability to teach disobedience to the laws and a repudiation of the supremacy of the Queen and Parliament of England, what right have we to punish those poor deluded Irishmen for the acts which, in pursuance of such teaching, are carried out in their Ribbon lodges, and otherwise are repeatedly brought before our courts of justice and the public? The right hon. Gentleman says he has never heard of Cabbasutius and Devoti, and yet he quotes the Commission in which one of the objects of inquiry was the doctrines taught at Maynooth, as to which these names are amongst the most important. I have here the evidence that these doctrines are, primarily, detestation of England and Protestantism; and students, who enter that college loyal subjects, leave it, to use their own expression, "the vilest rebels, thirsting and praying for the destruction of England," and such is the spirit with which they go forth on their mission to our Colonies and elsewhere, with the stamp of Parliamentary sanction upon such mission. This the right hon. Gentleman chooses to ignore, and refers to the Report—as if a Report which, in the teeth of such evidence, says they know nothing of disloyalty, was not of itself evidence of the depth of the Jesuitism which prevails at Maynooth, and of the impossibility of exercising by Parliamentary means any sufficient control. That Report, this House well knows, was, if not written, revised and prepared for publication at Rome by the authority of the Vatican; and that the right hon. Gentleman should have ventured to quote that Report can only be accounted for by supposing that he relied upon such clamour as I have now to encounter in my reply to him rendering impossible in this House such refutation of his statements and arguments as I am prepared most fully to give. He may be assured that the Protestant feeling of this country will not be silenced by such interruption and clamour as its enemies can raise here. It does not depend on my voice, which may be easily silenced; driven back from the floor of this House, it will but spread wider and sink deeper into the hearts of the people—and what we saw in 1851, and lately in St. George's-in-the-East, will again be manifest so soon as the public begin to discover that this House, on which they are so well disposed to rely for the

571
efence and protection of national interests, is under the control of those who either perpetrate or tolerate such means of preventing discussion as that to which this debate has been subjected.
MR. PIGBY SEYMOURsaid, he would withdraw his Amendment, finding it was the wish of the House to take the Division on the Original Motion.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Main Question put,
The House divided:—Ayes 114; Noes 191: Majority 77.

BARON DE BODE'S PETITION.

  SELECT COMMITTEE MOVED FOR.
  MR. DENMANsaid, that he rose to bring forward the Motion of which he had given notice for the appointment of a Select Committee to consider the allegations of the petition of the Baron de Bode, presented on the 18th of April last, and to report thereon to the House. A fair decision on the question could not be come to unless every one who took part in the vote heard every part of the argument. If he could insure that every one who heard him would listen to the ease throughout, and that no others would take part in the decision, he should feel as confident of success as he ever did in any case upon which it had fallen to his lot to address any audience or tribunal. Before he proceeded to make the observations which he should have to make upon the claim itself, he wished to anticipate some objections which had been advanced over and over again, and which might be advanced on the present occasion. In the first place, it had been said more than once that this was a stale demand, and that the claimants had slept upon their rights; but he should convince the House that the Baron de Bode, so far from having slept upon his rights, had incessantly and by every means in his power pressed those rights upon the attention of Parliament, and upon all those from whom he had the hope of obtaining redress. It might also be said that it was resjudicata, but he would undertake to satisfy the House that this was not a question which had ever been decided by a competent tribunal. He would also show that the Motion he submitted was the proper mode of proceeding. Parliament was always eager for precedents, and precedent was here in Baron de Bode's favour; because in 1834 the House of Commons had appointed a Committee to investigate
  572
  his claims, but the labours of that Committee were brought to a premature close by the dissolution of the Parliament, and for some reason never resumed. True, in 1854, the matter was again brought forward by the lion, and learned Member for Greenwich (Mr. Montagu Chambers), when his Resolution was rejected; but it must be remembered that the Motion made in that year was not one like the present, simply for inquiry; but, if carried, it would, have required the House to provide in the Estimates for the satisfaction of the Baron de Bode's claims without any inquiry of its own. Yet nothing but the eloquence of the then Attorney General (Sir Alexander Cockburn) and the right hon. Gentleman the present Chancellor of the Exchequer prevented a decision of the House in favour of the Resolution in 1854, because certainly nothing could have been more futile than the arguments which those eminent men used on that occasion, arguments which apparently must have been supplied to them on the spur of the moment by some official underlings. He would state to the House why it was that he had undertaken to bring forward the case. Shortly after he had the honour to obtain a seat in this House, an hon. and learned Member on the the other side of the House, whose engagements prevented him from giving sufficient attention to the matter, put the papers in his hands, and requested him, when he had sufficiently considered them, if he thought real ground for further inquiry existed, to bring the case before the House. Pie had carefully perused those papers, and come to the conclusion, that a strong case for inquiry existed; and, having kept the papers for a long time, he felt that he should not be acting fairly towards the Baron de Bode if he shrunk from a task which, if he had consulted his own comfort alone, he should certainly have long ago declined. He was aware of the disadvantage under which he laboured in attempting to address so thin a House On such a subject, but with their indulgence he believed he should be able to show all who would listen to him that it was a case not only peculiarly affecting the honour of the country, but calling upon Parliament in its highest character, as the grand inquest of the nation, to see that that right should be done to the claimant which had so long been withheld from him. It was not a case which rested wholly upon law, for then the ordinary tribunals would be the proper place to seek redress; but it was one

  573
  which came within the meaning of a phrase which had been recently employed by the noble Lord at the head of the Government with reference to another matter—Summum jus, summa injuria—a case where by insisting on strict legal measure the highest injustice would be committed, because indisputable moral and equitable claims would thereby be destroyed. The case generally stated was this—In 1793 the French Government confiscated the estate of the father of the present Baron as an emigré, and afterwards handed over to the English Government a large sum of money to cover this and all other claims in respect of which that sum was paid. The main reason why he did not receive that money was because in an Act of 1819 it was recited, contrary to the fact, that all British subjects who had claimed in time and who were entitled to that fund had been entered upon a register. By that Act the absolute disposal of any surplus which might remain after the payment of the various claimants was to be left to the Lords of the Treasury, and it was consequently held by the House of Lords that that provision, was fatal to the Baron's claim. It was not until thirty years after the passing of the Act, and the disposal of the surplus, that it was many years after held that this recital was fatal to the Baron de Bode's claim. It was necessary, therefore, to refer to 1818 in order to see what the claim of the Baron de Bode was; and if he had a just claim at that time, then it must be admitted that Parliament had done him a great wrong, of course, unwittingly, when it passed the Act of 1819. He should now call the attention of the House to the nature of the claim of the Baron de Bode. By the fourth additional article of the Treaty of 1819, a right was given to recover for the loss of property, moveable or immoveable, belonging to the subjects of the King of England, unduly confiscated by the French authorities. The words of the treaty were as general as possible. Now, he undertook to prove, first, that the Baron de Bode was a British subject, and that he was a British subject within the meaning of the treaty; secondly, that he was possessed of a landed estate in France; thirdly, that it was unduly confiscated within the meaning of the treaty; fourthly, that money was paid by the French to the English Government, to satisfy the claims for property so confiscated; fifthly, that after the payment of all claims there was a surplus which ought to have been appropriated to the payment
  574
  of the Baron de Bode's claim; and sixthly, that the late Baron did everything he could do to entitle himself to the payment of his claim. The first point he had to establish was that the last Baron de Bode was a British subject within the meaning of the treaty, and, if the establishment of this point depended on the law of England, there was no more doubt of the Baron de Bode's right than there was of the right of any one of them to be considered an English subject. The Baron de Bode was the son of an English mother and a German father. The father married in 1775, and the Baron de Bode, the claimant, was born in 1777 at Loxley Hall in Staffordshire, the residence of his mother's father. He was for some few years brought up in the family of the Kinnersleys, in Staffordshire, and was, therefore, to all intents' and purposes a British subject according to all interpretation of English law. It was argued that he was not a British subject at all, or a British subject within the meaning of the treaty, But the case of Eneas M'Donnell, in Foster's Crown Cases, where a person similarly situated to the Baron de Bode had been sentenced to the penalty of high treason, showed the Baron de Bode must be considered a British subject. If exposed to the penal consequences of being a British subject, a person was of course entitled on the other hand to the rights of a British subject. Then it was said that the Baron de Bode ceased to be a British subject, because he lived in France from an early age. The Baron de Bode be it recollected was born in England, and Lord Hatherton stated in the House of Lords that he had known him in childhood, and believed him to be to all intents and purposes a British subject. It was then said that the Baron de Bode was not a British subject within the terms of the Convention. He had several answers to that objection. His first was that between 1815 and 1818 the French Commissioners expressed a doubt whether the Baron de Bode was a British subject because his father was a German. On that occasion a case was laid under this very treaty before the high authority of Sir Samuel Romilly, and his unhesitating opinion was that he was to all intents and purposes a British subject. This opinion was sent to the French Government and the French Government acted upon it by withdrawing the objection, and thus acknowledged that the Baron de Bode was entitled to be compensated out of the money

  575
  which they sent to this country. Again, Lord Lyndhurst, Lord Brougham, and the late Lord Truro, expressed an unhesitating opinion in the House of Lords that the Baron de Bode was a British subject with in the meaning of the treaty. There was this still more cogent reason for holding the Baron de Bode a British subject, that among fourteen or fifteen cases decided before the Privy Council the current of decision, without a single exception, was that a person born in England was entitled to compensation as a British subject unless there had been some solemn act of naturalization to divest him of the character of a British subject. Again, there was the strong opinion to the same effect, of Mr. Pollock, in 1834, although in his forensic capacity of Attorney General he afterwards opposed the claim. What was there to divest the Baron de Bode of his right to be considered a British subject? Was it that he was possessed of immovable property in France. If that were so, the whole treaty was a nullity, for it recognized the right of persons holding such property to be compensated. Was it because he was a German? Why the essence of the claim was that whether his father was French or German, the Baron was a British born subject. It was said that he owed allegiance to France. But his father was not a Frenchman but a German, and he possessed property in Germany as well as in France. At the time the spoliation took place he was only four teen years of age, and, therefore, it was idle to pretend that he could direst himself of the rights he then possessed. The Baron de Bode, therefore, having been born in England had a right to claim the privileges to which he was entitled as a British subject under the treaty. The petitioner's father was the possessor of a landed estate, consisting of the town and castle of Soultz, in Lower Alsace. That province, by the Treaty of Westphalia, was annexed to France, but by that and subsequent treaties the old German tenures were declared to be valid. The tenure was what was called a German male fief, which corresponded to what in English law would be called an estate tail, which could not be cut off. The right of investiture to the fief was in the Archbishop of Cologne. From 1788 to 1791 this was the state of things. The father was tenant for life; the son had a remainder-in-tail, a vested remainder which he could not cut off. In 1791 the father made over his rights to the son, and the cession took place at a large gathering
  576
  of the tenants before a notary public in the most solemn manner. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer—who played junior to the Attorney General on the occasion of Mr. Chamber's Motion—strenuously argued that there was no proof of the consent of the feudal superior; but it was plain that a person with a vested remainder wanted no such consent. Whether the father, however, made a valid cession or not, the son had still the remainder, and that was destroyed by the confiscation, and would of itself entitle him to claim. About 1793 the father and son, dreading what might occur if they remained in Alsace, took refuge with the Austrian army, and in 1793 their estates were confiscated by the revolutionary Government, by which they were sold and the money appropriated. It was contended that the confiscation was not an undue confiscation, as the Government by whom the act was done were in possession of the soil of France; but the object of the treaties of 1814 and 1815 with the legitimate Government of France was to do justice to those who had been spoliated. Every confiscation by the arbitrary decrees of the revolutionary Government was unfair and illegal, and that was the view which the English House of Commons ought to take, because those were not days when England so easily recognized new Governments, and it never did recognize the revolutionary Government of France. Then it was said that the father and son were emigrants, and, therefore, the confiscation not undue; but it was held by Sir William Grant that it did not follow that the treaty did not apply because confiscation took place after emigration. The next objection was that, although it was the property of a British subject, it was not confiscated as the property of a British subject, and, therefore, not within the treaties. This point was strenuously insisted upon by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and mainly influenced the votes on a former occasion of the hon. Member for North Warwickshire and the hon. Member for Greenock; but it was completely answered by the case of the Count de Wall, as reported in 3 Knapp's Privy Council Reports. Drummond's case, reported in 2 Knapp had no bearing on the present question, because there the claim to be recognized as a British subject was made under a special statute as to Protestant inheritances by the grandson of a man born in England, and not as here by a British-

  577
  born subject. Fanning's case in the same volume was more to the point. Fanning was a natural born British subject, who re-Bided in France, where he acquired the title of Count de Fanning, and was looked upon as a French subject. He took out letters of naturalization, but, as they were not properly completed, the Privy Council held that he still retained his birthright as a British subject. It could not be pretended that the Baron de Bode had ever become a Frenchman by any solemn authenticated act; and he submitted in spite of what had been argued formerly that the accident of birth was sufficient to constitute him a British subject within the meaning of the treaties. On a former occasion it was urged by the Attorney General and the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the Convention only applied where the persons whose property was confiscated were referred to in the second Article of the Treaty of Commerce in 1786, but that treaty had no more to do with the subject than it had to do with any other treaty with any other country on any other subject. On the 20th of November, 1815, a definitive treaty was entered into which recited the fourth additional article with regard to property of British subjects, and it was upon the Treaty of 1814 and the conventions added to the Treaty of 1815 that the actual question of the Baron de Bode's title rested. In Article 1 of Convention No. 7, it was stated that the subjects of his Britannic Majesty having claims upon the French Government who in contravention of the second article of the Treaty of Commerce of 1786, and since the 1st of January, 1793, had suffered on that account by the confiscations decreed in France, should, in conformity with the fourth additional article of Treaty of Paris of 1814, themselves, heirs or assigns, be indemnified. But it was not under that clause, but without and entirely beside it, that the Baron de Bode's claim arose. In the fifth Article of Convention No. 7, there was this provision—
  "In order to determine the capital due on immovable property which belonged to British subjects, and had been sequestered, confiscated, and sold, proofs of two things should be required—first, the deed of purchase proving proprietorship; and, secondly the act proving the facts of the sequestration, and of the confiscation against themselves, their ancestors, or assignors, subjects of His Britannic Majesty."
  That was all that was required, and that clause was perfectly free from any mixture
  578
  with the second article of the Treaty of 1786. The Treaty of Commerce of 1786 referred only to persons temporarily residing in France for the purpose of trade and commerce. In case of any misunderstanding arising between the two Crowns, the subjects of each Power were to be allowed to continue their residence without being disturbed, as long as they conducted themselves peaceably. If they became suspected by their conduct, they were to have twelve months' notice before they were required to leave the kingdom. It had been said that Baron de Bode did so offend by acting contrary to public order. But it was the French revolutionary Government that decided he had done so, simply by the act of emigrating. But the Treaty of 1786 did not refer to immovable property at all; for down to a later period, by the law of France, and the Droit d'Aubaine, no British subject could hold immovable property in France. On a former occasion the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer maintained that it was only to cases in which persons merely residing temporarily in France that the Treaty of 1815 applied. But it really applied to claims of all kinds and descriptions. It was signed on the 20th of November, 1815; and a term of three months from that date was allowed to persons in Europe to make their claims for compensation; to those in the colonies a term of six months was given. After the expiration of those periods British subjects, who had not claimed within the time, were not to be entitled to compensation; and the next point of the case was that money was paid by France to England to indemnify those British subjects whose property had been confiscated; and the French Government was aware that Baron de Bode was one of the persons claiming. The opinion of Sir Samuel Romilly was sent to the French Government, and it admitted that it was valid. It was a curious fact that so late as in 1853, when the case had run the gauntlet of the courts of law, Lord Lyndhurst produced to the other House of Parliament, a letter from M. Guizot, written in answer to certain applications made by the Baron de Bode. It was perfectly obvious from that letter that between the date of the signature of the treaty, and the period when the case could be brought forward for adjudication, the French Government admitted that Baron de Bode was a British subject. Documents signed and counter-

  579
  signed passed on the question. After he had in vain attempted to obtain redress from the British Government, the Baron applied to the Government of France to see if he could obtain some justice; but in doing so he guarded himself against admitting that his true claim was against that Government. The answer of the French Government was that money had been paid to meet all claims including the Barons. The reports of many cases before the Privy Council showed that that high Court had proceeded upon the basis that persona situated like the Baron de Bode had valid claims under the treaties.
  The next point was that after payment of all claims under the treaty there still remained a large surplus, and that surplus, he contended, was charged with a trust to satisfy the claim of the Baron de Bode. It was established upon the trial at law that there had been at a certain time a balance of £482,752 in the hands of the Government in respect of this Convention No. 7, and it appeared that with interest it had accumulated to £566,139 in 1821. What was the application of this sum? Out of the sum of £566,139, £196,000 odd was paid to persons who claimed under the Convention No. 7, and whose claims had been presented after the time prescribed for receiving claims. He did not say that so far as the law was concerned that was an illegal appropriation, but he said that in considering Baron de Bode's claim it would be hard upon him to say that the nation was not to be responsible to him because the Treasury chose to be too liberal to others. After all claims had been satisfied there still remained a sum of £200,000 not in any way to be considered due under the Convention, which ought in justice to have been appropriated to the payment of Baron de Bode. The next point which he should submit to the House was that the claimant had done nothing to disentitle him to compensation. In 1818 his claim was an incontestable right in law, and it was only in consequence of the statute of 1819, which gave to the Treasury an absolute right over the disposal of the surplus, that Baron de Bode lost his right. It was then a case for Parliamentary inquiry, with a view to compensation. The treaty was dated November 20, 1815, and the claims were to be sent in within three months. The Baron do Bode sent his claim on the 9th of February, 1816, to the Due de Richelieu, then Prime Minister of France, the English
  580
  Commissioners not having arrived at that time. The Due de Richelieu took objection to the claim, on the ground that the claimant was not a British subject, inasmuch as he was the son of a German; but Sir Samuel Romilly's opinion having been taken, he pronounced the claimant to be a British subject, and the objection was withdrawn. It would be unjust to say that the claim was not made in due time, because it had not been made to a particular person when every possible endeavour had been made to comply with the requirements of the Convention. In the year 1818 a new Convention was executed, under which France paid an additional 60,000,000 f., and the English Government undertook to dispose of all the claims. The Commissioners upon whom the duty of investigating the claims was imposed told Baron de Bode that unless he could prove that his property was confiscated under the decree against British subjects they could not allow it. He could not prove that, because his property was confiscated as being that of an emigré. [Mr. GLADSTONE: Hear, hear!] The right hon. Gentleman cheered that admission; but the decisions of the Courts went to show that that ought not to have excluded his claim. In Fanning's case, in Count de Wall's case, and in others, the property had been confiscated on the same ground, and yet the claim had been allowed by the Privy Council. In consequence of that intimation, however, the Baron did not complete the evidence as to the cession, and the Commissioners then made an award, deciding against him on both points. That award being founded upon a fact which had nothing to do with the matter at issue—namely, the property not having been confiscated under the decrees against British subjects, proof of this having been required as a sine quâ non by the Commissioners, was bad in law. In 1819 the Baron appealed to the Privy Council against the decision of the Commissioners, but before the case came on he received a letter from the Secretary to the Commission, stating that he must not produce any new evidence. The Privy Council heard the case so crippled, and they held that they could not over-rule the decision of the Commissioners, and that in fact there was not evidence before them which would establish the validity of the cession. He then attempted to obtain a rehearing of his case; but was told that as the decision had been confirmed by the Sovereign it

  581
  was too late to reopen the matter. The next step he took was to appeal to the Court of France, whose answer was that they had already made compensation for the claim. These details were necessary to show that the Baron de Bode had not slept on his rights, as some alleged, but had urged his claims whenever opportunity offered upon the consideration of the country. The treaty was in 1815, the award was in 1822, the appeal to the Privy Council in 1823, and in 1826 the rehearing was refused. In 1828, Lord Derby, then Mr. Stanley, who had always taken a very warm interest in the case, brought forward a Motion similar to the present for a Select Committee, and in 1830 he made a further Motion to the same effect. In 1832 and 1833 the House was counted out when the subject was renewed, but in 1834, in a House of 170 Members, the Government agreed to the appointment of a Select Committee. The Committee sat until the end of that year, and had nearly agreed to their Report when the Session ended. They suggested that they should be reappointed in the next Session, but in the following year the Government refused to assent to the reappointment of the Committee, Lord Cranworth, then Solicitor General, alleging that the Motion was a Quixotic attempt to turn the House into a Court of Appeal. Several other Motions were ineffectually brought forward from time to time, but, finding that the House of Commons were indisposed to do him justice, in 1838 application was made by the Baron de Bode to the Court of Queen's Bench for a mandamus addressed to the Lords of the Treasury. The Court, however, held that a mandamus to the Crown to command itself would not lie, and the Baron de Bode was then advised to try a petition of right. This petition came on at first before Commissioners, and, with one exception, all the facts contained in it were found by inquisition. The Crown had afterwards traversed the inquisition, and also pleaded the Statute of Limitations. The case was tried at Bar before the whole Court of Queen's Bench and a special jury. The Crown lawyers exerted all their ingenuity during a trial of four days duration, but without success; for every fact found by the inquisition was affirmed by that special jury on the trial at Bar. The matter then came before the Queen's Bench on the points of law. It had been subsequently contended in the House of Com-
  582
  mons that the opinion of the Court of Queen's Bench had been against the Baron de Bode on all points. But no lawyer would have argued thus, because it was clear that the Chief Justice had guarded himself against giving any opinion on the merits of the claim, and that the question had been decided by the Court on narrow technical grounds which had nothing to do with the merits of the claim. The case then came on appeal before the Exchequer Chamber, where the decision was given against the Baron on the ground that the surplus had been disposed of according to the strict interpretation of the 59 Geo. III., and that the Baron had, therefore, no legal claim. The House of Lords on appeal affirmed the decision of the Exchequer Chamber, but those two tribunals, like the Queen's Bench, had carefully guarded themselves from giving any opinion on the merits. The period from 1839 to 1851 had been occupied in these legal proceedings, and there was no pretence for saying the Baron during that interval had slumbered on his rights. Lord Lyndhurst had been so shocked at the hardship of the case that in 1852 he moved in the House of Lords for a Select Committee to inquire into the subject, which was granted by the Government of the Earl of Derby. Lord Brougham, Lord Truro, Lord Lyndhurst, and other Peers, were Members of the Committee, which reported every single matter both of law and fact in the Baron de Bode's favour, and expressed their opinion that the case was one of great hardship, which they recommended to the favourable consideration of their Lordships. In 1853 a Motion was made in the House of Lords with the view of acting on that Report, but it was urged that their Lordships were not the proper tribunal to act, as it was not in their province to vote the money. In 1854 Mr. Chambers, in the House of Commons, moved a Resolution affirming that the national good faith required that the just claims of the Baron de Bode should be satisfied. It was urged, however, with some reason, that the House of Commons, which held the purse strings of the nation, could not come to such a Resolution upon the Report of the Committee of another House. He now, therefore, asked the House to institute an inquiry of its own, which should satisfy its own conscience. That Motion of Mr. M. Chambers was rejected by 81 votes against 67. The Attorney General of that day said that

  583
  Lord Stowell had held the cession to have been a fraudulent one; but if hon. Members referred to the judgment of that noble Lord, he thought they would be of opinion that he had not gone that length. Lord Stowell said it appeared that the claimant had failed in proving his ownership of the property; but it was not surprising that he should have done so, because he had been stopped by the Commissioners telling him of certain requirements which he had not the means of complying with, and which were not necessary. It was a mistake to suppose that the Baron de Bode objected to the fact of other claimants having been paid. What he objected to was that his claim was left unsettled, while claims had been settled in cases in which the British Government had a right to have gone to the French Government for a settlement, and so that money bound with a trust for him had been otherwise applied. On the occasion to which he was now referring Lord Chelmsford, then Sir Frederic Thesiger, observed, that after the judicial decision of the Privy Council in the case, a mandamus would not lie; but even if that were so, it ought not to prevent the House of Commons from doing justice to the Baron de Bode. And in reference to that House, he appealed to hon. Members whom he saw entering the House at that stage of the debate to bear in mind that justice could not be done unless they heard all the arguments on one side and the other. That was the substance of the arguments used in the debate of 1854. He apologized for troubling the House at such length; but having, as he believed, an honest claim to defend, he felt it his duty to answer all the objections which had been raised on former occasions. It was said out of doors that the claim was so enormous that the House of Commons would never be got to entertain it. He did not believe that that was the view which the House would take; and, indeed, it was one which had been repudiated over and over again. He had no acquaintance with Baron de Bode but what he derived from this case, but he could see that that gentleman had shown a fair and earnest desire to have his claim investigated; but he did not believe that Baron de Bode would be so absurd as to suppose that because the claim, if the interest at 5 per cent were calculated, would amount to nearly a million of money, therefore the House would be bound to pay a million of money on the Report of the Committee.
  584
  If a Select Committee were appointed, it would be found out that there was a very large sum unappropriated according to the law as existing before the statute of 1819, which the country had had the benefit of, and which ought to be paid to satisfy the claim of Baron de Bode. The jury on the trial at Bar had found that the value of the property confiscated was upwards of £300,000. Supposing it should be established before a Committee that Baron de Bode was entitled to some money (not, indeed, a million, unless the amount were calculated in an unreasonable way), he did not think so ill of his countrymen as to suppose that they would object to the payment of the obligation, for he believed that in that case they would, on the contrary be glad, by discharging the debt, to be relieved from the burden which they must feel on their conscience so often as they heard the case of Baron de Bode mentioned. He believed that they would gladly submit to an increase of the income tax to the extent of a third of a penny, or a half-penny, in the pound, rather than remain in the belief that an honest claim upon the nation remained unsatisfied. Again apologizing to the House for the length of time he had trespassed upon their patience, he left the case in their hands, believing it to be a just claim; asking them, however, not to decide upon it themselves, but to appoint a Committee who might investigate the accuracy of the statements which he had brought forward.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a Select Committee be appointed, to consider the allegations of the Petition of the Baron de Bode, presented to this House on the 18th day of April last, and to report to this House thereon."
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, his hon. and learned Friend had maintained in a speech of three hours and a quarter a case which, he said, was incontrovertible. When a case, however, admitted of controversy some time must undoubtedly be granted to those who had to meet the various topics which had been urged. He was ready to admit that the hon. and learned Member had urged the claims of the Baron de Bode with much ability, but, at the same time, his advocacy bad been as deficient in modesty as it was remarkable for pertinacity. ["No, no!"] Did not the hon. Member more than once declare that all that had been said in this House against the claims of the Baron de Bode was characterized by sophistry, fal-

  585
  lacy, and a desire to mystify the House upon the question? The Motion was
  first raised in the House of Commons by Mr. Stanley, now the Earl of Derby, when Lord Lyndhurst was Chancellor. It was resisted by the Government, and rejected as destitute of moral justice. It was brought forward again when there was another Government, and it was again resisted. It was brought forward again when Sir Robert Peel was Premier, and was again resisted by the advice of the Lord Chancellor, Lord Lyndhurst, and the law advisers of the Crown, and was rejected. It was brought before the House of Commons in 1853 a second time, and rejected. It was finally brought before the House in 1854, and discussed at great length, and again rejected. Some of the ablest Members both of that and the other House of Parliament had given it as their opinion that no foundation existed for the claims; and yet the lion. Member declared that all the arguments employed against them were nothing more than a tissue of sophistry and mystification. How long were such claims as these to be open to discussion in that House? They were admitted to have no foundation in law, and on every appeal to Parliament a decision had been given against them. What was to be the limit in urging such claims? Was the case of the Baron de Bode to be brought forward whenever any young lawyer who had a seat in that House chose to do so? That seemed to have been the case from time to time, and he was ready to admit that he himself had been infected with erroneous impressions on the subject. He was led in 1854 to consider the question more closely, and to devote his time and attention to it; and it was in consequence of the close examination he had thus made that he was now able to state the reasons why he could not advise the Government and the House to recognize the claims urged upon them. He did so under a feeling of great responsibility. The House had a right to require from a person holding the situation he did a bond fide opinion, carefully and conscientiously formed; and he was the more inclined to do so because he felt much compassion for the present claimant, who had been brought up in the strong belief which his father entertained, that he had a rightful claim to the money now demanded. That belief was delusive, but it had been created by the opinions of the lawyers to whom the case had been entrusted. He would put
  586
  before the House the leading features of the case. His hon. and learned Friend said that the late Baron de Bode was a British subject; but a fallacy lay at the bottom of that statement. It was true that in the British dominions he was a British subject, but it was equally true that as between Franco and this country he was not a British subject. It was a common saying, referable, probably, to the insularity of our lawyers, that a man was a British subject because he was born in England. This was not necessarily the case. Suppose an Englishman and his wife were on a visit to Paris, and that during their stay there a son was born who was brought over to England a month or two afterwards, and there brought up and educated with English tastes, ideas, and feelings, could that child be called a French subject? Would he not in after life, whenever he had occasion to do so, put forth his claim to be a British subject? The late Baron dc Bode, the father of the present claimant, had, no doubt, been born in England during a short visit paid by his father and mother to England, but he had been very soon after his birth taken back to France; he had been educated in that country, and must, therefore, be regarded as having been for every political and legal purpose a French subject. That was the point which constituted the real foundation of the whole case, which must be determined in accordance, not with the principles of English, but rather of international law. Taken in that point of view, the mere accident of birth was wholly immaterial; the fact that a person was a citizen of a particular country, and performed there all the duties incidental to citizenship, stamped him with the character of being a subject of that State. When the French Revolution had broken out the French Government de facto had a clear right to exercise control over those who were actually the subjects of France; while, upon the other hand, there were resident in that country a number of persons who were indisputably British subjects, and who, as such, had a right to claim protection from the British Crown, to which they preserved their allegiance. The language of the treaty to which reference had been made clearly pointed to persons so situated, the words—"His Britannic Majesty's subjects"—that was to say, persons who owed allegiance to the Crown of England—being those which were employed. Now, it was clear that neither Baron Charles de Bode, the grand-

  587
  father of the present claimant, nor the late Baron, was in the position of a person who came within the scope of the treaty as a person recognized as owing allegiance to the Crown of this country. The Commissioners found that the grandfather of the present claimant was one of the French noblesse, residing in Lower Alsace, where he had purchased a large estate, and was a great territorial proprietor. His son, the father of the present claimant, was included in the entail, and, therefore, it was to his interest to consider himself a French subject. Further, it was found that he was in the French service, and a knight of the Order of St. Louis, and in every respect a subject of France. Baron Charles, moreover, when the troubles of 1791 began, adhered to the dynasty of the King of France, and was in every sense a Royalist; but, having some property to preserve he hit upon the following device to effect his object:—His son, who, at that time, was a boy of fourteen years of age, happened accidentally to have been born in England—accidentally, inasmuch as the mother had not come over here with the view that her offspring should be a British subject—and it was hoped that that fact would entitle him here, although he had been brought up and educated in France, to call himself an Englishman. That being so the father had transferred his property to the son, in order that it might be protected against the lawful authority which the French Government de facto might exercise in its regard. The transfer was, however, in reality a merely colourable and delusive act; and the French Government, seeing through the device, confiscated the property as being the property of the father. He might further observe that, whether they confiscated it as the property of the father or of the son they had a right to do so. The act might have been arbitrary and unjust, but it was a legal act. It was the act of a Government existing de facto. First, the status of the father and of the son at the time of the confiscation was confessedly that of subjects of France. Secondly, the property confiscated was professedly French property, held by a French title, possessed by a French citizen, and the ownership of which placed the individual in a particular rank in France—namely, in that of one of the noblesse of the country. What, then, was the aim for which the property was confiscated? It was an act done by a French subject which France had made an offence. They both,
  588
  father and son, left their country, abandoned their property, and joined the Austrian army, which was then on the point of invading France. The result was that there was a law from which a subject of France could not appeal, which was only binding on a French subject in respect of a crime which could only be committed by a French subject. The law was, as he had said, one from which the subjects of France could not appeal, and no person of common sense could have imagined, if he had not been a lawyer, that the case of Baron de Bode could be brought under our treaty with France. The English Government could never have stipulated to protect the property of French citizens, nor could they have maintained a right to compensation from the French Government for the loss of the property of French subjects. No part of the property of the Baron de Bode could be said, in the words of the treaty, to have been "unduly confiscated." It was confiscated on the authority of the Government of the country of which the owner was a subject, and the treaty, the conventions, and the Act of Parliament all proceeded upon the principle that the property for which the French Government was to give us compensation should be British property, held by persons who wore at the time of the forfeiture subjects of the British Crown, and that the property so taken should be considered as unduly or illegally taken by the French Government. He was anxious to meet the merits, honesty, and truth of the case. The truth lay in this—what was meant in the treaty by the words "subjects of His Britannie Majesty?" He contended with great submission, but with as much confidence as his hon. and learned Friend had assumed, that those words meant persons who at the time of the forfeiture were de facto subjects of England, and were recognized in that character. It was impossible that a boy could be regarded as a British subject who, although born in England, was carried back by his parents, who were French, to France, who was brought up as a Frenchman, who held the status of a Frenchman, who was intended to be a Frenchman, and who never owed, or intended to owe at any future time, any allegiance to the British Crown. When a person in the position of Baron de Bode, never meaning to be a British subject, availed himself of an accidental title to call himself in England a British subject, and preferred a claim in that capacity, he did one

  589
  of two things—he either imposed upon the French Government by assuming a denomination to which he was not entitled, or he tried wrongfully to appropriate to himself a share in monies dedicated for the benefit of British subjects by putting on for the purpose the character of a British subject which he did not hold at the time of the forfeiture, and which but for a pecuniary object lie never for a moment would have dreamt of assuming. What was the conduct of father and son when driven from France by the Revolutionary Government? They first joined the ranks of the Austrian army as French Royalists, and the son, who was never able to speak a word of English, subsequently transferred himself to the Russian service, in which he was employed at the time of the treaty. Until the money was obtained from the Government he never, even in thought, contemplated connecting himself in any way with England, or placing himself in the position of a British subject. Again, was it possible that the property could have been held by anybody who was not a French subject? The owner of that property must have acted an important part in the political affairs of France, and could not have so acted except as a French subject. If the House came to the conclusion that these persons were French subjects, that the property was French property, that the position of the Baron and his son was one in which they owed allegiance de facto to the French Government, and violated that allegiance by joining the ranks of the Austrian army—then the claim must fall to the ground, for then the property had not been "unduly confiscated."
  But what was the House now asked to do? It was a mere mockery to say that there was any need for further investigation. There had been investigations for more than forty years, and not a single fact remained to be ascertained. He had hitherto rested his arguments on facts collected by the zealous friends of the Baron. But there was another point to be considered. When money of this kind was stipulated for by one Government and paid by another the only title to the money was by the act of the party requiring the payment. Now the conditions of these claims were defined by the Act of 1819, by which alone the right to participate in this fund could be determined, and they knew that upon this ground the Baron de Bode had not the particle of a claim. Lord Lyndhurst said that under the treaty he could
  590
  have no title to appear in a court of justice as a claimant, and they would be placed in a difficult position if they recognized a title which would not hold in a court of justice. They could not take a single step for admitting the claim unless they were prepared to repeal the Act of 1819; and could they repeal that Act for the benefit of this claimant alone? By doing so they would be opening the door to every description of claim, however extraordinary and unascertainable, being regulated by no principle of law. So that the Baron de Bode would be just as far as ever from attaining the object of his desire, for he would have to contend with a vast number of other claimants rising up on every side, and it would be utterly impossible to lay down any rule by which the relative merits of those different new claimants should hereafter be determined. They would be establishing a precedent of a most mischievous character if, having established a rule in 1819 and adhered to it for forty-two years, they were now to abrogate that rule altogether, and retrace their steps in the distribution of this property. It might probably be supposed by many hon. Gentlemen, as indeed it was by himself till he read these voluminous papers, that the French Government had recognized the claims of the Baron de Bode, and handed over a sum of money especially on account of those claims. The argument used had been to this effect:—The Baron de Bode was one of the admitted claimants—a certain sum of money was handed over to the British Government—all the other claimants had been satisfied; of necessity, therefore, what remained belonged to him. The Baron do Bode made that allegation in his petition of right. But the representation was negatived by the jury, and found to be contrary to truth and to fact. They found that the French Government never did recognize the claim at all, and never paid over any money specifically on account of this claim. He believed there was scarcely a Gentleman who had been disposed to regard the Baron de Bode's claims with favour who would not find that his disposition to do so was founded on the belief or the suspicion that a sum of money had been handed over to the British Government to answer those claims, and that the British Government had repudiated those claims, and put the money into their own pockets. There had accordingly been unblushing imputations of conduct contrary to good faith, and inconsistent with the honour

  591
  of the country. He did not wish to use unkind expressions with reference to the Baron de Bode, but lie must say the only thing inconsistent with good faith and honour was his putting on for the purpose of this claim the status and garment of a British subject, which he never intended to assume, never dreamt of claiming or vindicating for himself until a pecuniary interest arose. The lion, and learned Gentleman had referred to the advocacy by Lord Lyndhurst of these claims. That venerable Lord was not more distinguished by his learning than by his benevolence; but to the course which he had taken in the matter when out of I office must be opposed the course that he had taken upon it when Lord Chancellor. In 1828, when the law officers of the Crown resisted that claim so strenuously, they must have acted under the authority of that noble Lord. It was resisted again in 1835 under the same authority, as also in 1843, when the petition of right was traversed, and those pleas put in to which it was not necessary further to allude. It was stated that a new fact was discovered in 1847 through a letter of M. Guizot, stating that the Due de Richelieu had received the claim on the part of the petitioner. Why, then, was not that fact mentioned in the proceedings before the House of Lords in 1852, five years after the alleged discovery? It was known that after the Treaty of 1815, and, finally, when the allied armies were evacuating Franco, the French Government gave an additional sum of money to meet all such claims, and handed over to the British Government the right and duty of investigating them, as well as of laying clown the rules for determining their validity. That led to the Act of Parliament of 1819, and, consequently, whether the French Government received that particular claim or not henceforth became wholly immaterial. The hon. and learned Gentleman had, with a good deal of confidence, asserted that it had been established by judicial decision that that treaty was intended to apply to persons in the position of the Baron de Bode and his son at the time it was concluded. He maintained, on the contrary, that the Privy Council had on that point repeatedly recognized principles in entire conformity with those which he was himself now stating. In one case the learned Lords declared that the treaty between France and England meant to provide an indemnity to all British subjects for losses occasioned by the immediate acts of the French Government; that, although
  592
  formally and literally by the law of Great Britain the party was a British subject, yet the question was whether he was a British subject within the meaning of the treaty; that he might be a British and also a French subject; and that if he was a French subject, then no act done towards him by the Government of France could be held illegal within the intent of the treaty, and that neither the law of nations nor any treaty bound that Government to deal with its own subjects otherwise than as it thought fit. Therefore when it was said that the Baron de Bode was a British subject that was only half the truth. The question was whether he had not the character of a French subject supperadded to his character as an English subject? Then in which of those characters was his property confiscated? Undoubtedly, in that of a French subject? The decision of the the jury and the Court of Queen's Bench was that the claimant, even upon his own showing, had adduced no proof that his property was unduly confiscated. He would not trouble the House with any further remarks. He had met the case as if it had been unaffected by any judicial decision, unprejudiced by any lapse of time, and as if it had been submitted to their deliberation that night for the first time; arid, on the grounds which he had stated, he must oppose the hon. and learned Gentleman's Motion.
  MR. DENMANsaid, that, as no other hon. Member appeared to be desirous of addressing the House on that subject, he wished to observe that all the arguments which the Attorney General had just urged had been anticipated and demolished in his opening speech. The subject was one of all others which demanded deliberate inquiry by a proper tribunal, and he did not ask the House now to decide the case. He desired merely that a deliberate tribunal, which would hear all the arguments on one side and the other, should be appointed to investigate the case. He hoped that those hon. Gentlemen who had not heard the arguments he addressed to the House would abstain from voting, and that they would not be led away by the arguments of the Attorney General, which he confidently believed he could completely answer by merely repeating what he had already said that night, when the House was not so full as now.
  MR. MALINSsaid, he had with pleasure listened attentively to the three hours' speech of his hon. and learned Friend, and

  593
  he commiserated his position in having addressed his arguments to some thirty Members, while the decision would rest with 150. He should have risen earlier, but was physically exhausted through having gone without his dinner till ten o'clock. The hon. and learned Attorney General had very dexterously taken advantage of the change of audience, and argued that Baron de Bode was not a British subject; but in a Report of a most distinguished Committee of the House of Lords, of which Lord Lyndhurst, the late Lord Truro, and Lord Brougham were members, it was declared that the son Clement (who was the original claimant) was a British subject within the meaning of the treaty and Convention, and was entitled in that character to claim compensation for the confiscation of his property. It was not fair that the House, which had not heard the argument, should ride off on the proposition of the Attorney General that the Baron was not a British subject. All that was asked for was an inquiry before a Select Committee, in order to ascertain whether his claim was just or nut. The Government had received the money, and ought to have paid it over long ago; and he was sure that, if a just claim were shown to exist, the nation would not wish that injustice should be done, simply because the amount was large, and it might be inconvenient to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to meet it.
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: Remembering the privations which the hon. and learned Member has endured, and the impatience shown by the House, I shall not detain it beyond a very minutes. I cannot at all concur in the view which the hon. and learned Member has taken. He rests himself entirely on the fact that a Committee of the other House has given an opinion in favour of this claim; but, as Members of the House of Commons, we are not bound by an opinion of the other House. It is said that very few Members have heard the arguments of my hon. Colleague (Mr. Denman), and that the decision is to be taken on the statement of my hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General; but the speech of my hon. Colleague, and the reply of the Attorney-General are elements upon which the House can come to a decision. The simple question is whether the Baron de Bode is a British subject or not; and nothing can be clearer than the argument and conclusion of the Attorney General, that it is
  594
  a mere quibble—if I must use the word—to represent him as being a British subject. His father was not British, his family was not British, the property was not British. He did not reside in England, he was established in France as a Frenchman, he emigrated as a Frenchman, he took arms with the Austrian army as a Frenchman, and it was as a French subject that the penalties of confiscation were imposed on him for quitting his native country and breaking his allegiance to the French Government of the time. It is not the case of a man belonging to a British family with a British name, whose parents were born in England, but who were for the moment domiciled in France. In the cases of such persons which have been cited their property was confiscated, not because they were considered French subjects in rebellion, but because they were alien enemies belonging to a country which was at war with France. That was not the case with Baron de Bode. With all deference to the hon. and learned Member there does not appear to me to be a shadow of a ground on which you can represent Baron de Bode as a British subject, or justify his claim to this immense sum of money. It is a very plausible thing to say, "Let us have a Committee of Inquiry," but there seems to me nothing for a Committee to inquire into. This House, in the arguments which have been addressed to it, has abundant elements to enable it to come to a decision. No one can say that any ground has been shown for taking a step which can have no meaning, unless it be a foundation for an application to this House for a largo sum of money for compensating a Frenchman for the confiscation of French property by the act of the French Government, on French grounds alone. Then, look at what has been stated showing the fraud by which this transaction was originally tainted. The father, who was not an Englishman, made over his property to his son, then a minor, for the mere purpose of evading the confiscation which he saw was likely to come upon him. The House knew the whole question upon which they had to decide, and must foresee the consequences which might result from affirming the Motion.
  SIR GEORGE BOWYERsaid, that he would not detain the House more than a few-minutes while he replied to the arguments adduced by the noble Lord in opposition to the claim. The case really lay in a nutshell, and the opposition to the claim rested

  595
  on three grounds—1st., that the Baron de Bode was not a natural born British subject within the meaning of the treaty; 2nd., that the confiscation was not within the meaning of the treaty; and 3rd., that the property was fraudulently made over by the father to the son for the purpose of making a claim as a British subject. As to the question of nationality, the late Sir Samuel Romilly, the great ornament of the party opposite, said—
  "I think it is clear that the Baron de Bode is a natural-born subject of Great Britain, and entitled to the same rights and privileges as any other natural-born subject, and that he has not, and cannot by any act which he can do, throw off his allegiance to the King of Great Britain, because nemo potest exuere patriam. The condition and rights of the Baron de Bode are exactly the same as those of a natural-born subject, the son of an English father and mother."
  He disputed the authority of the Attorney General if he denied that a natural-born subject of a country was, according to international law, the subject of that country all the world over. There was no distinction between nationality according to municipal and international law, and if the Boron de Bode was a British subject according to the law of England he was a British subject within the meaning of the treaty. As to the confiscation, Lord Lynd-hurst had said, "Most of the instances in which compensation had been awarded are cases in which the confiscation has been solely on account of emigration." He was sorry that the noble Lord had used the word "fraudulently," because it appeared to throw a slur on the personal honour of a gentleman who was entitled to every respect. The Court of Chancery dealt rather severely with cases in which fraud was charged and not proved, and he asked the House to consider the case favourably, because fraud had been charged and was certainly not proved. As to the conveyance, the son had a vested estate in the lifetime of his father, and the conveyance of the father, whether good or not, could make no difference. The noble Lord had said that they need not follow the decision of a Committee of the House of Lords. That was a topic which was sure to elicit a cheer from those hon. Members who liked to have a fling at the House of Lords. But the House was bound to give the greatest weight to the decision of a Committee of the House of Lords, composed of those who held high judicial offices, on a question of law like this; and such a Committee had pronounced in favour of the
  596
  Baron de Bode. Under such circumstances he was sure the House would not allow the weight of the Government to tell against truth and justice.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he only rose for the purpose of pointing out the double inconvenience in which they were involved. It was unfortunate, after the Mover of the Motion had replied to the only speech that had been made in opposition to it, that hon. Gentlemen friendly to the Motion should, contrary to usage, address the House. It was contrary to usage in the second place, that a Member—as the hon. Member for Dundalk had clone—should come down to answer a speech which he had not heard, and, at a late hour, after having been, no doubt, more agreeably engaged elsewhere, make a solemn appeal in the name of justice. The hon. and learned Member said that the Baron de Bode was a British subject. Now that was never denied. The Baron was a British subject for certain purposes, but he was not a British subject as between England and France, and the whole question turned upon the latter point. That view was supported by the judgment of the Privy Council in the case of Drummond, when it was stated that he might be a subject both of Britain and France, and that if he were the latter, no act done towards him by the Government of France could be deemed illegal within the meaning of the treaty. He was informed on good authority that the Baron de Bode was not entitled to a reversion of the estate, and that the sole representative of the property in it was his father. The Privy Council, presided over by Lord Stowell, had heard the claims of the Baron de Bode, and decided against it. Lord Stowell, in giving judgment, said, that after full consideration it appeared that the complaint had completely failed in regard to the ownership of the property, that it had been a contrivance originating in the mind of the father to elude the French Government, which had proved ineffectual, and that, therefore, although it might be hard for the unfortunate nobleman, the Lords were bound to confirm the award of the Commissioners. His hon. and learned Friend had brought down upon the House the authority of Lord Lyndhurst and Lord Brougham. But the authority of such men as Lord Lyndhurst and Lord Brougham was greater in their capacity as the responsible Ministers of the Government than as private individuals; and for the last

  597
  thirty years the law officers of the Crown had to a man refused to entertain the claim now before the House. They were asked to appoint a Committee. It would be cruel to the gentleman himself to appoint a Committee, to keep alive a claim of that description, and cause him to transmit to his children that which he had unfortunately received from his father as an inheritance, the prosecution of a claim of the kind. He wanted, moreover, to know how the Report of a Select Committee could justify an Executive Government in acting against the opinion of all the law advisers of the Crown for the last thirty years? Again, if a committee reported in favour of his claim, it would lead to infinite complications, and would be tantamount to an invitation to all the world who had similar claims to have them retried. On these grounds he trusted that the House would not assent to the Motion.
  MR. BAILLIE COCHRANEsaid, he wished to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it was true that he held in his hands the balance of a sum of money paid by the French Indemity Fund, which was applicable to the satisfaction of the claim of the Baron de Bode?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, it was not true.
  Question put,
  The House divided:—Ayes 134; Noes 112: Majority 22.
  House adjourned at One o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—2a Consolidated Fund (£10,000,000).
3a Marriage Law Amendment.

THE GALWAY CONTRACT—THE REV. MR. DALY.—EXPLANATION.
THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDE: My Lords, I trust your Lordships will permit me to trouble the House for a short time while I make a statement on a personal matter, in reference to what passed in the House last night. I have been favoured this morning with a visit from the rev. gentleman whose name was mentioned in the discussion of last night—I mean the Rev. Mr. Daly; and I wish to explain that, with reference to that rev. gentleman I had fallen into a mistake which I wish for an opportunity of correcting. I stated last night that Mr. Daly called on me before he had the interview with Lord Palmerston. I was in error. He called on me on Monday, having seen Lord Palmerston on the previous Friday; and he had a memorial in his hand from Galway, which he said he wished to present to Lord Palmerston, and he wished me to accompany him to present it. I declined to do so: and Mr. Daly proceeded to call on Lord Palmerston; but he did not
542
on that occasion see his Lordship; but he left his memorial. Not having seen Mr. Daly subsequently, I supposed that that was the interview which has been so frequently referred to. In that I was in error. The interview took place on the Friday before the discussion in the Budget, and at that time I was in Ireland. I the more naturally fell into the mistake, because it so happened that the two Gentlemen, Members of the House of Commons, whom I am in the habit of consulting on Irish affairs, and especially on the affairs of the county with which I am connected, are my two relations, one Member for the town and the other for the county of Galway, and neither of those Gentlemen had any communication of any kind whatever from Mr. Daly previously to the interview with Lord Palmerston. One arrived in England on Friday morning, the other on Friday night; and I mention this to show how very improbable is the whole story that Mr. Daly was, or represented himself to be authorized by any Members of Parliament to speak in their names to the Prime Minister. Mr. Daly came to me this morning principally for the purpose of saying that he was most anxious to have the opportunity which my noble and learned Friend opposite (Lord Brougham) wished he should have of appearing at the bar of either or both Houses of Parliament, to state exactly what did take place, and to clear himself from the imputation which had been made against him. I thought it right, wishing to be very particular in the matter, to take down in writing what Mr. Daly stated was the purport of the interview with Lord Palmerston; and, instead of speaking from my own recollection, with your Lordships' permission I will read the memorandum which I made. Mr. Daly said—"He appears to have been misunderstood and that he certainly has been entirely misrepresented if Lord John Russell at any time stated"—
EARL GRANVILLE: I rise for the purpose of putting it to the discretion of the noble Marquess whether he is quite in order in entering into these details. It was quite competent to the noble Marquess to explain any error into which he had himself fallen in referring to his interview with Mr. Daly; but it seems to me that there would be great inconvenience in introducing on this occasion matter respecting the interview between Mr. Daly and Lord Palmerston, and concerning the con-

543
duct of the Irish Members; seeing that in this House, where the question would be raised, neither Lord Palmerston nor the Irish Members could be present. I merely throw this out for the consideration of the noble Marquess.
THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDE: No doubt. But I have not said one word which was out of order or which referred either to this or to the other House of Parliament. It was Lord John Russell who named the Prime Minister; it was Lord John Russell who said that a person had waited on Viscount Palmerston, "seeming to be authorised." I do not know why Lord John Russell said this. I suppose he had some grounds which satisfied himself, though I do not think he could have had any. He said he "seemed to have been authorized" to make certain statements affecting the honour of certain Gentlemen. It is incidental to those Gentlemen that they are Members of Parliament. It was my noble and learned Friend opposite (Lord Brougham) who mentioned the matter in this House as one deserving of full investigation, and who expressed a wish that Mr. Daly should be afforded the opportunity of appearing at the Bar—I think of either House of Parliament—and being asked whether any person, Member of Parliament or otherwise, had authorised him to hold out any threat or to offer any corrupt promise to the Prime Minister. Such suggestion having been made by my noble and learned Friend, I am in the recollection of the House whether it is not usual for a person so mentioned in this House to have a fair opportunity given him for making a statement? Mr. Daly says—
"That he appears to have been quite misunderstood; and that he was entirely misrepresented by Lord John Russell if Lord John stated that he (Mr. Daly) had told or intimated to Viscount Palmerston that he was authorized to speak on behalf of any M.P.'s, or of any individuals whatever. That, in fact, the question of a deputation arose out of his having said that he had no such special authority, but was confident that he was stating truly the general sentiment of all classes in Ireland. Mr. Daly denies that he offered, or attempted any sort of bargain, traffic, or negotiation whatever. That what he said was, that the strongest possible and most universal feeling on the subject existed all over Ireland, and that he believed and he trusted that the Irish representatives shared in and would act in accordance with this feeling, and would prefer the plain interests of their country to all other considerations whatever [a laugh"]; that in saying this he did not refer or allude to any individuals, or party, or to any section of a party. He says that the phrase of 'taking action' arose out of a question asked by
544
Viscount Palmerston, and did not refer or apply to any special vote whatever, but to the attitude which he expected and hoped that the Irish people and their representatives would assume and permanently maintain [a laugh] towards the Ministry, according as Ireland was dealt with. [Laughter.] That he made no improper, corrupt, or unconstitutional threat or offer; that he said, and says, that he believes and hopes that the feelings of Ireland towards the Government will be mainly influenced by the justice shown to or withheld from her in this matter, which is the most pressing and important that can affect her progress and prosperity." [Laughter.]
Now, my noble Friends may laugh; but do they hold the interests and prosperity of the country as light matters? I want to know on what grounds but those of attending to those interests and that progress can any Government claim the confidence of the people of Ireland? I said so much as that last night myself, and the noble Lord who followed me did not show—I defy him to show—that such is not the proper and constitutional language of a free people. It is what the elector says to his representative and the Parliament to the Ministers of the Crown. The elector says, "I will not support men who act contrary to the interests of the country; I withhold my confidence from such men, and I shall give it to those who will give me justice and attention." If such language is to be called a threat, I should like to know what are the speeches of Ministers themselves when appealing to their constituents on the hustings, when such feelings are always exhibited as this gentleman very properly attributes to the people of Ireland?
LORD BROUGHAM: I am sure your Lordships will believe that nothing could be farther from my wish, or thought, or imagination, in any way than to have Father Daly at the Bar of this House on any occasion whatever. Your Lordships will also do me the justice to recollect that I was not the person who first introduced the subject of the interview of Father Daly with Lord Palmerston, for it was referred to first by the noble Lord the President of the Council, and afterwards by the noble Marquess himself, who dwelt repeatedly on it. It was in consequence of the allusion by those noble Lords, as well as its connection with the subject matter of the discussion, that I ventured to make the remark which has been attributed to me. There can be no doubt whatever that the statement of Lord Palmerston was that an offer had been made—not actually made, but given notice of being about to be made

545
—of an interview with his Lordship, on the part of the Government, by certain Irish Members ["Oh, no!"]—by certain Irish Members who took an interest in the Galway contract, and who desired to see his Lordship on the subject matter of the Galway contract: and when Lord Palmerston answered, "I have no objection to see them, but it must be after Monday"—"Oh, no," it was said, "then it will be too late, for they must take action on Monday night on a subject entirely different from the Galway contract—namely, on the paper duties." Their "taking action" on Monday night depended on what passed on Saturday, the day on which the interview was requested. It now turns out that "taking action on Monday night" meant "assuming a permanent attitude," and not taking action on that particular question which was coming on upon the Monday night—namely, the paper duties. Well, there is nothing one cannot believe. One has lived too long to suppose anything incredible; and, therefore, I am bound to suppose that was the meaning of the reverend Father, who, I understand, is a highly respectable man, though very zealous on this subject—as, indeed, I believe is all Ireland—and, therefore, quite incapable of making a misrepresentation. The examination of this gentleman by this House, to which reference has been made, is out of the question; but it is possible in the other House if, as I should hope, Irish Members should desire to take a course by which the whole matter might be cleared up, and themselves cleared from a suspicion which at present, more or less, hangs over them. Here, this would not be in point; there, it would be perfectly.
THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDE: Perhaps my noble and learned Friend will state where he got the statement said to have been made by Lord Palmerston, that Irish Members requested an interview? I do not remember that Lord Palmerston has made such a statement.
LORD BROUGHAM: I did not understand Lord Palmerston to have said that any Irish Member asked for an interview. What I understood Lord Palmerston to have said was that Father Daly asked him to give an interview to Irish Members on Saturday, because after Monday it would be too late, as they must take action on Monday night.
House adjourned at a quarter before Six o'clock, to Thursday next, half-past Ten o'clock.