Sitting of 7 May 1861

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILL.—1o Princess Alice Annuity.
FINANCIAL BUSINESS.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I beg, Sir, to give notice that, finding it will be more regular that a proposal relating to the Customs' Duties on Paper should not be placed in a Bill without a preliminary Resolution, I purpose, with the permission of the House, taking that preliminary Resolution in Committee of Ways and Means to-morrow. I would suggest to the hon. Memberfor Dungarvan

  1649
  (Mr. Maguire), if he wishes to raise a question on the subject, that a convenient opportunity for doing so would be afforded when I subsequently propose to insert that Resolution in the Financial Bill, which I shall do when the Bill goes into Committee.
  MR. MAGUIREsaid, he wished, if he were not out of order, to state the reason why he could not comply with that request.
  MR. SPEAKERintimated that such a course would be irregular.
  MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, he wished to put a question to the Chancellor of the Exchequer as to the statement he had recently made. Was the House to understand that the Bill to be introduced with reference to the changes which were proposed to be made by the Government, would include the changes in the Customs, Excise, and Stamp Duties; would it include the changes in all the branches of the Revenue in one Bill, because he believed that was a proceeding almost unprecedented? He wished to know whether all these changes were to be introduced in one Bill?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Sir, I do not know whether I am to be permitted to answer the question or observation of the hon. Member for North Warwickshire. I beg, however, to give the observation an emphatic and decided, but polite, denial. The intention of the Government is to include the principal and purely financial proposals in one Bill.
  LORD JOHN MANNERS: I wish, Sir, to ask the right hon. Gentleman, since he has heard the refusal of the hon. Member for Dungarvan to postpone his Motion, and seeing that there are fourteen Orders of the Day to be disposed of before we go into Committee of Ways and Means to-morrow, whether he means to take a Committee of Ways and Means to-morrow?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Sir, I wish to be governed by the convenience of the House. If there is time to-morrow, after the Motions have been disposed of, we should wish to go into Committee of Ways and Means, but, of course, we desire to act with the general concurrence of the House.
  MR. MAGUIREsaid, he wished to know whether the right hon. Gentleman would consent to the appointment of a Select Committee on the Customs' Duty on Paper before he brought the matter forward for the formal decision of the House?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: As I understand the question, Sir, it is not one of an inquiry into the effect of foreign legislation on the interests of our own Papermakers, but whether we shall consent to abolish the Excise Duty on Paper, and constitute anew, by Act of Parliament, a very high protective duty on that article? Without the slightest inten-to obstruct any Parliamentary inquiry, we certainly could not consent to any proposal of that kind.

AMALGAMATION OF THE INDIAN ARMY

  QUESTION.
  MR. DANBY SEYMOURsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for India, Whether he can give any information with regard to the progress of Army Amalgamation in India?
  SIR CHARLES WOODsaid, in reply to the question of his hon. Friend, that he had received a statement two days ago by the last mail from Lord Canning to the effect that the Government of India had agreed upon a General Order to carry the amalgamation into effect at the earliest opportunity. He had not received a copy of that Order, but he expected it by the next mail, and as soon as it was received it should be laid on the Table of the House.

MEETING OF SELECT COMMITTEES ON ASCENSION DAY.

  QUESTION.
  MR. SOTHERON ESTCOURTsaid, he wished to inquire of the noble Lord (Viscount Palmerston), Whether it was his intention to make a Motion, similar to that of former years, providing that Select Committees should not sit on Ascension Day till two o'clock?
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, the course indicated by the right hon. Gentleman was the usual practice, and as he had not yet made that Motion, he was willing to do so at once.
  Motion put, and agreed to.

FORTS AT SPITHEAD.

  QUESTION.
  SIR MORTON PETOsaid, he wished to ask the Under Secretary for War, If the Government intend to proceed with the Forts in the Roadstead of Spithead?
  MR. T. G. BARINGsaid, the Government had considered this matter with great care, and proposed to continue the con-

  1651
  struction of these forts. He might add that the Paper moved for the other day by the hon. Baronet had been presented, and would probably be in the hands of hon. Members to-morrow.

RAILWAYS IN INDIA.

  QUESTION.
  SIR MORTON PETOsaid, he would now beg to ask the Secretary of State for India, What steps the Government intend to take consequent on a Despatch from India, dated the 22nd of February last, in which it is stated that "a state of things is possible, or rather probable, in which, in the event of funds not being supplied from home, in anticipation, to carry on the Railway Works, the Government of India would have no alternative but to order their abrupt and complete suspension?"
  SIR CHARLES WOODsaid, he was very sorry that the statement referred to by the hon. Baronet had been published, because it had excited a considerable degree of apprehension, which he believed was totally unfounded. There was not the least intention of allowing the railway works now in progress in India to be stopped. Those works had been carried on last year to the full extent that could be executed, the whole expenditure incurred for them during that year having been £8,300,000, of which sum there was received from the shareholders £5,800,000. He believed it would be equally detrimental to the interests of the shareholders, the Government, and the public if those works were suspended.
  MR. DANBY SEYMOURsaid, he wished to know, whether it is intended to continue the branch of the Great Indian Peninsular Railway into the cotton districts?
  SIR CHARLES WOODsaid, the works along the whole line from Bombay into the interior of the cotton-growing country would be carried on as rapidly as possible.

PAT OF YEOMANRY OFFICERS.

  QUESTION.
  VISCOUNT CURZONsaid, he wished to ask the Under Secretary of State for War, Why the pay of Yeomanry Officers has been reduced to seven shillings per day?
  MR. T. G. BARINGsaid, that the reduction had been made in consequence of the Report of a Committee composed of Officers
  1652
  of the Line and of Yeomanry Officers, who had been requested by the Secretary of State to consider the present position of the Yeomanry service. The Committee reported that, while recognizing the value and utility of that force, they thought some saving in the cost of its maintenance might be effected, and. among other reductions, they recommended this one in the pay of the Officers. From conversations he had had with many of them, he believed they would not object to that change.
  MAJOR EDWARDSsaid, he hoped the Report of the Committee would be laid on the Table.
  COLONEL KNOXsaid, he wished to know whether the Report had yet been made to the War Department?
  MR. T. G. BARINGsaid, the Report had been made, and it would be laid on the Table at once.

CATHOLIC INMATES OF PRISONS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. MACEVOYsaid, he would beg to ask Sir John Acton, When he proposes to bring on the Motion relative to the treatment of Catholic inmates of Prisons in Great Britain, of which he gave notice last Session?
  SIR JOHN ACTONsaid, he should wait till he knew the result of an analogous inquiry relating to the treatment of Catholic inmates of Workhouses before he decided on the day for bringing forward the subject.

REPUBLIC OF HAYTI.

  QUESTION.
  MR. DARBY GRIFFITHsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he has received information of a Proclamation by the President of the Republic of Hayti, protesting against the possession of the Dominica portion of the Island by a slave-holding State such as Spain, and calling on the Population and the Army to defend their liberties and independence; and whether the attention of Her Majesty's Government will be turned to the protection of Free Institutions in that country?
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: Sir, Her Majesty's Government received, not directly from the President of the Haytian Republic, but from the agents of that Government in Europe, a protest against the annexation to Spain of the Dominica por-

  1653
  tion of the Island, pretty much in the terms mentioned by the hon. Gentleman. No step has yet been taken by Her Majesty's Government on the subject. Indeed, the annexation can hardly yet be said to have been effected.

BELLIGERENT RIGHTS AT SEA.

  QUESTION.
  MR. WALPOLEsaid, he rose to put a Question to the noble Lord at the head of the Government, and to the hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. Horsfall) who has given notice of a Motion respecting Belligerent Rights at Sea. He (Mr. Walpole) had understood the noble Lord the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to state on the previous evening that questions connected with the Declaration of Paris were under the consideration of the Government, who would officially announce the conclusions at which they arrived as soon as those questions had been determined by them. He would put it to his hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Whether, in the present very delicate and complicated state of affairs it would be for the advantage of his Motion or for the benefit of the public interests that such a discussion should be raised at that moment? If, however, the noble Viscount should be of opinion that the Motion might come on without disadvantage to the public interests, he (Mr. Walpole) did not at all desire to interpose any objection, but if the noble Lord thought otherwise he trusted his hon. Friend would consent to postpone his Motion to a more favourable opportunity.
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: Sir, I entirely concur in the views of my right hon. Friend as to the inexpediency of discussing to-night the question which the hon. Member for Liverpool intends to bring forward. The House will bear in mind that my noble Friend (Lord John Russell) stated last evening that this question of international rights, as connected with belligerent rights at sea, is of a grave and complicated character, that it is under the consideration of the Government; and until the Government shall be in a condition, after consulting its legal advisers, to make some distinct communication upon the subject it would be inexpedient, and, indeed, impossible for them to enter into any discussion upon the matter. If the hon. Member for Liverpool persists in making his Motion, I can only say it will be impossible for the Government to make any
  1654
  other statement to this House in the pre sent condition of things, but it must remain wholly silent. I think, with submission, that any discussion upon so delicate a matter in the present state of affairs would be prejudicial to the public interests, and I, therefore, urge the hon. Member to postpone his Motion to some future period.
  MR. HORSFALLsaid, that his own inclination would lead him to proceed with the Motion of which he had given notice, but, as his own judgment concurred with what had fallen from the noble Lord and the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Walpole), he felt that, under the circumstances, he had no alternative but to postpone his Motion until the views of the Government were before the House.

THE BARON DE BODE'S CASE.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, he wished to appeal to the hon. and learned Member for Tiverton to postpone the Motion on the case of the Baron de Bode, which stood in his name for that evening, till a future day, in order that he (the Attorney General) might inform himself more particularly on the details of the subject.
  Mr. DENMANsaid, he was very unwilling to postpone his Motion for referring this case to a Select Committee, but he could hardly refuse the appeal that had been made to him by the hon. and learned Attorney General, as it was right that he should watch every word he (Mr. Denman) should have to use in urging this case upon the attention of the House. He trusted that on a future day, however, he should be successful in obtaining the assent of the House to an inquiry on the subject before a Select Committee.

THE IONIAN ISLANDS.

  PAPERS MOVED FOR.
  MR. MAGUIRE: Sir, I respectfully solicit the kind indulgence of the House, while I endeavour to lay before it such facts and reasons as, in my opinion, justify me in the demand which I am about to make. In the early part of last Session, I asked the noble Lord at the head of the Government if he would consent to lay the papers for which I seek on the table; and on that occasion I received one of those answers for which the noble Lord is some-

  1655
  what remarkable, and which generally cause considerable merriment in this House. The noble Lord said, "I will not give them." In consequence of that refusal, I then determined to submit a Motion to Parliament for the production of those papers, and I gave notice to that effect; but, in consequence of the pressure of urgent public business, mainly caused by the complicated and voluminous character of the financial proposals of the Government, I was compelled to forego my intention. I repeated the notice of Motion early this Session, and I now, using the privilege of an independent Member, bring it forward this day; and I think the present time affords an excellent opportunity of discussing a subject which is one eminently deserving of consideration from a British Parliament. The subject is one of equal importance and delicacy, and I, therefore, ask the indulgence of hon. Members while I proceed to bring it before their notice. It was a matter of surprise to many hon. Members to whom I spoke in private, with respect to these papers, that the necessity for such a Motion as I am about to make should have existed—that the Government should have persisted in refusing to Parliament any and every information with respect to the political condition of a people for whose good government, welfare, and content, Parliament and the country are responsible in the estimation of the world. It is true, Her Majesty's Ministers have taken the entire responsibility of the government of the Ionian Islands upon themselves; but, Sir, I deny that they can, either morally or in a constitutional sense, relieve Parliament and the nation from the heavy obligation in which both largely participate. If, Sir, the papers for which I now seek were of a different character from what I believe them to be there would be no necessity for this Motion. If the Ionian people enjoyed a state of profound political repose—if they were content with the existing state of things—if the Representatives of the British Crown opened each Session of their Parliament amidst the felicitations of its Members—if loyal and grateful addresses were periodically transmitted to Her Majesty, the Sovereign Protectress of these islands—if the municipal bodies, and others who may be supposed to express the popular wish, frequently testified their satisfaction at the continuance and consequence of the political connection which exists—if such were the feeling,
  1656
  and such its manifestations, we should have had no occasion to ask for papers in relation to the Ionian Islands; either they would be voluntarily placed upon our table by the responsible Minister of the Crown, or we should find some independent Member properly instructed to evince a laudable anxiety for their production. But when the very opposite is the fact—when, so far from the Ionian people being sunk in a condition of profound repose, they are in a state of agitation which is constant and perpetual—when their impatience of British rule has become a passion, almost a frenzy—when the popular discontent has assumed the character of a chronic disease—when your Representative regards with absolute horror the commencement of each recurring Session—when petitions and memorials, praying for a dissolution of the political tie that links two peoples, so antagonistic and dissimilar, are adopted on every possible occasion—when such is the state of tilings in these islands, I ask, is it not due to the honour of this country, and to the credit of those free institutions of which you are so proud of boasting, that Parliament shall be duly informed of their existence, and not systematically kept in ignorance with respect to them? Is it right that we, who, in the eyes of the world, cannot get rid of our heavy responsibility to these people, should only know of their condition, their movements, their feelings, and their wishes, through some sneering paragraph in a hostile foreign journal, or from some occasional taunt in the despatch of an indignant Minister of a foreign Government, which had been lectured by our Foreign Office. Sir, it is a matter of surprise that, from the year 1853 to the year 1861—a period of nearly nine years—we have not, in our public records, a single word of information with respect to the political transactions of these islands; although, as I shall proceed to show, events of great moment, at least to their inhabitants, have occurred immediately previous to, and since the date of our last information in 1852. Let me, in the first place, say something of these islands, their inhabitants, and their connection with this country. These islands are seven in number:—Corfu, Cephalonia, Santa Maria, Zante, Ithaca, Cerigo, and Paxo. Admirably circumstanced for trade and commerce, and enjoying a delicious climate, they are blessed by nature with singular beauty and fertility. Those who have ever visited them speak

  1657
  of them with rapture; while those who have resided for any time in them and amongst their inhabitants think and speak of them with the fondest remembrance. They are inhabited by a lively, graceful, impulsive, and gifted people—the descendants of a race whom every scholar, every man of education and refinement justly regards as the greatest benefactors of the human family—a race who have bequeathed to the world and mankind a deathless legacy in those arts which adorn and dignify the life of a people—in those monuments of genius, and beauty, and grandeur which are at once the germs and the evidences of our highest civilization—a race who, in their career of matchless glory, wielded, with equal success, the pen of the poet and the historian, the tongue of the orator, the pencil of the painter, the chisel of the sculptor, and the aword of the soldier and the patriot. The inhabitants of these islands cherish in their inmost heart, as their most precious heritage, a glorious pride of ancestry. They boast, and truly boast, that they are descended from the same Greek people who have left to all time, and all ages, and all peoples, that glorious example of what a nation can do when defending its soil from the pollution of an invader's footprints, and its freedom—its homes, its hearths, and its altars—from the yoke of a foreign despot. They sympathize with their brethren of Greece in the traditions and memories of the past; for shoulder to shoulder the Greeks of the Islands fought with the Greeks of the Mainland on the field of Marathon; and their united blood crimsoned the same sea that bore on its bosom that Grecian fleet which made the victory of Salamis memorable in the naval annals of the world. No wonder. then, that with the Greek the idea of nationality is a passionate yearning, which no circumstance can repress, much less obliterate. It is fed and fostered by proud memories which, even in the depths of slavery, are a solace and a consolation, while they are a sting and a reproach. Well, Sir, these are the people who, after many changes of fortune, found themselves, at the end of the great war, handed over, by the Treaty of Paris in the year 1815 to the protection of Great Britain. They had within twenty years passed from the Venetians to the French, from the French to the Turk, then to the Russians, again to the French, and, lastly, by treaty to England. I do not mean to question the wis-
  1658
  dom of that treaty; and, perhaps, under the circumstances, it was the best arrangement that could have taken place at that particular time. But it is necessary to remind the House of the fact that the other branches of the Greek family had then no individual existence. Not only were the Ionian people handed over to the protection of England by no act of their own, but it was impossible that any demand could have been made at that period for annexation to free Greece. There was then no Kingdom of Greece, as there is now, and has been for over thirty years. At that time she was
  "Greece, but living Greece no more."
  She was trampled down, crushed, and scorned, beneath the yoke of her Mahommedan oppressor. Everywhere throughout that classic land the crescent towered above the cross. Few, indeed, supposed that the pulse throbbed and the life blood flowed beneath the dark pall of her slavery. The Infidel despised while he trampled upon his victim. But, at length, in one sublime impulse of a nation's agony and despair, the cerements of the grave were rent asunder, and the spirit of liberty sprang new-born from the tomb of a nation's slavery; and, on the land and on the sea, on the plain, on the mountain side, and amidst the wild crag and the savage fastness, deeds of heroism and self-sacrifice were enacted, with the applause and sympathy of all that was noble and generous in Europe, that could only be matched in the deathless struggle which their ancestors had successfully waged against the might and power of Persia. Greece then became a free kingdom, with the aid and sanction of the Great Powers of Europe; and from that moment the Grecian family had a home to which to turn, a nationality to cherish, and a common mother to honour and revere. In this new birth of Greece is the origin and the explanation of those frequent and passionate appeals which have emanated from the people of the Ionian Islands, whose dearest and most earnest wish is to be annexed to their mother country—free Greece. I shall not attempt even an outline of the history of the Protectorate from 1815 to 1849, or of the character and policy of its rulers—suffice it to say, that, as a rule, and with a rare exception, the connection between the two countries had been one continued struggle and conflict, beneficial to neither, and not over creditable to this country. I now come to the movement of 1849. Scarcely

  1659
  had Sir Henry Ward—a distinguished member of the most advanced Radical Party of this country, the champion of oppressed nationalities—landed at Corfu, and assumed the reins of power, than an outbreak occurred in the Island of Cephalonia. Writing on the 1st of September, 1849, from Corfu, the Lord High Commissioner assured the Colonial Minister that the movement had more of a local than a political character—that it was a civil, almost a servile war, a war of tenants against landlords; of contadini against signori; of debtors against creditors; in which hostility to the Government was disclaimed. But, when writing in six days afterwards, from Argostoli, he was compelled to write in a very different manner. In this despatch he was obliged to admit that the rising had assumed a political character—that, in fact, the whole island had been revolutionized in three days! What a commentary upon the hold which England had obtained upon the affections of the Ionian people. There is a passage in this despatch to which I would call the attention of the House. Notwithstanding that Sir Henry Ward hurled 900 soldiers upon the island; notwithstanding that its shores were guarded by a powerful navy, he—the Protestant representative of a Protestant Government—thought it necessary to have recourse to weapons of a spiritual nature. It has been the fashion in this country to ridicule the spiritual weapons with which, at various occasions, the Church of Rome has defended her freedom from the encroachment of power, or protected the peace of nations. The "thunders of the Vatican" have been a constant theme of abuse in the literature and press of Protestant England. They have been denounced by The Times and caricatured by Punch. But whenever it is for the interest of this country to employ the same spiritual resources, she, while not neglecting all material aids and appliances, does not disdain to drawn a weapon from the spiritual arsenal of the Church. Sir Henry Ward announces this important fact. He says—
  "The Archbishop, who in common with all the dignitaries of the Greek Church has behaved admirably, has not only at my request solemnly excommunicated the priest Nodaro, Theodore Vlaco, and the rest of his gang, as men whose crimes have disgraced the religion which they profess, but has included in his Pastoral Letter to the parishes of his diocese, 'all those who shall furnish them with refuge, asylum, provisions, arms, powder, or other means tending to facilitate the execution of their guilty designs.'"
  1660
  Let us now see the manner in which the Greek Archbishop—who, with the dignitaries of his church, "behaved admirably" complied with the request made on the part of a Protestant country and Government. Hon. Members will admit that his zeal was only equalled by his vigour. Here is the grand passage of this Greek pastoral—
  "May they be trembling and sighing upon the earth, like Cain; may the earth he rent and swallow them, as she did of old Core, Dathan, and Avieron; may they inherit the leprosy of Giezi, and the gallows of Judas; let iron and stones be dissolved, but they never be dissolved, and remain like Tympanoes;—not only the robbers themselves, but also who would give to them, as already said, refuge, provisions, arms of any kind, gunpowder, and bullets."
  The outbreak in Cephalonia was suppressed with terrible severity. Not a soldier was killed, not even a wound was received by a single man; and yet 21 persons were capitally executed, and more than 100 were flogged—a punishment the most degrading that could be inflicted on a proud and sensitive people; 17 houses were either burned, unroofed, or otherwise destroyed, not, as the despatch stated, as an act of vengeance, but as a matter of policy; vineyards and plantations were uprooted; and the powers of High Police, which Sir Henry Ward himself characterized as a kind of "semi-legal despotism," were employed in the severest manner. Newspaper editors and professional men were banished from one island to another at the sole will of the Lord High Commissioner. I shall refer to the description given by The Times on that occasion of the character and consequences of the terrible severity then exercised, as it became an additional incentive to the demand for annexation to Greece, which from that moment to the present has been increasing in earnestness and intensity. The Times of the 12th of August, 1850, said—
  "The upshot of the whole proceeding is that this lamentable display of excessive severity has proved not only a crime in the eyes of humanity, but a fault in policy of the grossest kind; for it has concurred, with the more recent attack upon the kingdom of Greece, to embitter the feelings of the whole Greek population against ourselves, and to turn their hopes in the same proportion towards Russia."
  One passage from the same article may not be out of place on the present occasion; especially as I am about to ask for information from the Government with respect to the wishes and demands of the same people—

  1661
  "Some of the very men who are so eager to condemn on all other occasions the measures of foreign governments in subduing and punishing insurrections of the most formidable character, were not ashamed to give their vote on Friday evening for the purpose of stifling an inquiry into the conduct of their late colleague, and the present condition of the Ionian Isles."
  In the despatch in which we have an account of this fearful severity, Sir Henry Ward says—
  "I am perfectly aware that I run the risk of being denounced as a persecutor and a tyrant for taking these steps, but I have no choice; I have to deal with semi-barbarians, as recent events have proved, and I must treat them as such."
  What a significant commentary upon the advantages and results of British connection! From 1815 to 1849 the Ionians had been under British Government; and yet Sir Henry Ward tells us in 1849 that he has to deal with a race of "semi-barbarians," and that he must treat them as such. It has been frequently asserted—indeed it has been stated a few weeks since in this and the other House of Parliament—that the majority of the Ionians had no sympathy with the cry of annexation to Greece—that it is got up by agitators and demagogues, and in no way expresses either the feeling of the people, or the sentiment of the middle and higher classes. We shall see how this really is. I assert the contrary is the fact; and, if the papers for which I ask are laid on the table—especially the papers connected with the mission of the right hon. Gentleman opposite—the House and the country will have a distinct answer to and refutation of the assertion that the demand for annexation is merely factitious. I desire to have authentic and reliable information—therefore, I move for the papers. Sir Henry Ward thus describes the manner in which he is met by the Legislative Assembly in 1850—just after the suppression of the outbreak, when the influence of the terror which he had inspired might be supposed to have been generally felt. The despatch is dated Corfu, April 20th—
  "MY LORD,—The Legislative Assembly having, after a delay of eleven days, thought proper to return an answer to the speech which I delivered at the commencement of the Session, as offensive in its tone as it was unusual in form—for, instead of dwelling, as is customary, upon the topics adverted to in the speech, it introduced matters for which I was totally unprepared, in order to found upon them a Bill of Indictment against British protection for the last thirty years."
  I beg to call special attention to the concluding words, for they were not then em-
  1662
  ployed for the first or the lasttime—"a Bill of Indictment against British Protection." This is the stereotyped form of phrase with which every successive High Commissioner describes the claims of the Ionian people to better institutions, or to annexation with Greece. The answer so stigmatized was unanimously adopted by the Assembly. It breathes the most enthusiastic national sentiment throughout, and speaks of the "glorious distinction of being a Greek people." As an exemplification of the spirit in which the document is written, I quote this passage—
  "Such institutions due to the Ionian people by right, to the faith of treaties, to British honour, will make appear less tardy the approach of that hour which is known alone to Providence, and which human calculation cannot foresee, when the arbitress of the seas shall erect a trophy more glorious still than that raised at Navarino, when it shall, with Europe, just and grateful, have united in one body all the scattered members of the Greek family, which, though divided by policy, have in common—origin, language, religion, recollections, and hopes."
  Well, it has been stated—it was asserted by Sir Henry Ward, and it was also asserted by Sir Henry Storks—that the Ionian people had no sympathy with these manifestations of national feeling. In a despatch dated Corfu, January 24th, 1851, Sir Henry Ward encloses a very remarkable document, to which, because of its importance, as expressing the views of the moderate, the cultivated, and the thoughtful class, he directed special attention. This document is an elaborate reply made by Count Roma, the President of the Assembly, to certain charges brought against him by those who might be called the extreme party in that body. I quote two passages from this document in order that the House may really understand what is the feeling of the educated and enlightened classes—of those moderate politicians who are commended as being so worthy of example. Alluding to his assailants Count Roma says—
  "Men who have laid their hands on that which we hold most sacred and most precious—our nationality—that nationality which was preserved to us amidst the vicissitudes of time, the assaults of barbarians, the violence of the middle ages—and using it as an instrument to their designs, have converted that which was, and is, and will be, the leading desire and scope of the Greek family—its unity—into a means of private vengeance, and of subversive acts, to render more difficult the attainment of our liberty and progress; and even of that very union of which they would wish to be considered the ardent promoters."

  1663
  Here is a passage still more explicit. He says—
  "I do not speak of those generous spirits who, with heartfelt impatience, await the moment when they shall see the regeneration of all Greece, and the union of its scattered members. This is a general sentiment, and not as I before stated to the Chamber, the exclusive privilege of the above gentlemen."
  I am entitled to take these words as proof that the national sentiment, the desire for union, is not confined to demagogues and agitators, but is common to all ranks and all classes of the Ionian community. It would be a wearisome task to describe the conflicts in which Sir Henry Ward and the Assembly were engaged; suffice it to say that in about three years the Legislative Assembly was four times prorogued, Take, however, one example more of the difficulties of Sir Henry Ward's position, and another evidence of the existence of the aversion of the people to British connection. In a despatch dated 2nd June, 1851, Sir Henry Ward thus speaks of the newly elected Legislative Assembly—
  "From the first hour of its meeting, the new assembly assumed an attitude of hostility, not merely to me personally, but to the political system of which I was the representative. The oath was altered, in order to meet the views of the Cephalonian members, who wished to repudiate British connection altogether. The address presented, in reply to a most conciliatory speech, was a bill of indictment against British rule. In framing that address, many members took a part, who had been loudest in their professions of 'moderation' a few days before."
  The struggle thus carried on between the Lord High Commissioner and the Ionian Parliament had become a flagrant scandal, not only to this country, but to the cause of representative institutions. Sir John Young was at length appointed to succeed Sir Henry Ward. Now comes a most important period in the history of these transactions. Scarcely was Sir John Young established in office than he found how difficult it was to rule his new subjects. Many a man had before then said—" In Heaven's name, let us get rid of the Ionian Islands; they are of no advantage to us, either in a commercial or strategical point of view." This I know to be the opinion of Members of this House to whom I have spoken upon the subject. The Times expressed the same opinion a few days since. But the country was taken by surprise by the accidental publication of a despatch from Sir John Young, recommending the abandonment of these Islands.
  1664
  Now, this is not the expression of opinion by an Ionian agitator—by one of those "contemptible demagogues" of the Assembly, as they have been described; but it is the deliberate advice given by a responsible officer of the Crown, communicated in confidence to the Home Government. In fact, the scandal had risen to such a height, that Sir John Young saw no other way of abating it than by getting rid of the Islands altogether. In his despatch of June, 1857, which was followed by a despatch in the same spirit, he said—
  "England is in a false position here, and the islands are too widely separated geographically, and their "interest is too distinct, ever to form a homogeneous whole under foreign auspices. The sooner, therefore, she extricates herself from the position the better for her own reputation and for the cause of representative institutions generally."
  The despatch thus continues—
  "England could retire from the protection with a good grace. I mean especially from the Southern islands, in which all the difficulties really originate. With respect to one of them"—
  Here is a bit of a bull—
  "Santa Maura, it is not an island at all—it is a bit of the Continent. Grivas, the noted Greek chieftain, rode from Greece into the citadel, to pay a visit, without dismounting, some weeks ago. To part with it would be a happy boon to the other islands; for while it does not half pay its expenses, it is a heavy clog on the resources of Corfu, its pretensions for patronage and expenditure know no limit."
  There is one passage in this despatch worthy of special comment, inasmuch as it elicited a very remakable declaration in reply. Sir John Young thus alluded to the people of Corfu—" In Corfu alone, of all the other Islands, there exists no desire to be separated from England." But no sooner was this despatch copied into the Ionian journals, and thus made known to the people of Corfu, than it excited very great indignation; and, as soon as possible, in November, 1858, this protest was published by all the ten representatives of Corfu, with their names attached—
  "A feeling of deep affliction and irritation has been caused in this country by the perusal of the Lord High Commissioner's letter of June 10th, 1857, and July 14th 1858, in which the abominable assertion that the inhabitants of Corfu and Paxo desire to be incorporated with Great Britain is attempted to be proved by a memorandum of the Procurator General, who is considered by the Lord High Commissioner as 'perfectly informed of the sentiments of his fellow countrymen of Corfu.' The undersigned representatives of Corfu, being the interpreters of the wishes and desires of their country, and witnessing the general bitterness excited by these documents, fulfil a sacred

  1665
  duty in giving a solemn denial to the sentiments, deceitfully attributed to their fellow-citizens; and protesting against all machinations, they again raise their voices, as they did on the 2nd July, 1857, in the Assembly, declaring once more that the only wish and desire of the inhabitants of Corfu has been, and still is, to be united to free Greece."
  Surely, it is not possible to believe, after hearing these documents read, that the feeling of the Ionian people is not in favour of union with the Kingdom of Greece. After these disclosures, the Government of the day wisely thought that something should be done; and they accordingly resolved on a very extraordinary step—that of sending a very extraordinary man upon a very extraordinary mission. The Government of the day certainly did nothing wrong or unwise in sending out a man of the right hon. Gentleman's high character and great reputation, to see what was the political condition of these people, what were their real feelings, and whether they could or could not be propitiated by the offer of constitutional Reform. In his despatch of November 1st, 1858, the Colonial Minister thus described the object of that mission; and in the tribute paid to the right hon. Gentleman I must say I fully agree—for, whatever may be the differences between hon. Gentlemen on party questions, there is not one in this House who is not proud of the singular gifts by which he is distinguished. Writing to Sir John Young the Colonial Minister said—
  "With a view to assist you in discharging the trust committed to you, and also to derive the great advantage of a weighty opinion on Ionian affairs, pronounced by a statesman who belongs to his country rather than to any party in it—who has already occupied with marked distinction the highest offices of the State, whose mind has grasped foreign as well as domestic questions with equal vigour and success, and whose renown as a Homeric scholar will justly command the sympathies of the Hellenic race, Her Majesty's Government have resolved on despatching the right hon. W. E. Gladstone as a Special Commissioner to inquire into and report on the whole state of government of the Ionian Islands, and on the political relations between the protecting Power and the people, so, let me hope, as to lead to the equitable and constitutional adjustment of every existing difficulty."
  The object of my Motion is to ascertain of what character that inquiry has been, and what were the recommendations which the right hon. Gentleman had made. No one off that Treasury bench has seen this Report, whatever it may be; and it is to afford Parliament and the country an op-
  1666
  portunity of knowing what so eminent a man really did, and said, and recommended, that I ask for the papers connected with his mission. It was understood at the time that he was to follow the example of Lord Durham in his celebrated mission to Canada, and make a Report in the same manner. Lord Durham's Report was published, but not that of the right hon. Gentleman. When the Colonial Secretary received the formidable protest from the representatives of Corfu, who so indignantly repudiated, as a calumny discreditable to their patriotic feelings, any desire for further or closer connection with England, he expressed great regret at receiving it, and he thus alluded to the extent which Mr. Gladstone's mission did not reach:—"It is not within Mr. Gladstone's power to consider the abrogation of the Treaty of 1815, or the cession of the Ionian Islands to any State in Europe. Her Majesty's Government cannot invest him with such power, nor would they, if they could." I say, then, that Parliament knows nothing of the manner in which the right hon. Gentleman prosecuted his inquiry, or the result of that inquiry. We want the Report, and the recommendations of the Report; and it is not to the credit of this country, nor is it respectful to Parliament, that all knowledge of so important a mission should longer be withheld. The right hon. Gentleman arrived at Corfu on the 24th of November, 1848. No sooner was it known that he was to come on his great mission, than a feeling of passionate hope passed, like electricity, from Island to Island, from community to community. Even before they caught one glimpse of that pale, thoughtful countenance, or heard one sweet tone of that voice which can lend enchantment even to the details of the dryest Budget, they hailed him as a political saviour, who was to free them from a detested connection, and grant to them the fulfilment of their wishes—union with their mother country, free Greece. As he approached the shore, the cannon thundered their noisy welcome, and the bells rang forth their joyous peals; but the thousands who crowded from all the islands met him with a more impressive greeting—with shouts, and cries, and the wildest enthusiasm. The right hon. Gentleman held levees, which were attended by all classes, including the highest in rank. The dignitaries of the Greek Church—who, according to Sir Henry Ward, had behaved so "admirably" in 1849—were also pre-

  1667
  sent. Hardly anyone approached the right hon. Gentleman that was not armed with a petition in which the universal wish was expressed. The right hon. Gentleman was frequently compelled to put these petitions aside, and to explain that he had come for the purpose of inquiring into their political condition, and, if possible, ameliorating their institutions; but that, in fact, he did not come to hear one word on the only subject that seemed to be dear to their hearts. It is alleged that the feeling of nationality is not general, and that it is confined to a few who trade upon this sentiment. Let us see how this really is. I shall read two or three passages from addresses to the right hon. Gentleman from the chief municipalities of the Island, from the clergy, and from the Legislative Assembly—from all those who could legitimately express the public feeling—which must refute such an assertion. In the address, or proclamation, of the Council of Cephalonia, one might almost recognize the fine Roman hand of that eminent expounder of constitutional doctrines, our Foreign Secretary. Its doctrines of national right were nearly the same as those laid down in his famous despatch to Sir James Hudson, which aggravated everything, and rendered everything ten times worse than it was before. In their address the municipality say—
  "Seeing that the independence, the self-government, and the nationality of every people are its natural and indisputable rights; seeing that the people of the Septinsular States, forming an integral part of the Hellenic race, is deprived at the present day of the de facto exercise and enjoyment of those rights; seeing that the causes which led to their being placed under the protection of Great Britain, in virtue of a treaty to which they never gave any assent, no longer exist; seeing, lastly, that part of the Hellenic race to which they belong, namely, free Greece, has obtained its rights of self-government and nationality; for all these reasons the first free Council of the deputies of this Island proclaim that the joint feeling, the fixed and irrefragable desire, of the Septinsular people is the recovery of its independence and its union with Greece."
  It is absolutely necessary that I should trouble the House with two other documents addressed to the Lord High Commissioner Extraordinary, in order to show what the feeling of the Ionian people really was and is. The Municipality of Zante transmitted to Corfu an address of which I give the following extracts:—
  "The people of these Islands have expressed their firm and unalterable will to return to the bosom of their mother, free Greece, as soon as Great Britain had guaranteed them freedom of speech and of election. That was made known
  1668
  to the whole of Europe by the declaration of the 26th of November, 1850, which the unexpected prorogation of the Chambers prevented from being unanimously adopted; by the persecutions which followed, directed against those who proposed that declaration of union, and supported the sentiments and the just demands of the people, and against which the Chamber vainly protested on several occasions; by the rejection of the reforms proposed in 1852, and by the unanimous declaration of the Chamber on the 20th of June, 1857.… Now, if the gracious Queen is desirous, through your Excellency, of promoting the happiness of this people, she certainly cannot satisfy that Christian duty without giving it its emancipation, as it can only find its real happiness in its annexation with free Greece, with which it forms one family. The Municipality hope that your Excellency, as the interpreter and defender of the real happiness and rights of the Hellenic people, will represent that appeal to Her Majesty's Government, that, by its high co-operation with the other Powers which signed the Treaty of 1815, its realization may be accelerated, and an act of justice and humanity be rendered, worthy of the English nation."
  We cannot, surely, refuse to hear the voice that came from Ithaca, an island which must have such peculiar charms for our modern Ulysses. Here is an extract from the address of the deputies of Ithaca—
  "Excellency, we fulfil a sacred duty in appealing to so distinguished a statesman, and we owe it to the people whom we have the honour to represent to speak to you respectfully, but also with that sincerity which is due to the character with which you are invested, respecting the feelings and wishes of the population of Ithaca, which are shared in by the populations of the other Islands. Excellency, be assured that the population of these islands entertain the most profound respect for the English nation, that they only feel gratitude for all the good which the British Government has done them, and that they forget all the evil which its officials may have done, misunderstanding their mission. Belonging to the same family with the inhabitants of enfranchised Greece, the Ionians feel the most ardent wish to behold their fate united with that of the Kingdom of Greece, to share good or bad with our national family. These few words sufficiently express the character and the sentiments of the population of Ithaca, as well as that of the whole Ionian Republic. Knowing what weight the precious words of your Excellency will have on the position which will be taken for our country's future, we entertain the flattering hope that your Excellency, whose nobility of heart and Phil-Hellenism are no secret to us, will exert your best efforts in favour of the populations of Greek nationality, who desire nothing so much as to behold the great English nation acquiring new claims to their gratitude and devotion."
  I could quote similar addresses, but it is unnecessary. Now as to the feeling of the clergy, who behaved so admirably in 1849. The Bishop of Corfu, on the 5th of January, 1859, published a declaration in these words—

  1669
  "I declare to the world at large that the inmost, unalterable, and highest desire and wish of myself and the clergy of Corfu was, is, and will be, the national liberation of the seven islands—that is, their union with their mother—free Greece."
  On one occasion the Bishop of Zante was about presenting the right hon. Gentleman with a petition in favour of annexation to Greece when he was stopped by the right hon. Gentleman, who then read him a lecture on nationality, which it is to be hoped the Foreign Secretary has had the opportunity of studying. The right hon. Gentleman said—
  "The mandate of the Queen Protectress requires me to hear the complaints of every class of persons, to invite suggestions and advice, but not to invite or listen to anything else. … I speak with due respect of every sentiment of nationality so long as it keeps within the limits of possibility and justice; but they who, without considering time, method, circumstances, and consequences—in a word, facts—would like to take the sentiment of nationality as the rule for human things, may be styled out of their senses. I may add that doctrines of nationality couched in certain terms, become doctrines of disorder and anarchy. What is the idea of nationality taken as an exponent of the policy of these Islands, when neither time, method, circumstances, or consequences—in a word, facts—bear it out?"
  It must not be imagined that the doctrines of nationality, as laid down by the Foreign Minister, have at all tended to the peace or happiness of the world. We shall see whether the demand of the Ionian people is within the limits of justice. The lecture thus proceeds—
  "A higher authority, the British Government, has expressed its opinion on the subject. It is not a month since. Lord Malmesbury, the British Minister for Foreign Affairs, sent a circular despatch to all the English representatives at European Courts, to inform them that England recognized the obligation imposed upon her by the Treaty of Paris, and never had the intention or the wish to disown them. That despatch will shortly be published."
  There is no doubt that Lord Malmesbury did express great reverence and respect for the Treaty of Paris. But I have heard the Treaty of Paris and the Treaty of Vienna spoken of with great contempt by hon. Members opposite. I have also, on other occasions, heard those treaties spoken of with much respect by Gentlemen on the Treasury bench, notwithstanding that we have been told by Prince Napoleon that his distinguished relative had cut them through with the sword. But the treaty which binds the Ionian people to this country is, of course, to be held
  1670
  sacred. The crowning expression in favour of nationality was made on January 29, 1859. When the right hon. Gentleman was at Corfu the following resolution was adopted by the Legislative Assembly, on the Motion, I believe, of Signor Dandolo—
  "That it is the unanimous and sole wish of the Assembly that there should be an union of the seven islands to the kingdom of Greece."
  The right hon. Gentleman objected to the form, and suggested a petition or memorial. They took him at his word, and a Committee met and drew up a petition, reiterating that it was the dearest wish of their heart to annex the islands to free Greece. Before reading the answer I will quote a passage from a speech of the right hon. Gentleman—
  "I can affirm to you that Her Majesty's Government and myself are animated with the most sincere wish to approve the condition of the people, and the object of my mission is that their improvement may prepare them for the union which seems designed by Providence."
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: What are you quoting?
  MR. MAGUIRE: I quote from a speech attributed to the right hon. Gentleman by the Trieste Gazette.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I do not recognize it.
  MR. MAGUIRE: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will recognize the subsequent part. The Times of the 31st January, 1859, copied from the Trieste Gazette a speech of Mr. Gladstone in reply to the Bishop of Cephalonia.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I never made it.
  MR. MAGUIRE: Sir, it is because I do not want to rely on fallible sources of information, that I ask the right hon. Gentleman to give Parliament and the country an account of what he really did and what be really said. The right hon. Gentleman denies a speech attributed to him by a public journal, which could have no object in misrepresenting him. But, assuming that this information is not reliable, the right hon. Gentleman alone can give us correct information, and it is to attain that correct information I make the present Motion. Well, then, the right hon. Gentleman was alleged to have said—
  "If the Republic of the Seven Islands were the only Greek country subject to foreign dominion, my nation might be induced to make a great sacrifice; but the inhabitants of Thessaly, Epirus, and Canada, who desire, like the Ionians, to be

  1671
  united to their brothers of free Greece, are subject to a foreign power. For that reason the Ionians ought to limit themselves to possible desires, and to accept the reform offered to them by the Queen."
  I really cannot see that the right hon. Gentleman has any special reasons for repudiating that speech. Of course, if he did not make it, he has a right to deny it. But, in my mind, it has a marvellous similarity to several other eloquent children given birth to on that memorable occasion. The Nord, however, believed that the right hon. Gentleman made the speech attributed to him; and the foreign journal thus answers, fairly and reasonably enough, the conclusive argument of the Lord High Commissioner Extraordinary—
  "Doubtless, if the Ionian Islands were annexed to Greece, that Power would not have gathered together all her children under the protection of her crown. Thessaly, Epirus, and Crete would still remain subject to foreign rule, and be so kept in virtue of the treaty which guarantees the territorial integrity of Turkey. Doubtless, their populations also would continue ardently to desire, like the Ionians, union with their brethren of free Greece. But what has that to do with the enfranchisement of Ionia? Because justice cannot be rendered to all at once, is it not to be rendered to any? Because Turkey cannot be reduced, is Ionia, which is not dependent upon it, to remain subjected to a detested protectorate?"
  The formal answer of Her Majesty was delivered by the right hon. Gentleman to the Legislative Assembly on the 5th of February, 1859. It was in these words—
  "Her Majesty has taken into her gracious consideration the prayer of the petition presented by the Legislative Assembly of the Ionian Islands, with reference to the interests of the islands themselves, of the states in their neighbourhood, and of the general (or federal) peace. Having regard to those objects, Her Majesty, invested as she is, by the Treaty of Paris, with the exclusive protectorate of the Ionian States, and constituted the sole organ of those States in the Councils of Europe, can neither consent to abandon the obligations she has undertaken, nor can convey nor permit any application to any other Power in furtherance of a similar desire. Her Majesty does not desire to impose new fetters on opinion, but she will enforce, wherever it is placed in her charge, the sacred duty of obedience to the laws. Her Majesty has adopted on her part the measures which she deems most conducive to the good of the Ionian people, and she awaits for the co-operation of their Parliament."
  I do not know whether I am rightly instructed—for really I cannot say upon what information I can rely in the absence of these official documents which have been so long denied Parliament, owing to the Government's reticence, or the right hon. Gentleman's modesty—but I am informed that on the same occasion the right
  1672
  hon. Gentleman offered to the Assembly a new Constitution, enlarged popular powers, and great reforms. The right hon. Gentleman, however, left the Island immediately after, and Sir Henry Storks the next day assumed the duties of the office of Lord High Commissioner. Whether the proposed constitution was "a mockery, a delusion, and a snare," I know not; but this I do know—that it was indignantly rejected. Then commenced the troubles of Sir Henry Storks. A legacy of embarrassment was left to the
  ordinary Lord High Commissioner by the Lord High Commissioner Extraordinary. Alluding to this offer of a Constitution, it is rather curious to see that Russia, in 1803, offered and gave the Ionians a Constitution more liberal than that which they possess at this moment. In a celebrated pamphlet by an Ionian, published in London in 1851, I find the following statement:—
  "The Russian Protection, also by this Constitution of 1803, gave the vote by Ballot, the free election of a Representative assembly, consisting of forty members; threw open all the offices of the State to the Ionians solely"—
  which England has not done and does not do—
  "instituted an Upper House of seventeen members, chosen by the Electoral Body, in whom were vested the Executive Power of the State, foreign or domestic, and the management of the revenue and expenses, according as they might be settled by the Legislative Body."
  This liberal Constitution was given by Russia, at a time, too, when there was no demand for annexation; when, in fact, there was no country to which the Ionians could be annexed. I want to know what the character of the Constitution proposed by the right hon. Gentleman—what he did really offer the Ionian people as an equivalent for the nationality which they demanded; and I desire to have it, not from the right hon. Gentleman's own statement alone, because his memory may be fallible, but from the documents of the time. If an offer of a liberal nature were made, and it did not satisfy those to whom it was made, then it is obviously impossible to satisfy them with anything less than what they desire; and, therefore, as it is stated they are of no advantage to this country, why then, in God's name, let us get rid of them. An article upon the subject appeared in The Times a few days ago (cries of "Oh!" from the benches below the gangway on the Ministerial side of the House). I really do not know why some hon. Gentlemen murmur. If there were

  1673
  any other newspaper of equal authority with The Times, I would quote it. The Radical papers used constantly write on this question, but they have not done so lately; and if I want to see what is the expression of public opinion I am obliged to go to the only journal which has written a word upon the matter. That is a fair reply to the murmurs; but besides that, what I am about to quote just suits my purpose. The following is the opinion of the leading journal:—
  "There is no doubt that we can confer enormous benefits on the Ionian Islands by keeping them under our protection, and there is as little doubt that we receive none in return. Corfu is not, as has been so often asserted, the key of the Adriatic, or of anything else, except the treasury chest of England. It is not long since the whole French Fleet sailed passed it to Venice without being either seen or heard of, and we only enjoy this glorious possession because the other Powers at the Treaty of Vienna who could have held it were wiser than we, and would have nothing to do with so costly a possession. If the Ionians are weary of us we can assure them with all sincerity that we are quite as tired of them. For our part, we should see with great satisfaction the only course adopted by which the islanders could be brought really to appreciate their present situation. We should be glad to see them handed over to the kingdom of Greece, with the consent of an European Congress, and we doubt not that a few months' experience of the financial and police system of King Otho would instruct them better than all the homilies we can preach as to the true extent of the miseries they endure under the English Government. The change would be highly beneficial to us, and, as their representatives earnestly desire it, we cannot see for what reason it should be deferred. Let the islanders seek happiness where they believe they will find it, and where, if they do not find happiness, they will acquire the wisdom that never fails to come from experience."
  The right hon. Gentleman, one of the most eloquent and persuasive of living men, could not satisfy the Ionians. If he could not do it, who could? But he failed, although he approached them with his hands loaded with gifts. The Ionians received him as the Trojans did the insidious offer of the wooden horse by the Greeks—
  "Timeo Danaos, et dona ferentes."
  "We will not have British Protection even when accompanied by the most liberal institutions." I hope hon. Gentlemen like my free translation. It has been asserted, over and over again, that the feelings of the Ionian people are in no degree represented by the petitions of the municipal bodies, the declarations of the clergy, and even the resolutions of the representatives. I have in my hand a pamphlet just written
  1674
  by Signor Dandolo, in which, while condemning the arbitrary conduct of Sir Henry Storks in proroguing the Assembly in March last, he appeals to the right hon. Gentleman for assistance and sympathy, and calls on him to refute those who dare assert that the feeling in favour of nationality is not universal. The following passage is interesting, as it affords us a glimpse of the pleasant manner in which the right hon. Gentleman was occupied on his arrival in Corfu:—
  "The conduct of his Excellency, under similar circumstances, is in striking contrast to that of his very noble predecessor, Mr. Gladstone; who in 1859, when I proposed to the Chamber the union of our Islands with Greece, not only did not oppose the resolution or think of proroguing the Parliament, but went about the streets for several hours at night, delighted to behold the joy and enthusiasm of the people, as well as the general illumination. He stopped with pleasure to read in the transparencies the numerous inscriptions expressing the vows and hopes of the people, and their gratitude towards that distinguished personage himself."
  But what was the reason why the Ionian Parliament was so abruptly prorogued this year? Because they were going to discuss—not some extreme resolution to which many members of the Assembly objected—but the principles of that dangerous despatch to the British Minister at Turin of which the noble Lord the Foreign Secretary is the author. The noble Lord in that despatch gave poor Sir Henry Storks a bard nut to crack. I ask, could there be greater degradation conceivable than that the representative of the British Crown should be obliged to ask what he was to do if the principles of that despatch were forced on for discussion in the Ionian Parliament? The poor unhappy military man—utterly bewildered with the rule of a people who hated and abhorred British connection—thus wrote to the Duke of Newcastle on the 18th of January, 1861—
  "If the principles laid down in the despatch of Her Majesty's Secretary for Foreign Affairs to Her Majesty's Minister at Turin, of date October 27, 1800, are brought under the consideration of the Legislative Assembly, am I at liberty to stop the discussion, and, if necessary, prorogue Parliament?"
  "In the name of Heaven," cried that poor, bewildered military gentleman, "what am I to do with a bombshell of this kind? If I allow it to explode in the Ionian Parliament, there is an end to British rule in these islands." The Duke of Newcastle saw the danger, too; and so Sir Henry

  1675
  was empowered to prorogue the Parliament—of course, not because they were afraid of the principles of the despatch, but on mere technical grounds. No wonder the Government at home felt alarm; for the Foreign Secretary had distinctly laid down the doctrine that a people were the only true judges as to who were to rule them; and that, if they were discontented with their rulers, they had a clear right to rise and depose them. Nay, the noble Lord went farther, and said that in such a difficulty a people had a right to appeal for foreign aid—and that under certain circumstances (such as we have witnessed not many months since), the Power applied to was justified in responding to that appeal. Let us remember to what rulers and what people these principles were applied. It was not against foreign despots—for I suppose you will have them styled despots—but against native princes, born amidst the people over whom they ruled, that a native population was justified in rising in rebellion; and it was the yoke of a native ruler that they were to shake off. We are told that the principles which are applicable in the case of the Italians are not applicable in the case of the Ionians. Let us see. An Italian people may rise against an Italian Sovereign, and may call in the aid of another Power to further their designs; but the Ionian people, who have no connection with you, by sympathy, feeling, race, language, or religion, have no power to decide whether they are to be ruled or "protected" by England; and if they dare to propose the discussion of a resolution asking for foreign assistance, that moment their Parliament is to be prorogued; and, if they attempt to persevere in their appeal to the European Powers, who were parties to the treaty which placed them under the protection of the British Crown, the authority of the law will be severely and terribly enforced. I should like to have a rational explanation of the doctrines of the noble Lord as applied to these two cases. Signor Dandolo, in a special letter to the noble Lord, assured him that his famous despatch had filled the Ionians with confidence, and that they felt satisfied that he Would apply his principles in her own case. When the right hon. Gentleman went to Corfu, he was received as the representative of a great and magnanimous people, whose boast it was that they were the friends and protectors of liberty throughout the world—that their country was the
  1676
  asylum, the shelter, and the bulwark of endangered freedom; and it was fondly imagined that he had come, in pursuance of the principles so often laid down by his present colleagues to give them, not a paltry, nibbling improvement in their Constitution, but that to which they believed they had a right—annexation to free Greece. English Ministers have said that this connection is not for the advantage of England. If such be the case, why not give it up? I am afraid that England is too selfish to keep what is disadvantageous to her. But it is said that this is a trust confided to her by the Powers of Europe. If, then, these islands be of no advantage to England, but rather the contrary, is it not possible to come to some arrangement with those Powers in respect to these Islands? Why not ask the European Powers to relieve England from the charge. The right hon. Gentleman is alleged to have said that union with Greece is the manifest destiny designed for them by Providence. If this be so, is it for man to stop the way? Does Providence decree that which is not just? How, then, can it be said that there is no justice in the demand of the Ionians? I call on the right hon. Gentleman to state what was his impression of the feelings of the Ionian people on this subject. I also demand the despatches themselves, giving a detail of what he witnessed, and his impressions, written while they were fresh, of the wishes and feelings of the people, of the clergy, of the municipal bodies, and of the Parliament of the Ionion Islands. Let not the House shrink from making this demand. It may not be, it is true, convenient for the Government to have published to the world a glaring contradiction to the principles which they have announced for other countries. In the name of justice, I ask that you, who proclaim liberty to all the nations of the earth—that you, who are the propagandists of rebellion in other countries—should not stifle the free voice of a people with whom you profess to have sympathy, and whom you are bound by treaty to cherish and protect. We have frequently denounced the vice and the folly of concealment. But was there ever a more glaring case of concealment than the present? For the sake, then, of the Government, of the honour and consistency of the right hon. Gentleman himself, and of those principles in which he so largely participates, and which his colleagues so audaciously proclaim, I call on the House of Commons

  1677
  to assist me in obtaining the information for which I now respectfully ask.
  MR. CONINGHAMseconded the Motion.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, that She will be graciously pleased to give directions that there be laid before this House, Copy of Papers and Correspondence relative to the Mission of the Right honourable W. E. Gladstone to the Ionian Islands, as Lord High Commissioner Extraordinary, in November, 1858:
  "And, of Papers and Correspondence in continuation, namely, from the arrival of Sir Henry Storks in Corfu, on the 16th day of February, 1859, to the latest period, including those in relation to the Prorogation of the Legislative Assembly by Sir Henry Storks, in March, 1861."
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Sir, on grounds which are personal to myself, but with the approval of my colleagues, I shall beg to be excused from voting on the present occasion if the hon. Member should press his Motion to a division. But I am desirous also on grounds personal to myself to take the earliest opportunity of explaining my opinions with respect to his proposition. And I shall commence what I have to say by explaining to the hon. Member that I think he is under some degree of misapprehension with respect to the intentions of the Government. It is not the intention of the Government to accede to his Motion, but the grounds on which they feel it to be their duty to decline do not reach quite so far as he supposes. It is by no means their duty or their desire, as appears to be imagined by the hon. Member, to withhold all official information on the subject from this House. The information to which he refers, in point of fact, divides itself into two classes. There is a series of papers which it was my duty to send home from the Ionian Islands, and which bear immediately on the constitutional question of the mode in which they are and have been governed, and in which their relation to this country has been conducted. These are the reports which as Her Majesty's Special Commissioner I sent home; they are documents which run over a good deal of history, and contain much free comment on details, both as to men and as to things. Some part of them are of a nature which probably would make it inconvenient at any period to produce them. The greater part of them on the contrary, might perhaps, under other circumstances, be produced; but, on the ground of their containing comments of the nature I have described, and I will say, in the name of the
  1678
  Government, on account of the opinion entertained by those who who are now responsible for the peace, order, and government of the islands, we think it not desirable at the present period that these reports should be laid before the House. But it does not in the slightest decree follow that we should, therefore, withhold from the House all information. For example, the hon. Member thinks that correspondence of mine would be found to contain evidence with regard to the state of feeling in the Islands; he has also observed, with great truth, that proposals of great importance were made by me in the name of Her Majesty to the Ionian Assembly, and that the House is entitled to be informed of the nature of those proposals, and of the reception with which they met. Now, as to the first of these—namely, the correspondence—my hon. Friend the Under Secretary for the Colonies will explain that he is perfectly prepared, exercising a proper discretion, with a view to the public interests, in any casual particular, to produce the correspondence which will give the hon. Member the information he seeks as to the state of feeling in the islands. And as regards the proposals I made in the name of the Queen to the Ionian Assembly, I am afraid the hon. Member, great as has been the laudable pains he has taken to acquaint himself with the history and details of this subject, has been so unfortunate as to miss just one chapter of information, and that, perhaps, the most vital and most material of all, because both the proposals made to the Ionian Assembly and a very full address delivered to that Assembly on the part of the British Government by myself, containing the whole sum, upshot, and substance of my reports, and of the recommendations in which they resulted, not were produced, but were published in every journal at the very moment when they were made known to the Ionian Islands; and, unless my memory very much deceives me, they were also at the time made the subject of very free comment, not in this, but in the other House of Parliament. Although, therefore, we do not accede to the Motion of the hon. Gentleman, yet in substance out of what is contained in these reports, historical in their character, that which he principally desires, can and will be laid before the House.
  The hon. Member has entered into matters of very great interest and importance in dealing with the Motion he has made;

  1679
  and I quite agree with him that we are not to suppose that because the population of these seven Islands occupy a very small space in the public eye, therefore, we can afford to deal lightly with their concerns. The character and reputation of England must be dear to us alike in great matters and in small; and small as are the Islands themselves and the immediate interests connected with them, yet from a variety of circumstances a very considerable portion of historical interest attaches to them and their concerns, and undoubtedly their affairs have been and may be from time brought under the eye of Europe in general, as well as of this country, in a much greater degree than might be supposed from their own intrinsic importance. The hon. Member says that at the time when Sir John Young recommended that Corfu should be converted into colony a protest was issued by the representatives of the people at Corfu, and that the publication of that protest was probably the origin of the mission I undertook to the Ionian Islands. Now, there is one conclusive reason why that could not be the case, and the reason is, that the protest was not published—nay, the despatch out of which it grew was not published until after I had left England on that omission. The argument post hoc, ergo propter hoc, is not always a strong one; but the argument ante hoc, ergo propter hoc, must be a good deal weakened. It would have been absurd either in my right hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire (Sir Bulwer Lytton) to have projected or in me to have undertaken that mission after the feelings of the people of the Islands had been vehemently excited on the subject of the union with Greece by the publication of that despatch; but the publication took place not only after my mission was arranged, but after I was on my way and could not possibly relieve myself by abandoning the charge which I had undertaken. I must add. Sir, that I never repented of having undertaken that mission. In the first place, I should not lightly regret any proceeding which like this one had the effect of placing me in close relation with my right hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire (Sir Bulwer Lytton), of whom, I am bound to say, simply rendering the testimony which experience enables me to give, that even the brilliancy of his genius is, in my opinion, less conspicuous than the thorough high-mindedness of his character and his conduct upon every occasion. But, apart from
  1680
  the pleasure I had in all my dealings with my right hon. Friend as the representative of his colleagues—and, of course, when I speak of him I mean to make no invidious distinction, for I know no grounds for any, between himself and the Government that concurred in his proceedings—there was another and a main reason which appeared to me also greatly to recommend my accepting the offer, when it was made to me, of such a mission. I confess it was not my opinion, viewing the state of the institutions and government of the Ionian Islands antecedently to that period, that the position of this country with respect to them was altogether clear and satisfactory. I was not sanguine even at the outset in the hope that in the existing state of these islands it would be practicable to do what might be desired, and the unhappy publilication of the despatch of Sir John Young greatly diminished any hope that might have been entertained of immediate success. But I was sanguine in the hope and expectation that, through what was tendered by my right hon. Friend and the Government then in power, it would be practicable thoroughly to set right the character of England in the face of the Ionian people and of Europe by at least offering to the people of those Islands institutions undoubtedly and unequivocally founded upon those principles of freedom and armed with those guarantees of freedom which are so inexpressibly dear to ourselves. That was the object for which I undertook that mission, and whether the mission was effective for that object we may be hereafter, even if we are not now, fully able to determine.
  I stop for a moment to notice a point to which I ought to have before adverted. The hon. Gentleman has seemed to think that blame was due either to the late Government or to the present one for not having produced those papers, because papers of a similar description were produced in the case of the mission of Lord Durham to Canada. But the cases were altogether different. Lord Durham went to Canada, not te consult a people possessed of free institutions, but rather to consider the circumstances of a country wherein all institutions had been brought to a standstill by the action of positive rebellion. The work of reconstruction lay in the hands of England. It was to Parliament, and to Parliament alone, in the first instance, that the appeal was made; and, of course, it

  1681
  was necessary at once to supply Parliament with the means of coming to a judgment upon the matters submitted for its decision. Canada was a colony owing allegiance to the British Crown, while the Ionian Islands are, by the law of Europe, a distinct and independent State. The Act of Union between the two Canadian Provinces was determined by debate upon this floor, and the legislative and political constitution of the Canadas was the result of that operation. But here, on the contrary, the result of the mission, whatever it may have been, was to be effected in the Islands themselves. It consisted of certain proposals made to the local authorities, and, inasmuch as those proposals were declined on the spot by those to whom they were made, nor was there any occasion or any room for a reference to Parliament, or for raising any issue in this country, the reasons which dictated the reports of Lord Durham entirely fail to apply to the present instance.
  Now, Sir, the hon. Member spoke tonight as an enthusiastic advocate of what are termed nationalities, I really did not know to what heights of eloquence he was about to attain. He does me the honour to say that I am sometimes moved by feeling. That may be so, but I seem to myself cold as marble when matched with the fervour that the hon. Member has exhibited tonight. As we listened to him it was hardly possible to resist the contagion, or to withhold ourselves from inwardly resolving that we would cast all considerations of prudence and policy to the winds and follow this ardent, this almost ungovernable advocate of nationality and freedom to any point, however remote or extreme to which he might be disposed to lead us. And can it possibly be that the hon. Gentleman who addressed us with such conspicuous ability was the same person whom we have lately heard on the subject of Italian liberty, unity, and independence? There is no breadth of interval on a thermometer which ascends from zero to boiling heat that can for a moment avail to give an idea of the amount of difference between the hon. Member whom we have seen so hyper-fervid to-night as the representative of popular and liberal sentiments, and the hon. Member who has occasionally addressed us with not less determination in support of the sacred rights of the Papal Government and of all the other had Governments, as we think them, of Italy. This is, I know, so far, merely the argu-
  1682
  mentum ad hominem; and the hon. Gentleman may say, in reply, "What you have urged against me does not justify you, for there is equal inconsistency on your part; you are for the Italians, what do you say for the Greeks? but there is also this difference, I speak individually, you are a servant of the Crown, associated with a Government, and I have a right to challenge you in this respect." Well, Sir, I do not think of evading the appeal, and as I proceed the House will judge between us.
  The hon Member stated that great popular excitement prevaded these islands, of a nature to threaten the public tranquillity. Of course I have no minute information on the point at present, but as far as I have previously seen and have the means of judging I do not think it possible to convey a more gross and entire misapprehension. I do not hesitate to say that the sentiment of these populations when I was among them was one of general contentment. At the same time I will no less frankly state what I believe to be the fact as to their Hellenic sentiment—their desire to realize the idea of their own nationality. It is true, as has been stated by the hon. Member, they are the inhabitants of a set of Islands which have been politically grouped together on account of peculiar historical circumstances, but which do not form a geographical or natural whole. It was a saying of Prince Metternich, used for purposes of which I will not now speak, that Italy was a geographical expression, meaning that it was not and could not be a political expression. Now, the precise reverse of the expression of Prince Metternich holds good in this case. The Ionian Islands are not a geographical whole, they are only an accidental whole, and small, scattered, and remote from one another as they are, they bear witness, even upon the face of the map, that they must hope at some time to pass into new conditions of existence. A real unity of a political kind cannot possibly exist in these Islands, which are mere fragments scattered along the coast of Greece, brought together and also kept together by causes which are entirely exceptional. Under these circumstances, their people value the connection in which they stand towards one another, provisional though they may think it to be, because it binds them together as Greeks; for it is a palpable fact that they do entertain a strong sentiment of nationality, and do desire that the day may come when the

  1683
  Greek race shall be again united and powerful. And, Sir, I confess it grieves me to the last degree when I see, as I occasionally do see, that sentiment on the part of this long unhappy and often oppressed people treated in this country with ridicule and scorn. We assume the care of a people who have been for centuries in the most unfortunate circumstances, and who have always been subject, in one form or another, to foreign domination; we couple that assumption with an express recognition of their independence; we find that they retain the memory of the glorious origin from which they sprang; and then that very sentiment, which is in truth the very proof and badge of national, political, and moral life among them, and their best hope and pledge for the future, we set up and expose as the butt for wanton, cruel, and, I must say, dastardly ridicule. Sir, that is not the tone in which I for one can venture to speak of that sentiment. But let me tell the House what I believe to be the exact state of facts with regard to its prevalence. It exists among all ranks and all classes, it exists perhaps almost without an exception, but it exists in very different forms. It is entertained by the people, not as a sentiment which makes their present condition miserable, but as a hope which they cherish for the future, and of which they would gladly find that occasion would enable them legitimately to avail themselves. It is traded upon accordingly by the worst and most corrupt part of the population; and the worst and most corrupt part of the population of the Ionian Islands are not the masses of the people. I must say that, as far as I am able to judge, they are an amiable and a good people, singularly refined and courteous, not difficult to govern, anything but estranged in sentiment and feeling from the English throne and nation, but, on the contrary, entertaining a warm respect, regard, and even a strong sentiment of gratitude towards them, because they regard England as having been a benefactress to the Greek race. It is a mistake, in my opinion, to suppose that foreign agitation has had power either in former years or at this moment over these islands; that there were or are intrigues for uniting them to Russia or to France. I believe they prefer by far a connection with England, notwithstanding their identity of religion with Russia, to a connection with any foreign country whatsoever. For they desire the blessings of political freedom, and they look upon this country as the
  1684
  chosen seat and principal fountain of those blessings.
  Sir, under the circumstances which I have described, there being a natural
  prevalence of national feeling, its existence affords obvious room and facility for the operations of demagogues. And here I must observe that the demagogues of the Ionian Islands are by no means exclusively those who hold popular opinions respecting freedom and nationality. On the contrary, I am sorry to say that, in my judgment, the very worst of them are certain persons who profess a particular attachment to England. The demagogues of this most mischievous class, and of all classes, trade largely though differently on this sentiment of nationality, and use it as a means of producing excitement whenever a favourable opportunity offers. But let it not be supposed that I seek to stigmatize the upper class as a class. Among the upper class are many gentlemen of much respectability and high character and accomplishments. I have never seen one of these who did not say that he hoped the time and circumstances might come in which the Ionian people might be reunited to the stock from which they sprang. On the other hand, I have never seen one of them who did not also say he believed that that period had not yet arrived. Prudence teaches them that there are practical objections of an insurmountable kind to their union with the Kingdom of Greece, or with the Greek race at large, existing at the present moment. And those gentlemen deprecate in the highest degree those precipitate measures which, under the influence of popular zeal, fomented by selfish men for selfish purposes, are recommended in other quarters. That I believe to be the real state of the case with respect to the prevalence of a sentiment of Hellenic nationality in the Ionian Islands.
  The character of these people is certainly a very mixed one, especially as regards the upper classes. There is one fault by which it is strongly marked, and it is a fault which almost invariably attaches to a race that has long been in a subordinate position. It is what may be called moral cowardice. It is peculiarly difficult to obtain a free, genuine, honest expression of opinion in these islands; and of course that difficulty becomes stronger in proportion as popular excitement may prevail. The hon. Member has alluded to the character and condition of the Greek clergy in the Ionian Islands. That allusion leads us to a very

  1685
  curious portion of the case. The hon. Gentleman stated, and stated truly, that in the month of January, 1859, the Greek Archbishop of Corfu had with his clergy expressed a desire for the union of the Islands with Greece. That is, I believe, quite accurate. How came they to express that desire in the month of January, I having arrived in Corfu, and the despatch which was the occasion of the excitement having been published in the previous November? The fact was, at least such is my opinion of it, that the Archbishop and his clergy did not wish to enter into that movement, but that the pressure of popular feeling, being employed as it was by what I may term the professional politicians of the place, certainly left them no choice. The position of the Greek clergy in these Islands is very singular, I know not how many Members of this House may belong to that important association called the Auti-State Church Association, but if those hon. Gentlemen would only transplant themselves to the Ionian Islands they would find themselves with absolutely nothing to do. I do not believe there is so pure an example of a voluntary church on the face of the earth as that which exists in these Islands. As pure an example is by no means to be found in Ireland. In the Ionian Islands, with the rarest exceptions, there are no endowments whatever; there are no parishes, and the organization is simply congregational; the priests are elected to their parishes without any intervention of the bishop, and they are chosen, except in very few instances, by the votes of certain lay bodies, I think termed confraternities, which are attached to each church, and which are sometimes very numerous. In certain instances where there are endowments there is also patronage, but these cases are very few. Those priests, with the exception, perhaps, of those filling high offices or engaged in the work of instruction, are in general persons of small attainments in point of education, but they are intensely identified in feeling with the people. I do not believe they have ever been leaders in the matter of an union with Greece or have spontaneously provoked the sentiment of nationality, for I think they have no desire to mix themselves unduly in political affairs; but when the popular sentiment leads in that direction it is for them to follow, and, sooner or later, follow they must. And here, Sir, in passing, as to the speech which the hon. Member says I addressed to the Bishop of
  1686
  Cephalonia, I can only say that I made no such speech as he has quoted, and that which he has read must be some unauthorized gathering from what was, in fact, a conversation by whom made I cannot say, and with what assistance or what guarantees for accuracy I do not know. I cannot, therefore, be responsible for the document; but at the same time so far as concerns what the hon. Member has cited respecting importance of the considerations connected with the state of Thessaly, and of Albania, and their bearing upon the Ionian question, I adopt the sentiments expressed in the passage which he has read. The hon. Member has made a grave attack upon my noble Friend the Foreign Secretary, who, he says, has one set of weights and measures for Italy, and another set to govern the policy of England towards the Ionian Islands. It is not for me to enter upon a defence of my noble Friend, especially as we have been reminded within a very few days by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire (Mr. Disraeli) that the policy of my noble Friend upon the vital and all-important questions connected with the state of Italy has not been challenged in this House, the free and open assembly of the representatives of the people. But without entering upon a defence where I cannot admit that any is needed, and where if it were needed my noble Friend would wield his own weapons with a master's hand, I must venture to disclaim, on my own part, the admission of any selfish or separate interest on the part of England in this Ionian question. In my opinion, we must be prepared firmly and steadily to apply in our own case the same principles which we urge for the adoption of others. But, though the principle be the same its application may out of regard for the very principle itself require to be varied. It ought not to be varied for considerations of selfish or separate interests, but it must be varied according to the wider considerations of prudence and policy in connection with great European interests, and the question here to be weighed really is, what is the bearing of those considerations of policy upon the position of England in her relations with the Ionian Islands. The hon. Gentleman finds an article in a newspaper which says the Ionian Islands are of no advantage to England, and then he thinks he has proved his case and says, if they are of no advantage to us, why do we not give them up? Now, as to the

  1687
  question whether they are of no advantage, there ere, I believe, differences of opinion. Some persons think that Corfu is of great value as a military position. Others think that there is great political influence in Eastern or other affairs attaching to the possession of the Protectorate. I must confess I am rather disposed individually to agree with the views of the hon. Member, and to say that, as far as I can see, England has no separate, or selfish, or peculiar interest whatever in maintaining that protectorate. It is in my view entirely a matter of that kind of interest only which is in one sense the highest interest of all, and in another sense no interest at all—namely, the interest which is inherent in her character and duty, and her exact and regular fulfilment of obligations which she has contracted with Europe. The obligation she has contracted with Europe was for the benefit of Europe. She undertook that protectorate because it was deemed to be safest in her hands; she contracted, then, an obligation which she can never surrender until it can be surrendered in a manner that is likely to conduce to the benefit of Europe. The hon. Member asks why do we not apply to the other Powers and see whether they will agree to release us from our obligation? But, Sir, there are conditions preliminary to any such application. You must be convinced in your own mind that it is desirable in the interests of Europe that you should be so released. That is a question which the hon. Member has entirely overlooked. He thinks that when once the admission is made that England has no separate interests in maintaining her present relation to the Ionian Islands, the whole question is disposed of. He quoted from me a sentence, the substance of which I dare say may have been spoken by me, although I do not remember the words, that as long as Thessaly, Albania, Candia, and the Greek islands were in political relation with the Turkish empire it would be a matter of great and serious risk to remove the Ionian Islands from the British potectorate. I must say that it appears to me, both upon that ground and also upon another and more specific ground, it, is a serious question to adopt the advice of the hon. Member forthwith to unite the Islands to the Kingdom of Greece. I am bound to say that I have no evidence of any great wish on the part of the Kingdom of Greece for such an union. Though with imperfect means of information, I am inclined
  1688
  to believe that opinion in Greece is divided upon the question of an immediate union with the Ionian Islands, and no one who considers the differences of laws, usages, and social condition between Greece and those Islands will be disposed to think that there is any very strong prima facie case for such union. But has the hon. Member considered the condition of affairs in free Greece itself? I am not going to indulge in general invectives against Greece. She has had great difficulties to contend with. The establishment of the Greek kingdom is closely connected with a name which must ever stand among the most illustrious in the history of the foreign policy of England—I mean the name of Mr. Canning—and that name is almost as much revered in free Greece and the Ionian Islands for services rendered to Greece as it is in England, the country of his birth. I need not enter into the question of the establishment of that kingdom which I conceive to have been a most happy event in the interest of Europe. I need not attempt to examine the history of its progress, or the state of some political questions intimately affecting its condition, or the conduct of its Sovereign, or its Government. But I am bound to say that such information as is at my command does not give the belief that the political condition of free Greece is so consolidated, her laws and institutions so matured, that it is at the present moment in a condition to offer itself as a nucleus and rallying point for the scattered members of the Greek race. It is my belief that for the present it is better for free Greece to confine herself to looking after her own concerns than to undertake the concerns of other people. And I believe it would be nothing less than a crime against the safety of Europe—I might even say against its immediate tranquillity—as connected with the state and course of the great Eastern question, if England were at this moment to do what the hon. Member recommends, that is to say, if they were to apply to the Powers of Europe to be allowed to surrender the protectorate of the Ionian Islands for the purpose of uniting them to free Greece. Consider, again, the bearing of this union, if it took place, upon the condition of what I may call the Greek provinces of Turkey. What! are we to say to the people of the Ionian Islands, "It is so intolerable that you should remain apart from the kingdom which has its capital at Athens, that we will disturb the European arrangement, and remove

  1689
  forthwith the protectorate of England, in deference to the principle of nationality?" And could we at the same time say to the people of Candia, of Thessaly, of Albania, "You shall remain, not under a Christian protectorate, but under a Mahommedan sovereignty, and your desire for nationality shall remain ungratified? A Christian protectorate was too bad for others a Turkish domination is good enough for you." In point of fact the closeness and urgency of their high political considerations, immediately inherent in the question, have been wholly overlooked by the hon. Member in his zeal for nationality. That zeal undoubtedly is but of recent development, for I think we have only seen it upon this occasion; but it has made such rapid progress, and the hon. Member is so promising a pupil, that when the Italian question comes again under debate I entertain most sanguine expectations that we shall have the gratification of adding the hon. Gentleman to the number of Friends of Italian unity and freedom in this House. But, again, let us for a moment advert to the situation and state of Corfu, from which I may add you can hardly separate the small Island of Paxo, which, though it has a separate civil organization, is little more than a dependency of Corfu. Corfu itself is only separated by a narrow channel—in one place not wider, I think, than two miles from the Turkish territory; and I must confess I think there would be great risk indeed, nay, that it would hardly he compatible with good faith to Turkey, if we were to allow Corfu to become, under present circumstances, a portion of the Greek territory. Men may differ as to the practicability of maintaining the Ottoman dominion in Europe; they may differ as to whether it is desirable to maintain it; but all will agree that whatever is done upon this question should be done above-board upon principle, and with forethought; that we should not by any piecemeal measures bring into operation unawares any source of disturbance which might tend to perplex and break up a great European question, and might have a most detrimental influence upon the future not only of Corfu and Turkey, but of the entire East, and of all Europe, as connected with the great problem of the settlement of the East. If I, for my part, have declined in any way to recommend that the question of union with Greece should be entertained, it is not because I deny the application of the principle of
  1690
  nationality to the Ionian Islands; it is not on the ground of the interests of England, for I think England has none but those of character in this matter—it is because, in respect to that protectorate, we are stewards and guardians of the general peace of Europe, and must do faithfully and courageously whatever the general peace requires to be done.
  I should now like to say a few words on the actual condition and the political institutions of the Ionian Islands. Here, again, considering that at the time we assumed the protectorate full power was given into our hands, the character of England is materially at stake. As far as I can perceive the common and popular opinion in this country is that the Ionian Islands enjoy at this moment in spirit and in substance if not in every minute detail, a free government. I am sorry to say, that, in my opinion, this is far, indeed, from being the truth. I do not think that any Englishman thoroughly acquainted with the laws and the system of the Ionian Government would ever dignify it with the name of a free Government as we understand the term; at the same time it is very far from being the consistent and intelligible opposite of a free Government. It is a strange and extraordinary mixture of incongruous elements that are always, and must continue to he, hopelessly in conflict with one another, till they have undergone a reform amounting almost to re construction. Let me mention, first, in what way it is and in what way it is not a free Government. There is perfect liberty of the press, that is a great item of freedom, and I am far from desiring that even under the present circumstances it should be withdrawn; but it is an item which ought to come in its own place and time, and the possession of entire liberty of the press when it does not stand side by side with effective Parliamentary institutions, I must say, a very doubtful and a very mixed benefit. With respect to the franchise it is a great mistake to say—as it is frequently said in this country—that the people in the Ionian Islands have a franchise amounting nearly to universal suffrage. On the contrary, the population of the seven Islands is nearly 250,000, and the number of those who are enfranchised, or possess the Parliamentary vote, is not, I think, more than 6,000 or 8,000. If the Islands, therefore, go wrong it cannot be said that that
  they are ruined or corrupted by the influence of universal suffrage. There is

  1691
  in that country a power called the "high police;" it has not been exercised for some years, but it is one of the most despotic powers that can be conceived. In the exercise of that power, the Lord High Commissioner, if he thinks fit—that is, if he believes it is demanded for the public safety—can fasten upon any man he pleases, separate him from his family, friends, and occupations, and banish him to any portion of the Ionian territory. Perhaps that does not sound a very formidable punishment; but if we consider that these seven Islands have appended to them several others, some of them containing not more than twenty or fifty inhabitants, and if we suppose, perhaps, the editor of a newspaper [Mr. MA-GUIRE: Hear, hear!] may no such mishap occur to the hon. Gentleman! just as he is preparing a leading article, to be sent off to employ his leisure, and he would have plenty of it, for six months or a year on an Island where a score of fishermen constitute the whole population, and their cottages all the means of lodging and entertainment, it will be seen that this power of punishment may he made a formidable and fearful engine. The total abolition of this power of the "high police" was one of what the hon. Gentleman calls the insignificant boons I was commissioned to offer to the Ionian Islands. Again, the Assembly is not possessed of the right of a free initiative in matters of money and legislation. That, I think, is far from being a free deliberative Assembly according to oar idea of the meaning of the words. Further it has no legitimate means of influencing the choice of the Executive; and lastly, it does not possess the power of the purse. It is quite true that there is a machinery for passing all taxes and ordinances through the legislative body; yet, in case the action of the Legislature is suspended—and these cases unfortunately have not been unfrequent—then a power of raising and applying a revenue sufficient for all practical purposes is reserved to the High Commissioner. That is a clear and sufficient proof of my assertion that a free Government, as we understand it, does not exist in the Ionian Islands. But while they have not a free, regular, and orderly Government, they have a Government that contains within it not only liberal but ultra-democratic elements. Of the press I have already spoken. Next, there is the question of the ballot, a question which has a very large amount of support in this House. Even many of
  1692
  those who oppose the ballot in this country say, as I remember an excellent friend of mine stated in an address to a great constituency, "I have always been for the ballot, but I am bound to tell you that, in my opinion, if the ballot were established, ninety-nine Englishmen out of every hundred would insist upon having it known how they voted." That I believe is the case; and the necessary effect, if anything like that be true, would be to reduce the ballot to a much smaller question than it would otherwise be. But in the Ionian Islands there has never been any difference of opinion about the ballot. All men of all parties have been for it, yet it is impossible to conceive anything more pestilential—Iwill not say pestilential because that is a strong word; but I say it is impossible to conceive anything more injurious than the operation of that system among a people whose greatest misfortune and whose greatest curse at this moment is a want of moral and political courage. I think I have now done something towards showing that while, on the one side, if these institutions are totally inefficacious for the purpose of constitutional Government, upon the other side they are in a bad sense ultra-Liberal. What is perhaps not less mischievous than the foregoing, yet remains to be stated. An Assembly, consisting of forty-two gentlemen meets in a hall where the galleries hold a crowd of, I know not how many, certainly many hundreds, perhaps a thousand persons. We know perfectly well what would be the consequence if we were an Assembly of forty-two gentlemen meeting, not in the mere presence, but under the practical domination of that kind of popular sentiment which prevails under such circumstances. Even this is not the worst. Still there is one great characteristic of Ionian institutions worse than all this. It is this: every member of the Assembly is, in point of fact, a highly-salaried officer of the Government; and, for my part, I trust that of all the changes that may, in the course of generations be made in the institutions of this country, the very last and latest will be the payment of Members of this House. But we are now dealing with the Islands. Not only is the principle dangerous, but there has never been anything like it in degree anywhere. It is not even the mere payment of the Ionian members that prevails; for that, as in America and some states of the Continent—I will not now allude to France—has been bonâ fide in-

  1693
  tended rather to reimburse the members their actual costs than to operate as a pecuniary inducement to seek for election; but every member of the Ionian Assembly is, relatively to the standard of the country, a highly paid political officer, and unfortunately the principle does not stop there, it runs even further, and passes downward from the Assembly through the municipalities of the whole seven Islands. Altogether the operation of the system is to produce the most hopelessly corrupting influence that it is possible to conceive. The extensive and frequent elections, by popular vote, of salaried public officers is enough to destroy and eat up the heart of all political life and virtue in any country. This payment is carried to such a point that a member of the Ionian Assembly receives two or three times as much as a member of the Greek Chamber receives for his attendance at Athens. How has that come about? Unfortunately, it is a retribution which, though late, has come upon us for the manner in which we tampered with duties of our own when we first established a Government in the Ionian Islands under the British Protectorate. And here in one point I agree with the hon. Member. It is a happy characteristic of this country, that when faults have been committed it is our custom to confess them before the world. When the Government was first established under the British protectorate it was founded on the principle of bribing a certain portion of the Ionian people in order to establish the political servitude of the rest. On that principle the Assembly was constituted. But while that body was though nominally elected yet virtually nominated, the members of the municipalities were virtually nominated too. Both were well paid. The time came when they changed from virtually nominated into actually elected officers; but the system of paying the members was, unhappily, not abolished. Hence the hopeless corruption that pervades the Civil Government of the Islands from one end to the other. And the result is curious. Though England bears the entire cost of the military defence of the Islands, and though for this purpose the people are the most lightly taxed in Europe, yet they are on the whole rather more heavily taxed than the people of other countries, from having to contribute to the support of a whole crowd of functionaries, great and small, appointed to do nothing, or to superintend others in doing nothing in num-
  1694
  bers, much as if an actual army had been formed for the defence of the Islands. Now, Sir, I have spoken freely of these fundamental vices of the Government established under the protectorate of England. But I must in common justice to my country say, that while I believe we perhaps, too, finally shrank from giving the Ionians a real constitution in the full sense of the term, I think in every other point our policy and proceedings towards them were intended to be generous. We have made no exactions from them for the support of English interests. They have enjoyed a general security of person and property, such as I apprehend they had never before known. We have introduced many beneficial laws, and we have effected many material improvements that have greatly contributed to the comfort and well-being of the population. This being the state of the Ionian Islands, it certainly appeared to me, as Commissioner—and in this I obtained the assent and support of the right hon. Gentleman opposite the Member for Hertfordshire—that, though from European considerations we could not hold out any expectation that we should abandon the protectorate, yet it pertained to the character and honour of England that the offer should be made to the Ionians of a really free Legislature and of really free institutions. That offer was made, nor do I repent having been the organ through which it was made, whether it was accepted or not. I honestly confess I desire the wellbeing of the Ionian Islands. I am convinced that free institutions would confer upon them great benefits. I know their introduction would be a work of great difficulty, but they would tend gradually to produce a different phase of public opinion, and, likewise, bring out all the best elements of Ionian society—elements which are now smothered and kept down by the foul atmosphere generated by the existing corruptions. The habit of mind produced by such institutions would be the best guarantee and the best preparation for the future. But at the same time these gentlemen in the Islands have thought otherwise. Why have they thought otherwise? Because you have created there such an extraordinary mass of private and personal interests connected with the maintenance of great and little jobs in every form and in every quarter that you have a greater power enlisted against improvement than you can almost hope to bring into action in its favour. That is the real state of the

  1695
  case. The political life of the people is little developed, and the very same men—I beg the House to remark this, for it is of the first importance—the very same men who adhere the most closely to this system of corruption, and who as long as it is left undisturbed proclaim themselves the fast friends of England, are the first to assume the garb of the demagogue and to raise and inflame the cry for union with Greece the very moment you attempt to introduce those practical improvements which would do something to lay waste the rank pastures whereon they fatten. Such is, I believe, Sir, a true statement of the case of the Ionian Islands. I shall not enter into details of the nature of the Constitution which was offered to the people, but shall simply say that it was one which afforded a full and absolute power over the public purse in the sense in which we understand it, and that it, likewise, assigned to the Election Assembly of the Islands at all times a large, and ultimately a commanding influence over the composition of the executive Government, with entire guarantees for personal liberty under all circumstances, and with adequate means of bringing public functionaries to justice in case of malversation. That was in substance the offer which was made with the Executive Government of this country. It was made, both because we desired—I certainly desired it, and I may say the same for my right hon. Friend—to promote the welfare of the people of the Ionian Islands, and, likewise, because we felt the matter to be of great importance in reference to that which we prized still more—namely, the honour and character of England, which we believed to be at stake even in her dealings with that very limited people. Having trespassed thus far upon the patience of the House, I shall not detain hon. Gentlemen for a moment by saying anything that is personal to myself. If it is deemed even ridiculous—I do not mean by the hon. Member for Dungarvan, for nothing could be more kind than his speech—that I should have undertaken so small and limited a mission, and that I should have been obliged to retire from it baffled and disappointed, without any visible result, I am willing to boar without complaint any comment, any criticism, or any ridicule that may attach to my finding myself in that predicament. The object which I had in view, if it has not been gained so far as the advantage of the Ionian Islands is concerned, has been gained at least in one
  1696
  respect—namely, that we have effectually placed England in her right position as the friend of free and constitutional laws and institutions, and have thus enabled ourselves to look Europe in the face and say, that if evils and abuses still prevail in the Ionian Islands, they prevail not by our fault, but in despite of our honest endeavours to cure and to remove them.
  MR. CONINGHAMsaid, he heartily thanked the right hon. Gentleman for the disclosures he had made with respect to the condition of the Ionian Islands. The picture which the right hon. Gentleman had drawn of the Government which existed in those Islands afforded ample justification for the deep-seated discontent which prevailed among the people. Nothing could excuse the continuance of a Government so hateful to the people who lived under it; and now that the irresponsible head of a great and powerful country seemed disposed to lead the movement in favour of nationalities it was time for free and constitutional England to place herself in her true position, to abandon the obsolete doctrines of diplomacy, and to identify herself with the ideas and aspirations of the age. He trusted that after the speech which had just fallen from the Chancellor of the Exchequer Her Majesty's Government would reconsider their determination on the question, and not refuse the proposition of the hon. Member for Dungarvan.
  MR. LAYARDsaid, the question of the Ionian Islands was a very troublesome and mischievous one, and on that account he thought the opinion of the House should be expressed upon it, in order that a term might be put to an agitation mainly promoted by a factious minority, and that the people might be permitted to turn their attention to the development of their resources. If those who, like himself, were known to have raised their voices in favour of oppressed nationalities, without reference to country or creed, should express opinions unfavourable to the existing movement in the Ionian Islands, he could not help thinking that a good effect might be produced among the people. He regretted that the hon. Member for Dungarvan was not prepared to give a little of the sympathy which he had expressed towards the Ionian Islands to the Italians; but if the speeches of the hon. Gentleman proved one thing more more than another, they showed the mischief of hon. Members discussing questions

  1697
  of foreign policy in relation to countries with which they were not acquainted. Only a short time ago an hon. Member addressed the House on the affairs of Italy after a few weeks' residence in Rome, where he was not allowed to see anything which he was not wanted to see, and with little or no knowledge of the Italians as a people or of their language. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Dungarvan, (Mr. Maguire), in like manner had never visited the Ionian Islands, and had no knowledge of them beyond what he had gained from books or newspapers; if he had been as well acquainted with the islands and the country adjacent as he (Mr. Layard) was, he would not have expressed such opinions. The hon. Gentleman had endeavoured to make out a case for the Ionian Islands, but he had in reality shown the opposite of what he intended to prove. It might really be supposed from the language held on the subject that the Septinsular Republic had existed from all time, but the fact was that the Republic was only constituted in 1800. The result of the creation of the Republic was that in two years the island was in such a state of anarchy, and assassination was so rife, that the Ionians were obliged to appeal to the Emperor of Russia to defend them against themselves. In 1815, after mature deliberation, it was considered that, for the prosperity of the Islands, and for the peace of Europe, there should be an English protectorate. For many years afterwards, no doubt, the government of the Islands was not very good. We were inclined to govern them more for our own advantage than for theirs. But this state of things did not now exist. The hon. Gentleman assumed that they were governed now as they were governed thirty years ago. That was not the case. Yet, even during those thirty years, the inhabitants had experienced great prosperity. Lord Guildford gave them a magnificent university; Sir Howard Douglas covered the island with roads; and, in fact, notwithstanding certain periods of misgovernment, nearly every Lord High Commissioner had been a man of liberal opinions, desirous of promoting, as far as lay in his power, the prosperity of the people committed to his charge. Lord Seaton introduced to a certain extent a liberal form of Government, and gave the Ionians vote by ballot. That did not satisfy them; and then the right hon. Gentlemen the Chancellor of the Exchequer
  1698
  was sent out to see what additional concessions could be made. He (Mr. Layard) confessed he had feared at the time that the result of this mission would be a mischievous one; and what he foresaw had really occurred. The right hon. Gentleman, whose broad sympathies were well known, and whose reputation as a Greek scholar was also known, was received in the Ionian Islands, not as a great English statesman, but as a Phil-Hellene, favourable to their annexation to Greece, and when the inhabitants were disappointed they turned upon him. He made as generous a proposal as the protecting Power could offer, and if the Ionians had accepted it they would have been in a position in which no nation in Europe was placed. Indeed, their liberty would have been so great that the Lord High Commissioner could scarcely have had any jurisdiction. The right having been conceded to the Ionian Assembly to send an agent to England to complain of the Lord High Commissioner, wherein they considered that they had cause to do so. A party in the Chambers, however, not only rejected the constitution but refused to take it into consideration. They might have pursued their plans for annexation with Greece and at the same time have ameliorated the condition of their own country, but they preferred to take the course he had stated. Signor Lombardo, among other things, complained that the finances were badly administered, and that public instruction was impeded, but the responsibility of this rested upon the very persons who complained of the present state of things. As to the statement that the Ionians had no liberty for the expression of ideas, the fact was that in no country in Europe would the press have been permitted to publish such articles as were published in the Ionian Islands; and though the Lord High Commissioner had the power of resorting to the extraordinary measures described by the right hon. Gentleman, in no case of late years had he exercised those powers. Then there was a statement That the Ionians had not received the protection to which they had a right under the English flag. That was false. When he was Secretary to the Embassy at Constantinople he had to go to the Porte with claims on the part of Ionians which he was often heartily ashamed of advocating. The Ionians received from our consular agents in the East equal justice with British subjects, and sometimes more.

  1699
  The English flag protected their commerce (and the Ionians were now becoming the carriers of the East), and wherever they went they enjoyed the protection of English consular officers and of English treaties. But what they wanted was annexation to Greece; and why? It was really absurd to represent this as a question of nationality on the same footing with a country like Italy, which had common boundaries, a common language, and one great common literature. There were here seven small islands, containing a population of some 240,000. If they could assert their nationality, might not Malta and Gibraltar do so too, or even some island which it might be still more inconvenient for us to part with? He certainly did not deride what was sometimes called "the jargon of nationalities." He regarded it as the important question of the day; but they ought first to define in what nationality consisted. Did it mean identity of race, of language, of religion, and of geographical limits? If identity, on all these points, were required, the Ionian Islands had no right to claim nationality with Greece. The Greeks were fond of talking of planting the Cross upon St. Sophia's, at Constantinople, and asserting a nationality extending over all Turkey. The thing was perfectly monstrous. In European Turkey, out of 15,500,000 inhabitants, only 1,000,000 were Greeks; and in Asiatic and European Turkey together, out of 31,000,000 inhabitants, only 2,000,000 were Greeks. In Constantinople there were 891,000 inhabitants, of whom 130,000 were called Greeks, though more than one-half were Sclavonians. Thessaly, no doubt, formed a part of Greece, and he regretted it was not added to that kingdom when Greece was made independent. But in Albania there were only a few Greek families, and it had nothing to do with Greece, while the Bulgarians, the Bosnians, and the inhabitants of Roumelia were Sclavonians, who had no sympathy whatever with the Greeks. But were the Greeks themselves Greeks? Even this fact has been questioned by a distinguished German writer who had endeavoured to prove, and to the satisfaction of some, that there was not a single Greek in the whole of Greece. Nay, more, those gentlemen who took so prominent a part in the agitation which was the subject of discussion were not Greeks, but Italians by descent as well as by name, while in point of geographical position Corfu was not Greek, but Albanian,
  1700
  and if given up to any Power ought to be surrendered to Turkey, It would, however, in his opinion, be preposterous to give up Corfu at the present moment. If we were to do so that island would become a nest of pirates and the home of disaffected spirits of all kinds, who might eventually involve this country in a war and bring about that state of things in the East, for the prevention of which we had spent thousands of lives and millions of treasure. He did not think, therefore, any feeling of fancied nationality ought to be allowed to weigh with us in the matter. For his own part, he was anxious that the Ionian Islands should be as prosperous as possible, and if their inhabitants would only turn their attention to working out their own resources, and avail themselves of all the advantages which their beautiful climate afforded they might be as happy as any people in the world. He might observe before he sat down that he regretted very much to hear the hon. Member for Dungarvan speak in disrespectful terms of Sir Henry Storks, who was eminent not only as a military man, but who possessed civil and administration qualities of the highest order. Sir Henry Storks had long resided in the Ionian Islands; he was well acquainted with the language and customs of the native population; and no one, he would venture to say, could have behaved towards them in a "more liberal spirit. To that population—if the words of one who loved the Ionian Islands could reach them—he would repeat the advice to strive to develope their great resources, and to set agitation aside. The time might come when there would be a really free and well-governed Greece, and when it might be the interest of England as well as to the true interests of the Ionians to part with those Islands, but that time had not yet arrived. Meantime, he would make two suggestions of a somewhat practical character; one was that the pay of those gentlemen who put themselves forward so prominently in the cause of agitation should be stopped so long as they were not legislating in the House of Assembly; the other, that Santa Maura should be handed over to Greece for five years, and if at the end of that time she wished to continue in the same position, why, in God's name, let her remain annexed. If those steps were taken, agitation would, in his opinion, be soon at an end, and a great source of mischief to the Ionian Islands removed. He recollected having spoken to a Greek gentleman, who

  1701
  had once held office in Greece, on the subject, who said to him, "You do not know how to govern these people. If they belonged to us we should send a few Albanian regiments two years in arrear of pay, and you would soon see that they would keep them in order." What was the present condition of Greece? With the exception of Athens there was no security for life or property in any part of the country, There was no liberty of speech, no one dared to write or say anything in opposition to the Government, and the despotism which existed was painful to those who, like himself, were in favour of Greek regeneration. If the Ionians felt that they could expect no support from that House to the movement for an union with Greece, he believed the agitation would cease, and they would be led to direct their energies to some more profitable pursuit.
  MR. WHITESIDEsaid, the discussion in which the House was engaged was—as often happened in the case of debates in that House—of a nature to leave an attentive listener in a state of greater perplexity than he had been before it commenced. No Gentleman in that Assembly possessed in a higher degree those qualities for which the true Greek was remarkable—brilliant eloquence, fine imagination, and, he might add, all the gifts of nature—than the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and when the right hon. Gentleman had been sent out on his mission to the Ionian Islands he, for one, felt confident that, whatever the troubles might be which prevailed in that quarter of the world, they would be, under such distinguished auspices, arranged with more than the wisdom of Nestor and the cunning of an Ulysses. It was, there fore, no less with surprise than concern that he learnt the mission of the right hon. Gentleman had been marked by a failure so conspicuous. Never had a person of such gravity of character and of powers of eloquence so great as the right hon. Gentleman addressed an audience in the hope of reducing chaos to order, and out of confusion creating method and regularity in Government. That evening the right hon. Gentleman had made an able and interesting speech, in which he sketched the people of the Ionian Islands at first as being a docile and amiable race, and easy to govern; but, having laid down that position, he had proceeded, as was not unusual with him, to show how really ill-founded was the picture which he had drawn, and
  1702
  sought to prove to the House that there was scarcely a vice or a bad quality, whether public or private, which might not with justice be attributed to the interesting people in question. That being so, he ventured to say that if Government were before difficult in the Ionian Islands it would after the speech of the right hon. Gentleman be found impossible. Nay, more, whatever the popularity of the right hon. Gentleman might have been in those islands, it would, as soon as his speech had reached them, at once and for ever terminate. He had spoken of the Ionian Parliament as being composed of men who were all bad and corrupt, and had gone on to point out the remedies which he had suggested for those evils which he had so graphically described The result, however, was, that he loft matters in a state of greater perplexity than they were in before, except, indeed, that he had pointed out the impossibity of doing anything effectual. The right hon. Gentleman had failed to show what could be done with the Ionian Islands, seeing that they were not to be given up to Greece, and were not, according to him, fit to govern themselves. He contended that the people of those Islands were absurd and corrupt, and there he left them. Nor did the hon. Gentleman who had just spoken seem to know what was to be done under the circumstances, so the House must appeal to the noble Viscount at the head of the Government, who might not give expression to his opinions with so much eloquence as the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but who, nevertheless, might deal with the subject under discussion with more of common sense. For his own part, he believed that the inhabitants of the Ionian Islands had, so far as their personal liberties were concerned, no complaint to make against England; but he must, at the same time, observe that he believed the question of nationality which the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down had disposed of so summarily, was, after all, the real question they had to address their minds to; for he understood the right hon. Gentleman to say, that the Ionians were everywhere in favour of the nationality of Greece. The hon. Member for Dungarvan had said, that that was not a matter to be got rid of upon the materials contained in the despatch of the noble Lord the Foreign Secretary of the 10th October; for that despatch led to the conclusion that a people, no matter what were the principles

  1703
  of their Government, were to be masters of their own form of Government, and that when they decided what that form of Government was to be they were to be at liberty to build up the edifice of their constitution as they thought fit. When he read that despatch he knew what use would be made of it. It was immediately laid hold of and applied to Ireland and the Ionian Islands. The noble Viscount knew very well that he could not apply one law to a strong state and another to a weak one, and one principle to one state and another principle to another state. However true it might be that a nation like that of Italy had a right to choose its form of Government, it was not politic for the Foreign Minister to write an essay to that effect, any more than to say that it would be right to sanction the Poles in endeavouring to throw off their allegiance to their present rulers, although he disapproved of the iniquitous means by which the partition of Poland had been brought about. One thing had struck him very forcibly during the debate, and it was that there was a case very much in point. An Irish Gentleman, Mr. Smith O'Brien, was once prosecuted for his life, and the Whig Crown lawyers wished to give a particular colouring to acts he had committed in the county of Tipperary and the adjoining district, his life or death depending on the question of treasonable intent. They alleged that he, a British subject, had paid a visit to Paris and asked Lamartine to interfere in the internal affairs of this country, and that whatever might be the political abstractions on such a subject, in the case itself he (Mr. O'Brien) must be banged on the ground that to ask a foreign power to interfere in the internal concerns of another country was, on the part of a subject, an act of high treason. Mr. S. O'Brien was tried, not for his speeches, but for his acts. The Judges admitted the evidence, which was relied upon as evidence to explain the motives of all his actions, and to justify his condemnation to the scaffold. But had the noble Lord ever read the answer of Lamartine? It was a recorded fact that it was placarded all over the south of Ireland with a view of allaying the political fermentation which prevailed there. And why? Contrast that despatch with the answer of the noble Lord of October 10, and then they would see how a gentleman, a literary man—though not skilled in diplomacy, though not provided with Vattel, though not one
  1704
  of the school of international law of which the noble Viscount opposite was the founder, and of which another noble Lord near him was the most eminent professor—dealt with the same question. Lamartine answered—and on the answer depended, it was thought, whether or not the south of Ireland would be deluged with blood—that his ambassador was in England and the English ambassador in Paris, that the two countries were at peace, and that no matter how great the oppressions under which the Irish laboured might be—and Lamartine did not pretend to deny them—the inflexible principle of the law of nations made it impossible for him by any inducement or promise of assistance to excite or stimulate against a friendly Power an internal insurrection. It was the true principle which the Republican asserted, and while everybody might maintain the right of an oppressed people to judge of their own oppression, it was not proper for the Foreign Minister of England to write essays to show in what particular case subjects might rise against the authority that governed them, it if was desired to keep this country at peace with the world. He trusted that the hon. Under Secretary for the Colonies would acquaint the House with the scheme by which, as anticipated by the hon. Gentleman who spoke last, the population of the Ionian Islands would be restored to that state of contentment and happiness which the Chancellor of the Exchequer wished to give them, but which the right hon. Gentleman had most unfortunately failed to impart.
  MR. MONCKTON MILNESsaid, that the position of the Ionian Islands at the time of their union with this country was somewhat peculiar. They had been the great frontier between the Christian and the Mahometan world for many years. They had been governed by Italian rulers in an irregular form, as a sort of Italian colony, and all their sympathies were with those people on the mainland of Turkey whom they believed to be of the same race and knew to be of the same religion with themselves. What could be more natural than that, when placed under the British protectorate, they should take a deep interest in that Phil Hellenic movement, which he remembered so well occurring at an early period of his life, when political subjects first began to attract his attention? The noble Lord at the head of the Government took a part in that great movement, and he asked the noble Lord whether he did

  1705
  not see in the history of those times the germ of the principle of nationality which had now grown up in the Ionian Islands to be so troublesome in this country and so useless to the inhabitants themselves? If the Greek kingdom had progressed rapidly to a successful condition this matter might now present a different aspect, and the Greek Government might, perhaps, have been allowed, when able, to incorporate with their kingdom these portions of adjoining territories sympathizing with them. But the question was now complicated. The Greek Government had shown no disposition hitherto to appropriate the Ionian Islands, and he believed he was justified in stating that the Greek Government regarded as strangers the people on the islands in their possession, and did not allow to them all the privileges of Hellenic citizenship, not even to the inhabitants of the magnificent island of Hydra. Therefore, it would be very difficult to proceed by any formal Act to incorporate the Ionian Islands with Greece. But something might be done to show to the Ionian people that this country respected their feelings in the sense explained by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and, he believed that, if their feelings had been treated with the same regard and sympathy as had been exhibited by the right hon. Gentleman, matters would not have reached the inconvenient position in which they now were. It was because their feeling for nationality had been treated as something hostile to England that they were so difficult to govern. But that feeling was irrepressible; and he utterly denied that it was of a mere transitory nature. It was thoroughly internal and permanent, arising out of our historical past, and growing up to an historical future; and he trusted that the Government, whatever measure they might take, would remember that they had no right to treat the Ionian people as belonging, in the ordinary sense, to a British possession. Our business with them was to protect them from the assumption of other Powers, and it was a fact that it was only after the protectorate had been refused by Russia and Austria at the Treaty of Vienna that it was forced upon us. He had long been desirous to have the subject discussed in Parliament, because he had always felt that after a man of the high position and character of the right hon. Gentleman had been sent on so important a mission it was neither respectful to him nor in accordance with the usages of Parliament that no
  1706
  other information should have been laid before them as to the results of his labours than could be gathered from the newspapers or private sources of information. He could not understand what advantage was to be gained from keeping the right hon. Gentleman's reports so long shrouded in secrecy, when every statesman connected with the administration of our foreign affairs must have known that sooner or later the gist of it must creep out. The concealment of these transactions had been injurious to the character and position o the country in Europe. In every little German newspaper the story of the Ionians had been repeated to the disadvantage of England; but if this debate had taken place at an earlier period none of these accusations would have been beard. The Ionians must he governed on the principles of justice, and at the same time we should do well not to disregard those expressions of political feeling which, so far from being objectionable, were, as the right hon. Gentleman had well said, the very salt of their character, and the groundwork of that energy of character which at some future period would enable them to dispense with our protection. No one could have remarked the elasticity, energy, and activity of the Greek character without acknowledging that the nation was destined to play a great part in the world's history, and to that result he believed the Ionians would in due time contribute.
  MR. MONSELLsaid, he had listened with the greatest pleasure to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who evidently desired that, by the improvement of their institutions, the Ionians might be gradually educated so as to fit them to become part of that great people to which the hon. Member for Pontefract had just referred. And if the debate had closed with that speech, he should have been satisfied to have remained silent. The hon. Member for South-wark, however, in a speech which jarred harshly with the general tone of the discussion, had laid down several propositions in the dogmatic manner peculiar to him, to which he completely demurred. He said that though in former times the Ionians might have had something to complain of their Government now was a very good one. But was the hon. Gentleman aware that an arrangement made by Sir Thomas Maitland, by which the High Commissioner obtained very considerable influence over the archbishops and

  1707
  bishops, tad recently been taken advantage of to banish to a small island two priests who had been guilty of no other offence then the getting up of an address from the clergy to the Chancellor of the Exchequer? That was an act which every hon. Gentleman in the House he was sure would reprobate. He spoke in high terms of the roads in Corfu, but was he aware that the roads in Zante had been allowed to go entirely out of repair, and that it was almost impossible to traverse them except on horseback? The speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was calculated to sooth the pride of the islanders, and to lead them to acquiesce in the offers which the Government might think it expedient to make them. The speech of the hon. Gentleman, on the contrary—if the Ionians should unfortunately think that his opinions were generally shared by the people of this country—were calculated to alienate them still further. Nothing could be more to be regretted than that, for he looked forward to a gradual improvement in their position without that union with Greece which they desired at present. At some future time he hoped they would be united with the Greek people, who, by their energy and abilities as a commercial people, had vindicated for themselves a great national position. Every friend of the progress of civilization in the East must look forward to that day. The hon. Gentleman was a great admirer of the new doctrines laid down by the noble Lord the Foreign Secretary, who, by the way, was not present that night, thinking, probably, that the discussion might be an awkward one. The noble Lord had laid down the principle that when a people considered themselves to be badly governed they had a right to throw it off. They were to be the sole judges. On that principle the noble Lord would be unable to deny the Ionians the right of joining themselves to Greece or any other country if they thought fit. It was the doctrine laid down by all revolutionists for the last seventy or eighty years, and carried to its legitimate extent by Mr. Jeffreson, who maintained that every people ought to have an opportunity of revising its Government every twenty years, as the sons might not be satisfied with the institutions of their fathers. His main object in rising was to protest against the unsympathizing tone in which the hon. Member for Southwark (Mr. Layard) had spoken of the inhabi-
  1708
  tants of the Ionian Islands. He rejoiced to think that the hon. Member stood alone, and that Ionian people would learn from the debate of this evening that the English Parliament sympathized with them, and were not averse to the ultimate realization of the national desires and aspirations. He trusted, however, that they would not go faster than reason, justice, and policy, prescribed, and that they would be satisfied with accepting the liberal propositions of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whereby they might train themselves in due time to be a part of the great nation which would one day, he trusted, be established in that part of the world.
  MR. LAYARDsaid, he wished to explain. He denied that he had said anything calculated to irritate or wound the feelings of the Ionian people. His intention was quite the reverse.
  MR. CHICHESTER FOKTESCUEsaid, that after the admirable and exhaustive speech of his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer he only rose to explain somewhat more fully the nature of the Papers which the Government were willing to present to Parliament on the subject. The Papers were of two classes. Three or four reports were sent home to the Crown by his right hon. Friend (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) during his mission at Corfu, which the Government in their discretion, supported by the House, did not think it expedient to present to Parliament. These were documents of a very peculiar kind, and not at all of the nature of Lord Durham's report on the Canadas to which allusion had been made in the course of the debate. The Ionian Islands were not colonies, and Parliament had no power of legislating for them; whereas the result of Lord Durham's mission and report was the passing of an Act of Parliament for the government of the Canadian colonies. Nor were these reports in the nature of diplomatic negotiations with a foreign Power, such as were frequently laid before Parliament. They were reports of the most confidential character addressed to the Crown, the result of which had been embodied by his right hon. Friend in an Address to the Legislature of the Ionian Islands and in a number of Resolutions containing the plan of constitutional reform he proposed. There were, however, many suggestions that had not been adopted—many discussions of a free character which might be of use at some future opportunity, but to publish which

  1709
  at present would do no good, but only furnish texts for a violent press and for political agitators in the islands. On the other hand there were Papers which the Government were both willing and ready to lay on the table. There was correspondence of a public nature that would explain the character of his right hon. Friend's mission, its result, and the reasons why his plan of reform had been rejected. A great deal of the information had already been made public, but it would be now laid upon the table in a Parliamentary shape, and some of the facts might add to the knowledge already possessed by the House. He thanked the hon. Member for Southwark for the way in which he had spoken of Sir Henry Storks, who deserved every word of the eulogy which had been passed on him. He could answer for Sir Henry Storks, that he had carried forbearance to the limits of duty, and that nothing would have induced him to terminate before the proper time the Session of the Assembly but the adoption of violent and unconstitutional measures by an unscrupulous minority, encouraged by a turbulent and disorderly crowd in the galleries. But, although that had been done, he trusted that the House would not be led to suppose that the Ionian Islands were at the present moment governed by force. The state of the case was that the Ionian Assembly had by its own act deprived the Ionian Islands of the full enjoyment of free institutions for the time being. He could himself bear witness to the fact that valuable measures of improvement would have been laid on the table of the Assembly but for the unconstitutional measures which had rendered the interference of Sir Henry Storks necessary. At present the islands were governed by the Ionian Senate, assisted by the Lord High Commissioner. The Senate was virtually, though indirectly, an elective body drawn from the body of the Assembly, and comprising some of its most eminent members, so that the utmost hardship the islands could suffer was that they would be governed by that eminent Ionian Council. As to the Ionian Islands being in a state of turbulence and agitation, nothing could be further from the truth. They were, on the contrary, in a state of the most profound tranquillity. No repressive measures had been found necessary. The agitation was merely on the surface, and was, indeed, to a great extent, factitious. No doubt the agitators and some honest en-
  1710
  thusiasts had a real national sentiment to work upon, but that sentiment was one of the most mild and peaceful character, which did not interfere with the happiness and tranquillity of daily and family life. The echo of these storms was, in fact, louder in London than in Corfu, and he doubted whether so much had been said about the feeling of nationality in six weeks in the Ionian Ialands as had been uttered that night in the House of Commans. He felt a sanguine belief that the discussion which had just taken place would do good in the Ionian Islands. It would convince the inhabitants that not only the British Government, but that the liberty loving Parliament of this country was determined, in the interest of Europe, to retain the protectorate over these islands—a link so light that it need scarcely be felt, and which might be consistent with the enjoyment of the fullest domestic freedom and order in those islands.
  MR. MAGUIREsaid, he should accept the offer of the Government, and appeal to their liberality to give the fullest possible information on the subject. It was far from his intention to say anything disrespectful of Sir Henry Storks. He meant only to remark that it was a scandal that the gallant Gentleman should have been placed in such a difficult position as to be obliged to apply to the Colonial Government for advice on such a subject. The description given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer must have made a painful impression on the House, and vindicated many things which he had said. The Government might, according to their belief, be perfectly right in laying down the doctrine that, no matter what was said to other countries, the protectorate of the Ionian Islands must be maintained at all hazards. But when it was said, some time since, that the great interests of the Catholics required that the temporal power of the Pope should be maintained, the hon. Member for Southwark, and other Gentlemen were ready enough to exclaim, "We do not care for those large interests—what do the Roman people say?" He retorted now, "What do the Ionian people say?" Wriggle out of it as they might, the same broad principle should be made to apply to one country as well as to another. It was insinuated that he was a recent convert to liberal opinions. It was not so. His sympathies extended to the whole world. He wished every man to be free—black or white, civilized or savage—and he

  1711
  wished the Italians to enjoy true freedom. But what he objected to was that, under pretence of leaving people to manage their own affairs, the Government had done their best to excite the people of other countries to revolution. If the Government maintained a dignified neutrality he should be quite satisfied. Let foreign Governments and their people fight it out, but let not the Government use the influence of England to crush feeble monarchies and destroy the dynasties of small States. There was no inconsistency between what he had advocated during his whole life. The Chancellor of the Exchequer seemed to think that he had described his offers as very small. On the contrary, he said the right hon. Gentleman went with his hands full of gifts, and as they were rejected, the fact of their being large proved how strong was the feeling of the people in favour of annexation to Greece. He should be sorry if he had injured the cause of the Ionians; but he did not believe that he had, and he was quite satisfied with the result of the debate.
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: Sir, I will just say that the hon. Gentleman has shown a very fair and candid spirit, and on the part of the Government I thank him very much for it. I am convinced that he will find in the papers to be presented all the information which he is justly entitled to ask, or which it would be expedient to give. I also concur in thinking that the course which this discussion has taken must do good in the Ionian Islands. It will, I trust, convince the people that on the part of Her Majesty's Government, of Parliament, and of the people of this country there is no feeling with regard to them except that of an earnest desire to contribute to their happiness and prosperity, and I hope that they will be impressed with the conviction that we are so strongly anxious to promote their happiness and prosperity that nothing will induce us to consent to inflict on them the serious injury and evil which would arise from annexation to the Kingdom of Greece. Of course, it is all very well to talk of that as an object of desire to the people of the Ionian Islands; but if hon. Gentlemen knew the present condition of Greece, the discontent which there prevails and the indication of events which are inconsistent with internal tranquility, I am sure they would think that, in the interest of the Ionian Islands, Her Majesty's Government have judged rightly in declining to comply
  1712
  with the wish expressed for a junction with Greece. We are discharging a duty imposed on us by treaty, and at the same time by a due sense of regard for the best interests of the people of the Ionian Islands, in steadily refusing to comply with that request. I trust that the people of those islands will concur with Her Majesty's Government in endeavouring to effect those internal improvements in their condition of which that condition is susceptible, and I can assure the hon. Gentleman and the House that if this discussion should, in any way, contribute to facilitate such an arrangement, we shall thank the hon. Gentleman for having originated the discussion this evening.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

  JERSEY COURT.—LEAVE.
  MR. SERJEANT PIGOTTsaid, he rose to move for leave to bring in a Bill to amend the constitution, practice, and procedure of the Court of the Island of Jersey. He should not have ventured on such a step had he not ascertained that there was no probability of the Crown taking the initiative in such a reform during the present Session, and there was not the least likelihood of any reform ever proceeding from that Court itself. The Court consisted of the bailiff, a salaried officer appointed by the Crown, and twelve jurats, who were elected by the parishes. The bailiff was the only member of the Court who had any legal education. The only qualification for a jurat was a rental of £30 a year, and the only disqualification the trade of baker, butcher, or brewer. Such was the Court which decided the most difficult cases. In 1846 a Commission inquired into the working of the Court as a court of criminal law; for the administration, both of the civil and criminal law, was in its hands. That Commission expressed its entire disapprobation of the Court, which it stated to be unfit, from want of legal knowledge, to administer the law; as being often guided in its decisions by party feeling; and as neither possessing nor deserving the confidence of the inhabitants. Since that time another Commission had gone fully into the subject, and in their Report they also described the Royal Court as incompetent, as characterized by a disregard of many of the functions confided to it, and as a tribunal in which "extortion, oppression, and injustice seemed ed to be an ordinary course of proceed-

  1713
  ing." The position of the bailiff was described as essentially vicious, the jurats as frequently judges in their own case as managers of the impô t, and the inhabitants regarded the Court as too weak to prevent "indecent conflicts of language and even personal violence" from being committed within it. As an illustration of the kind of injustice and oppression perpetrated under the existing system, he might cite the case of a gentleman named Dodd, who went to reside in Jersey a few years ago, and was wrongfully arrested for a debt of £800, alleged to have been incurred by him in England as trustee of an estate. He made numerous and unavailing efforts to procure his liberty—procured even an injunction from the Court of Chancery, which was disregarded—and was not discharged till three years had elapsed, when the Royal Court at length declared that he had been illegally arrested. Another case was that of Mr. Blunt, who went from Birmingham to the island, was arrested for a debt which he no doubt owed; he acknowledged the claim and endeavoured to obtain his discharge by passing through the Jersey Insolvent Court, and giving up all his possessions, but, because he was unable to give up a settlement which his wife had upon some property—a settlement which was not in his keeping, and which it was not in his power to deliver up—he was still a prisoner, and might remain so for life, or at least till released by the passing of such a remedial measure by that House, as he was about to ask leave to introduce. Any Englishman visiting the island might be treated as these two men had been; but, however great the injustice, there was no proper tribunal to which they could appeal for protection. He had presented a petition from an hon. Member of that House (Mr. Packe) who was entitled to a considerable tract of land in the island, which had come down to him from an ancestor who acquired it in the reign of Charles II. A house had been built by a taxpayer on a piece of waste land belonging to the estate, and had been let to a tenant. A writ of ejectment was brought to regain possession of the property, and in six months a judgment was obtained; such as it, was. The judgment was that a number of persons had obtained a right of common over the waste land, and that all these must be made defendants in the suit. As the number of persons who claimed the right of common amounted to about 400, and as they were
  1714
  unknown to the petitioner, who could not tell who they were, he was thus prevented from prosecuting his suit for the recovery of the property. There was what was called the process of partage in Jersey. It consisted in dividing among the children the property left by a father. The Commissioners stated that ten years was an ordinary time to be spent in this process, and one case was mentioned which they said might well have been
  decided by an arbitrator in twenty-four hours, but which had already occupied the Court for seventeen years. The only question to be considered at present was whether the reformation of such a system as existed in Jersey ought to be taken in hand by the Imperial Parliament or left to the States themselves? He ventured to think that the House would not leave it to the States to reform themselves, seeing that they had allowed those abuses to exist for so long a time. If the States had the least wish for reformation, they would have adopted some line of action long before the present time. It was quite evident that they had no intention to move in the matter; and his opinion was that, if the House of Commons did not give him leave to bring in this Bill, those oppressions, extortions, and acts of injustice would continue. If the House gave him permission to introduce his Bill, it would be the easiest matter in the world to constitute a Court founded in accordance with recommendations of both sets of Commissioners. The hon. and learned Member concluded by moving for leave to bring in a Bill to amend the constitution, practice, and procedure of the Courts of the island of Jersey.
  MR. HADFIELDseconded the Motion. He presumed that there would be no opposition to the first reading, and he trusted that before the Motion for reading the Bill a second time Her Majesty's Government would lay upon the Table Returns which he had moved for in the present Session, but which had not yet been produced. Those returns would reveal a state of things which would astonish the House. It was time that the petition of the inhabitants of the island should be complied with. At the present time some of the offices in Jersey were matters of sale. His hon. and learned Friend had stated sufficient to show the abuses in the administration of the law, and it was notorious that there was no protection for trust property. The land system was also very defective. He be-

  1715
  lieved that if some such machinery as that of the Irish Encumbered Estates Court were set in motion in Jersey the value of land would increase 60 per cent.
  MR. SOTHERON ESTCOURTsaid, he presumed that there was no intention on the part of the Government to object to the Bill being brought in. Any one who took the trouble of reading the admirably drawn report of the Commissioners would find in it a mass of astounding facts, with regard not only to the law but also to the Court which administered the law in Jersey. These facts called loudly for the interference of the supreme authority of this country. Before the last Commission issued he had received representations from various parties in the island disclosing a state of things which would appear almost incredible. These representations stated that suits were continued for a number of years, and continued under circumstances that left no hope to the parties of there being any decision within a reasonable time; that persons were put in prison without owing a farthing, and that there was no fair opportunity for resisting such proceedings. The rules of the Court were such as to put it out of the power of any person to interfere. Without intending any disrespect to the hon. Member by whom this subject had been opened, he hoped the Government would take the matter into its own hands, for it was really of a nature too important to be intrusted to any single individual. If a remedy were not at least attempted in the present Session, it would be a disgrace to the Legislature; and legislative interposition was especially called for at the present juncture, because, not only were the laws and judicial system of Jersey defective, but the supreme authority of Parliament was disputed in that island. Even if the existing evils were successfully dealt with, the Report of the Commissioners would remain an interesting and most curious record of a state of the law which was altogether anomalous.
  SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, he was not about to defend either the constitution or the procedure of the Court of Jersey, or the similar Court in the island of Guernsey. They had been condemned by more than one Commission, and if ten Commissions, composed of competent men, were appointed, he believed they would all be obliged to arrive at similar conclusions. If Jersey were an integral part of the United Kingdom, and the matter were
  1716
  ready for legislation, he should not hesitate to lay on the table a Bill dealing with the question. But the difficulty lay in the fact that Jersey was only a dependency of the Crown. It was a separate appanage from the United Kingdom, and it had not been the custom of Parliament habitually to legislate with regard to that island. He could not suppose that any inhabitant was so little master of his sense or understanding as to deny the power of Parliament to legislate with regard to it; but what was disputed was the power of the Crown by Orders in Council to make constitutional changes in the laws of the island—a point as to which doubts might be reasonably entertained. The residents were undoubtedly animated by feelings of great loyalty to the Queen, and of attachment to Great Britain; but they were also strongly attached to their ancient laws, absurd and inconvenient as these might appear in the eyes of others. The House had heard that evening of some islands to which the offer of an amended constitution was made, which they, nevertheless, unanimously rejected. Was it by any means certain that the measure of reform proposed by the hon. and learned Gentleman would meet with a more favourable reception than had been accorded to the proposals of the right hon. Gentleman by the Legislature of Corfu? Of course there was a limit to the forbearance of Parliament; and, owing to the increased number of English residents in the Channel Islands, consequent on the increased facilities of communication, the attachment to old customs no longer prevailed there to the same extent. He, therefore, regarded the question mainly as a question of time. A year had not elapsed since the report of the Commissioners was issued, and immediately on its publication he caused a letter to be addressed to the Lieutenant-Governor of Jersey, requesting that he would bring the matter formally under the notice of the States. No definitive step had yet been taken by the States, and his feeling was that if, after a due interval had been allowed for deliberation, the States declined to adopt any remedial measures, Parliament would then legitimately be called on to interfere. The introduction of the present Bill, to which he should offer no objection, would act as a seasonable hint; but he very much doubted whether the time had not yet arrived for peremptory action.
  MR. COLLIERsaid, that having spent

  1717
  some time in Jersey, and having made himself acquainted with the laws of the island, he must state his conviction that the laws in Jersey were worse administered than in any civilized country in the world, and that the Government might be called upon before the lapse of very considerable time to deal with the abuses.
  MR. O'BRIENsaid, he had never heard a word urged in defence of the local tribunals of Jersey. Once when a native resident was defeated by the unanswerable case made out by an Englishman, he exclaimed—"Is it come to this, that a Jersey man is not to succeed in his own court?"
  CAPTAIN JERVISsaid, he would only ask the House to remember that the Channel Islands had no representative in Parliament, and that they were consequently bound to deal tenderly with them. With regard to the islands, to which the right hon. Gentleman had alluded, power was given to England by the treaties of 1815 to amend their constitution; and if it were not altogether what it ought to be, it was entirely the fault of this country.
  Leave given.
  Bill to amend the Constitution, Practice, and Procedure of the Court of the Island of Jersey, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Serjeant PIGOTT, Mr. HADFIELD, and Mr. COLLIER.

  TURNPIKE ROADS AND BRIDGES.

    COMMISSION MOVED FOR.
    MR. ALCOCKsaid, he rose to move that an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, that She will be graciously pleased to issue a Royal Commision to inquire and report how far it may be desirable and practicable to substitute an equitable system of assessment in lieu of the present mode of maintaining the turnpike roads and bridges in England and Wales by tolls. He only asked the Government to follow out the course which had already been adopted in Scotland and Ireland. In his opinion the best plan would be to abolish the gates and tolls at once, and to raise by highway rates a sufficient sum to pay the interest of the debts for which they should be mortgaged. He had already submitted such a plan to the trustees of the Reigate road, with which he was connected, and it had been very favourably received. He, however, did not intend to make any suggestion to the House as to what was the best to be done; all he required was a Commission to inquire into the whole subject, with a view to some definite plan by which to secure the object he had in view. There
    1718
    were trusts in Essex receiving as much as £4,000 a year, and yet they had not got a penny of debt. The chief obstacle to turnpike toll reform was the surveyor's interest, as he might call it. The surveyor of roads had great influence over the country gentlemen, and thus the present system was maintained. There were 23,000 miles of turnpike roads in the country, and the bonded debt on those roads was about £5,000,000; and the whole cost of carrying out the scheme he proposed with regard to all the turnpikes and toll-paying bridges of the kingdom would, according to calculations which he defied the right hon. Baronet the Home Secretary to question, amount to only £790,000 per annum. A rate of 1¾d. in the pound on the real property of the country would provide that amount and more. He had been told by the Leatherhead trustees that they were anxious to get rid of their tolls, but the Secretary of State compelled them to renew their tolls for twenty-one years. Now, all he asked of the right hon. Gentleman was to do that for England which he had thrice done both for Ireland and Scotland, and he trusted, therefore, that he would not oppose the Motion.
    SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, that he could not vote in favour of the Motion. The question was, as the hon. Gentleman said, a very simple one; and he did not for a moment doubt that his calculations were all accurate, and that his plan if adopted would produce the results which he had promised. If that was so, however, there was no occasion to have recourse to the expensive, circuitous, and dilatory proceeding of issuing a Commission. All the facts were presented to Parliament in an annual statement prepared in the Home Office, and if there was a general opinion that turnpike tolls ought to be abolished, the materials for legislation were at hand, and there could be no difficulty in framing a measure to do away with them. Before adopting such a course, however, it might be wise to inquire what had been the result of the existing system. The revenue in 1837 was £1,500,000, and in 1858, the last year of which they had the accounts made up, it was only £1,000,000. The revenue was, therefore, diminishing, in consequence of the great diminution of receipts along the main lines of communication. Looking, on the other hand, at the charge, it was found that the repairs, which in 1837 cost £938,000, had diminished to £537,000,

    1719
    and the improvements, which in 1837 cost £202,000, had diminished to £36,000. Therefore, although the revenue had fallen off, the charge had diminished at least in in a corresponding degree. The bonded debt, which in 1837 was £7,000,000, was last year reduced to £4,900,000. That was a most satisfactory state of gradual reduction. The unpaid interest, which in 1837 was £1,000,000, had been reduced to £780,000. The financial state of turnpike trusts, therefore, was by no means unfavourable. Certainly the tax was an unpleasant one. It had unpleasant reminiscences for travellers,—
    "Onward as we roll,
    "Surgit amari aliquid, the toll."
    He did not think, however, that the House would be prepared to vote for the issue of a Commission, or to act upon the conclusion that the whole system of maintaining the roads by means of tolls ought to be abolished.
    MR. J. H. PHILLIPSsaid, he was glad to hear that the right hon. Gentleman would not assent to the issuing of the Commission of Inquiry, for there really was nothing to inquire into. He had no objection to the abolition of tolls, but he certainly objected to that being accomplished by the process of paying for them by the people of one district putting their hands into the pockets of another.
    MR. PACKEsaid, he would remind the hon. Member that roads and bridges were maintained from two different sources—the roads by tolls, the bridges by the counties, so that the Commission he proposed would have two different subjects to inquire into. He was glad the right hon. Gentleman was disposed to refuse an assent to the Motion.
    Motion made, and Question,
    "That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, that She will be graciously pleased to issue a Royal Commission to inquire and report how far it may be desirable and practicable to substitute an equitable system of assessment in lieu of the present mode of maintaining the Turnpike Roads and Bridges in England and Wales by Tolls."
    Put, and negatived

  TRAMWAYS (IRELAND) ACT AMENDMENT BILL.—COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read.
  House in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 1 agreed to.
  Clause 2,
  COLONEL DUNNEsaid, that he objected
  1720
  to centralization, and did not see why the counties should not decide for themselves in respect to tramways as well as with regard to common roads. He would have the tramways put on the same footing as common roads. If they gave the county the power of making short tramroads he did not see why they should not manage that matter as well as the matter of ordinary roads.
  SIR EDWARD GROGANsaid, they were arguing the principle of the Bill of last year on the clauses of the Bill before them. The clause under consideration would do away with all the securities of the Bill of last year, which had been well and carefully considered in Committee. It was true that the Bill of last year was altered in "another place," but the second clause of the present Bill did not apply to anything which had been so altered. Its effect would be to deprive the country gentry of the only protection they had against private speculations. He hoped the House would adopt the Amendment and reject the clause.
  MR. CARDWELLsaid, Ireland was well furnished with trunk railroads, but not with branch railways, and the object of the Bill of last Session was to enable small towns which lay at a certain distance from railways, and which could not afford to have a Bill of their own for the construction of a railway, to have such railway constructed, and the plan was, as in the Health of Towns Act, for the Secretary of State to make orders for these railways, which had no legal effect till they received the sanction of the House in a general Bill. The question was whether the matter should come before the grand jury twice? It appeared to him that by the Bill the landowners would be placed with regard to those roads in the same position that they were in with regard to ordinary roads, and that the clause should not he expunged, but that another clause should be inserted to give the landowners the protection of the grand jury and the privy council in Ireland.
  MR. LONGFIELDsaid, that the Bill would require to be considerably altered before it could meet with general adoption.
  Mr. BUTTsaid, he would undertake, if the Amendment were not pressed, to alter the clause as suggested by the right hon. Chief Secretary for Ireland before bringing up the Report.
  COLONEL DUNNEsaid, he thought that the best mode would be to refer the Bill to

  1721
  a Committee, where the details could receive that amount of consideration which they could not receive in the Committee of the House.
  Question put, "That Clause 2 stand part of the Bill."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 157; Noes 106: Majority 51.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 3,
  COLONEL DUNNEexpressed a hope that the third clause would be omitted. He was anxious to place the powers under the Act in the hands of a Grand Jury, instead of the Lord Lieutenant in Council, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman, the Secretary for Ireland, would endeavour by this and other Amendments to render the measure more perfect than was unfortunately the case at present.
  MR. BUTT MR. BUTT moved that the Chairman report Progress, and ask leave to sit again.
  MR. HENNESSYobserved, that he had never seen Irish Bills promoted in any satisfactory manner by right hon. Gentlemen sitting on the Treasury Benches. They had the misfortune to be ruled in Ireland at present by a gentleman who knew nothing whatever of the country, and whose conduct of Irish business, as evidenced by his proceedings with reference to the Bill under consideration, had struck him (Mr. Hennessy) with astonishment. He, for one, protested against reporting Progress. The hon. Member for Youghal (Mr. Butt), who was a sort of unofficial Attorney General, might think proper to make an arrangement with the Government in order to facilitate the progress of Government business, but that was no reason why they should report Progress. Night after night the Committee on the Bill had been postponed; and now, in presence of a full House, when the best possible opportunity was afforded for the discussion of the Bill, they were, forsooth, again to postpone the Bill to suit the convenience of the Government.
  LORD NAASsaid, he thought that there was no such urgency in regard to the business before the House to justify the postponement of notices of Motion on a Tuesday night in favour of the Orders of the Day. Tuesdays were always devoted to the business of private Members, and it was very hard that their privilege should be attempted to be abrogated. If the hon. and learned Gentleman did not persevere with the measure now, he could not hope to carry it through this Session.
  MR. BUTTsaid, he was exceedingly anxious to go on with the Bill. He had moved that the Chairman report Progress, not because of any understanding with the Government, but because he owned he had lost his temper, and felt that the Committee on their part were hardly in a temper to consider the Bill.
  MR. WHITESIDEsaid, he thought the hon. and learned Gentleman ungrateful. In his experience he had never seen the House in so amiable a mood, and he had no doubt if the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Ireland threw his usual energy into the matter they might get on with the Bill.
  CAPTAIN JERVISsaid, it was bad encouragement to private Members, after assenting for the benefit of the Government to the new arrangements for facilitating public business, to find that on the very first night afterwards the Bill of a private Member was to be thrust aside for the purpose of Government business.
  SIR FRANCIS GOLDSMIDsaid, he wished to know whether the extraordinarily full attendance of hon. Gentlemen on the benches opposite was for the purpose of discussing an Irish Tramway Bill?
  MR. LONGFIELDsaid, he for one could assure the hon. Baronet he had come down solely for the purpose of discussing the Irish Tramway Bill.
  COLONEL DUNNEsaid, from the nature of the business before the House, he did not expect the Bill would be brought on that evening; and he was, therefore, unprepared to discuss the Amendments of which he had given notice.
  LORD ROBERT CECILsaid, that the point at issue had gone beyond an Irish question. It was from what had occurred that evening evident that a great deal more than met the eye underlay the changes in the proceedings of the House which had a few nights ago been introduced. The policy of the Government in making those changes was now apparent. They hoped by their means to seize for their own purposes all the valuable hours of the Tuesday nights, leaving the hours when hon. Gentlemen were occupied in dining, and the House was comparatively empty to private Members. That was an attempt which, in his opinion, it became the interest not only of Irish Members, but of private Members generally, to resist at the very outset. It had reference to ulterior steps to be taken with respect

  1723
  to the Budget, and was of a piece with the devices by which that scheme had been characterized from beginning to end—devices by which it was proposed to wreak the vengeance and spite of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the House of Lords—devices, he might add, more worthy of an attorney than of a statesman. If the right hon. Gentleman sought to force his Budget on before the proper time it was, of course, open to him, backed by a majority, to do so; but he was sure such tactics as those to which it would seem he was condescending to resort for the purpose would neither advance his own reputation nor tend to expedite the progress of his measures.
  MR. CONINGHAMsaid, he ventured to say that a more unjustifiable or more unwarrantable attack than that of the noble Lord (Lord Robert Cecil) upon the right hon. Gentleman had never been made in that House. It was perfectly true that the Government was anxious to bring on the consideration of the Budget, but it was equally evident to every dispassionate person that hon. Members on the other side were doing all in their power to prevent it.
  MR. DISRAELIobserved that the discussion appeared to be characterized by a great deal of unnecessary heat. He did not find fault with the Government for desiring to advance the public business intrusted to their charge by every legitimate means which the course of Parliamentary proceeding enabled them to adopt. He had pointed out to the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the previous evening, in no spirit of hostility, the course which he thought, upon the whole, it would be most convenient the House should adopt in reference to the progress of his measures, consistently with affording hon. Gentlemen those occasions for the due discussion of business—especially business of great importance, which no Minister ought to grudge the House of Commons. The right hon. Gentleman had not, however, concurred in the suggestions on the subject which he had thrown out, as it was perfectly competent for him to do; but, it nevertheless, behoved hon. Members to consider the peculiar circumstances under which they were assembled that evening. It was the first evening on which the new rules regulating the mode of proceeding with the business of the House had come
  1724
  into force, and it was, therefore, both for the interests of the Government itself, and the maintenance of that good feeling and temper which, notwithstanding party conflicts, it was the duty of every hon. Gentleman to uphold who valued the character of the House of Commons—most desirable that those rules should not be misunderstood or the conduct of the Government in taking advantage of them open to suspicion. For his own part he was quite willing to take his share of the responsibility of having supported the new regulations in the Committee, while he acquitted the Government of any preconceived intention of bringing about the particular state of things in which the House now found itself. He could not at the same time help regarding it as a somewhat unfortunate circumstance, that changes which had been framed with the view of carrying on the public business for the public advantage should seem, on the first occasion on which they were brought into operation—and on a Tuesday night too, which it had been constantly urged in the Committee was a night on which the privileges of private Members were never to be interfered with—give rise for a single moment to the feeling that the Government were disposed to avail themselves of those opportunities to advance the Government business, and that too in dealing with measures which necessarily created great excitement. He was ready to admit that it might have been perfectly fair for the Government to whisper into the ear of the hon. Member for Dungarvan that he had better not bring on the subject of the Ionian Islands that evening. Had they even, by some contrivance, saved the House from travelling to Jersey he would have been disposed to pass over the arrangement without comment. The postponement of the discussion on belligerent rights was, indeed, urged for reasons in which he could not concur; and he could not help thinking that it was unfortunate that his Motion on the subject had not been brought forward by the hon. Member for Liverpool, for the debate upon it would, in his opinion, have tended to the advantage of the country and to the reputation of the House of Commons. He did not, however, mean for a moment to contend that the Government, in expressing an opinion favourable to delay in the matter, had been actuated by any other motive than a sense of public duty, while he could pardon any Minister who might

  1725
  have recommended the hon. and learned Member for Tiverton (Mr. Denman) not to submit to the notice of the House the claims of the Baron de Bode, or the Danish claims which had been made the subject of discussion for the last thirty years. But when he came to a practical subject such as that before the House, which involved a reform important to the Irish people, which was brought forward by an hon. and learned Gentleman who seemed to possess the confidence of the Government, and brought forward, too, with such general sympathy on the part of the House that upon a division a commanding majority expressed the high favour with which it was regarded, he could not help regretting the course in reference to it which had been pursued. He hoped the House would not under the circumstances sanction the Motion to report Progress which the hon. and learned Member so deeply concerned in the fate of the Bill had made; but, on the contrary, would proceed with the discussion in Committee, and permit a valuable measure to be advanced a stage.
  SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, that he wished to remove a misapprehension which seemed to exist in the mind of the right hon. Gentleman as to the regulations which had been recently adopted with reference to the conduct of public business. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to intimate that, in consequence of the new regulations, the Report of Ways and Means was to be brought on that night; but the right hon. Gentlemen must remember that it was the usual practice, when a Committee of Supply or Ways and Means had been taken on a Monday, for the Report to be fixed for the following day. That was a practice sanctioned by the House from time immemorial. It might be a question whether, if a discussion was likely to arise, the Report should be brought on at a late hour; but Tuesday was quite as open for the purpose as any other day, and the Government had not availed themselves of any new privilege in fixing the Report of Supply and of Ways and Means for that night; nor was there, as the noble Lord had said, something more in the proceeding than met the eye.
  MR. BENTINCK: It is not often that an hon. Member who has been in a minority of, I think, ninety-eight against two hundred or more, finds himself in so short a time in a position which clearly proves that the minority were right and the majority wrong. I cannot agree with the
  1726
  right hon. Gentleman the Member for Buck inghamshire that the Government are entirely free from blame in this matter, but I think the observations which have fallen from my noble Friend the Member for Stamford (Lord Robert Cecil) are perfectly justified. The case is simply this:—The hon. and learned Member for Youghal has brought forward a measure which he was able to carry through the House by successful majorities, yet at half-past eleven o'clock the hon. and learned Member, without the slightest reason, suddenly proposes that the Chairman should report Progress. It is not for me to say what were the arrangements which led to this proposal to report Progress; but this I will say, that it is quite unprecedented for any hon. Member sitting immediately behind the Treasury bench to make the proposition which the hon. Member opposite has done. I hope that hon. Members on this side the House are determined to maintain the right of private Members, even of those Members who were ready themselves to abandon their rights, and not permit a course of proceeding at variance not only with the practice of the House, but with the rule laid down by the noble Lord at the head of the Government when he proposed the Resolutions relative to the business of the House.
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: I very much agree with what has just been stated by the hon. Member (Mr. Bentinck) that the proceeding now going on is totally unprecedented. I have often seen at a late hour of the night that the Gentlemen on that side of the House have insisted upon reporting Progress on a Bill the promoter of which wished to go on with it; but I never have met with an instance in which, at a late hour of the night, on the mover of a Bill proposing to report Progress, the zeal and enthusiasm in its favour should be such as completely to overpower all the tendencies of hon Members to retire to their respective homes at a certain hour, and lead them vigorously to resist the proposition of the mover to report Progress and to continue the proceedings on another occasion. I quite agree that that is quite unprecedented. It has been observed that there must be, indeed, a great interest in this Bill to have brought so large an attendance together. It cannot be said that the House cares nothing for the interest of Ireland. But still, as my hon. Friend is desirous of postponing till another evening the long discussion which

  1727
  is announced by the Amendment upon the Paper, I should hope that on another evening we shall have the same attendance to debate the measure which stands in the name of my hon. Friend.
  Motion made, and Question put, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
  The Committee divided: —Ayes 181; Noes 79: Majority 102.
  House resumed.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again on Thursday.

  WAYS AND MEANS.—REPORT.
  Resolutions reported.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the said Resolutions be read a second time."
  MR. DISRAELIsaid, I hope the noble Lord does not intend to press this matter at this late hour. (Twenty minutes past twelve o'clock.) ("Oh, oh!") If hon. Gentlemen are prepared to go on with the discussion, it makes no difference to me. I do not care how late we sit, as far as I am concerned. I leave it to the noble Lord to decide whether it is convenient that we should proceed now.
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: I think this matter is quite as important as the Irish Tramways Bill, and I do not see why we should not go on with it.
  LORD JOHN MANNERS: Some little time ago I think the noble Lord said the Irish Tramways Bill was much too important a subject to be proceeded with at so late an hour as half-past eleven o'clock. I hope he is prepared to carry out that principle in regard to this matter.
  MR. R. P. LONG: I beg to move that this House do now adjourn.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: After what has fallen from the right hon. Gentleman, it is right that the House should understand that the course which the Government propose is the regular, usual, and, I believe, the invariable course. I do not recollect any occasion on which, when a Resolution had been agreed to in Committee of Ways and Means, the practice has not been to propose to the House to proceed with the Report on the next evening, and that proposal has never been resisted, I believe, whatever might be the hour at which it was brought on. Of course, if we had proposed to diverge in any respect from the usual proceeding at this stage, that
  1728
  would have been a fair reason why we should have taken care to make our Motion at an early hour. I do not deny that it is the right of the House, if it thinks fit, to discuss all measures, and particularly financial measures, at any stage, but, at the same time, it is usual for the House to have some regard for the public convenience, and for the interest of trade and commerce in dealing with these matters. Acting on that principle it has been the custom of the House to allow the Report of Resolutions which have been fully discussed in Ways and Means to be proceeded with even at a late hour of the night, in order that the Bill may be introduced and placed on the notice paper. It is perfectly true that an hon. and learned Member has given notice of his intention to call attention to the course which the Government proposes to pursue, but that notice raises no particular issue, and has no particular relation to the stage with which we are at present concerned. It is entirely in his power, if he thinks fit, to call the attention of the House to the subject at any future stage. I trust, therefore, that the House in the division which is about to take place will mark its sense of the fact that the Government are not departing from the usual course.
  LORD ROBERT CECIL: Sir, often as I have heard the strongest and strangest statements from the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I am absolutely aghast at the audacity which he has exhibited on the present occasion. What the Government are now proposing is to subdue the House of Lords. This is the stage at which the Government intend to obtain power to take a course hitherto unprecedented in our financial legislation for half a century. It has been the practice, hitherto, to divide all measures of finance into separate Bills, and to send them up separately to the House of Lords; but now, for a special political object, to avenge a special political defeat, to gratify a special pique, and to gain the doubtful votes of a special political section, it is proposed to vary the practice of half a century, and yet the right hon. Gentleman stands at that table and tells us he is proposing to take the usual and invariable course. At this hour—half-past twelve—it is not the proper time to discuss whether the right hon. Gentleman has taken the proper method to override the independent judgment of the House of Lords, nor whether that attempt is likely to succeed,

  1729
  or to reflect credit on the House of Commons, or the Government that proposes it. This, however, is the lever that is to alter the Constitution. I believe that the measure will be utterly futile, that it will leave the Constitution exactly as it finds it, and that the power of the House of Lords to check the infatuation of the House of Commons will be entirely unaltered. Whether the course we are asked to take is wise or not, it is too important, and goes too deeply into the principles of the British Constitution, to be discussed at this late hour of the night. I, therefore, only rise to protest against the right hon. Gentleman's attempt to impose this proceeding upon us as the ordinary routine financial proceeding. He is, on the contrary, taking a course which is perfectly unusual, and to which I am persuaded the House will not give its consent.
  SIR GEORGE GREY: Sir, the noble Lord is singularly unfortunate to-night. He has displayed an utter ignorance of the practice of the House. He has used language which I will not characterise, since I suppose it was within the strict rule of Parliamentary debate. But it was language that we, happily, hear from few Members of this House. However, I pass that by; but the noble Lord has imputed to the Government a settled design of trenching upon the independence of the House. He saw this design in the Resolutions moved by my noble Friend at the head of the Government, who, however, acted in moving these Resolutions as the organ of the Select Committee, composed of men entitled to the respect even of the noble Lord. Having imputed to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer conduct which he said would not have been becoming to an attorney, the noble Lord now imputes to him a design of subverting the privileges of the House of Commons. If the noble Lord had any acquaintance with the forms of the House, he would have known that if the Resolution now before the House is agreed to, the only Motion that can be put is that which is identical with the Motion always put on receiving the Report of the Resolutions in Ways and Means. That Motion is that leave be given to bring in a Bill or Bills founded on those Resolutions. These are the terms of the Motion invariably put from the Chair. If the noble Lord objects to the form of the Bill or Bills when brought in, he
  1730
  can take the objection at the proper time, but no course that he can now adopt will effect the object that he professes to have in view.
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTON: The right hon. Gentleman complains of the language used by my noble Friend the Member for Stamford, but he ought to have recollected that my noble Friend spoke under the not unnatural excitement caused by the unusual course adopted by the Government in pressing forward this Motion at this late hour of the night. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer emphatically contradicted my noble Friend when he said the course now proposed to be pursued was without a precedent for fifty years. But the right hon. Gentleman was utterly unable to state that it was not a most unusual course. Upon the statement of the right hon. Gentleman himself, an hon. and learned Member on this side of the House has expressed a desire to avail himself at this stage of the opportunity of expressing an opinion on the proposal of the Government. Her Majesty's Government must, surely, have some very special reason for pressing the reception of the Report. And we have some ground to suspect this when we find them endeavouring to hurry over in this indecorous manner this stage of the proceeding, in order to prevent my hon. and learned Friend from stating his views. I cannot help expressing a hope that the right hon. Gentleman will himself see the impropriety of pressing forward the present Motion at this late hour.
  Motion made, and Question put "That this House do now adjourn."
  The House divided: —Ayes 98; Noes 160: Majority 62.
  Question again proposed.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Sir, I do not think it will he any advantage to the progress of public business to endeavour to press further the proposal of the Government, if there is a disposition on the part of the minority not to allow us to pursue the usual course. It is our business to construe in the most favourable manner the course of the Opposition, and I feel quite sure it does not indicate any intention to obstruct the progress of public business. I shall, therefore, propose that further progress on this Order of the Day be adjourned until Thursday. It has this special advantage, that it will allow the noble Lord the Member for Stamford (Lord Robert Cecil) time to reconsider the vocabulary in which he has addressed us.
  MR. DISRAELI: I am glad my noble Friend the Member for Stamford has received this public acknowledgment from the Chancellor of the Exchequer of the efficiency of his powers of expression. I confess I have listened with satisfaction to the noble Lord both last night and tonight, as it appeared to me that I never heard more constitutional opinions expressed in more effective language. I hope that on Thursday the noble Lord the Member for Stamford will be prepared to take that part in our debates in which I think he has greatly distinguished himself. I was extremely pleased by the meek tone in which, with this exception, the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer conducted the business. I hope the right hon. Gentleman and all his colleagues have found out that the best way to manage the House of Commons is to defer to any reasonable request. It may be very well to bully a colleague; but there is one body in the world which I can assure her Majesty's Government can not be bullied, and that is the British House of Commons. As the Chancellor of the Exchequer has made reference to the opportunities which the House has had to consider these questions, and to the urgency of the questions themselves, let me remind the House that a measure of this great importance was never yet placed before the House in a form like this, which, according to the authentic statement of a Minister of the Crown, abridges the privileges of this House, and abolishes altogether the power of revision of the other House of Parliament. If all these measures were brought in in different Bills, there would be the opportunity of discussing them on all the preliminary stages. We are not to have those opportunities, but still some occasions are reserved, and what has happened on bringing up the Report? No one can say that the occasion has been abused. Only yesterday the Chancellor of the Exchequer was so imperfectly acquainted with the conduct of business that he said it was unnecessary to move a Resolution in Committee, and to-day he says that is a mistake. If Ministers who have all the advantage of the advice of experienced men make these errors, surely the House of Commons ought not to be grudged an opportunity of considering these questions in every form. ("Oh, oh!") I say that is a sound constitutional doctrine which has been asserted by great men without fear of any
  1732
  one impugning its truth, and it is not to be answered by cries of "Oh, oh!" I do not wish now to enter into a discussion of the justice, policy, or expediency of the mode in which these measures are placed before us, but the result is that we are deprived of many opportunities of debate which we should have had if the usual form of conducting the public business had been followed. Is it unreasonable that we should wish to discuss important Resolutions on the Report? Is it a strange or unusual circumstance that there should be discussion, or even a Motion, upon the report of Resolutions? In my own time and experience I have known instances upon instances. I remember the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself delivering a very long speech, and, I believe, ending with a Motion on the report of Resolutions. Whether he did or not, it is a notorious fact that it is the custom and right of Parliament to discuss the policy of measures upon the report of Resolutions; and if the hour had been different, or if early in the evening the Government had expressed a wish that the discussion should not be unnecessarily protracted, I could have understood the objection; but that at one o'clock in the morning they should try to stifle the opinion of the House appears to me as unwise as it is uncourteous. It is said that we have no right to assume that these measures will be placed before us in a form unconstitutional and impolitic, but surely the House does not forget the authentic announcement that it is the intention of the Government to treat all these subjects in the same Bill. It would, therefore, not only be hypocritical but pedantic to affect total ignorance of the alarming policy which has been so ostentatiously announced. It is perfectly legitimate for the hon. and learned Member for Sligo (Mr. Macdonogh) upon the occasion of the Report to raise the question for discussion. Let it be fairly raised, and fairly answered. The right hon. Gentleman says that the convenience of trade requires that we should pass these measures without thought. Last year the right hon. Gentleman kept the paper duty question for three months open, and we never heard of the inconvenience to trade. As to paper and sugar, the legislation of this Session can not come into play for a considerable interval; and as to the income tax, if there is any inconvenience, as I

  1733
  told the right hon. Gentleman last night, he can meet it at once by bringing in a separate Bill. I am very glad the right hon. Gentleman has now taken the course which he ought at first to have pursued. I must say that the attempt which has been made tonight to stop the free discussion of this question has been one of the least disguised I have ever seen. It began by the hon. Baronet, the Member for Reading (Sir Francis Goldsmid), who may be excused for his general ignorance, having been only a short time in the House, accusing Gentlemen on this side of the House of coming down in unusual numbers. That was quite improper and unparliamentary, for it is assumed that a Member ought always to be in his place. It happens, however, that the benches on this side were not so full as they might have been, while on the benches opposite the number was legion. I could not conceive why that great attendance was occasioned by the Tramways Bill until we witnessed those fine acts of diplomacy which have had the effect of wasting two or three hours and causing a great sacrifice of Irish interests, without accomplishing the somewhat illegitimate object which the Government had in view. However, I understand that the Resolutions are to be reported on another night, when there will be a fair opportunity for discussion. No one will then be able to say that the Resolutions have been smuggled through the House; and I think, therefore, that the Government have taken a wise and prudent course.
  Debate adjourned till Thursday.
  House adjourned at One o'clock.

WILLS OF PERSONALTY BY BRITISH SUBJECTS BILL.
  ORDER FOE COMMITMENT DISCHARGED.

    BILL REFERRED TO A SELECT COMMITTEE.
    Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee on the said Bill read.
    LORD LYNDHURST: My Lords, I very much regret that I was prevented by accidental indisposition from being present at the second reading of this Bill. I am told that the Motion for the Committee was postponed in consequence of my absence, and I feel, therefore, that I am called upon to state my views with respect to the question which it involves—a question of very considerable importance, and one in which I confess I take a deep interest. In dealing with the subject, however, not much can be required of me after the very able statement of my noble and learned Friend by whom this measure was introduced (Lord Kingsdown). Some recent decisions have led to great confusion with reference to the form in which testamentary instruments ought to be executed by British subjects residing in foreign countries, and great anxiety has in consequence prevailed. There is hardly a professional person to whom application has not some time or another been made in such matters; and, speaking for myself, I must say I always found it much easier to put a question in these instances than to give a satisfactory solution of the point at issue. A very important decision was, in discussing this subject, referred to by my noble and learned Friend on a former night—I allude to the case of Bremer v. Freeman. For the learning of the Judges by whom that case was tried I entertain the utmost respect. It was determined by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council; but I must say that, however great the respect I may have for the persons of whom that tribunal was composed—and I can unfeignedly say that I do respect them highly—their decision in this instance has tended very considerably—at least so far as residents in France are concerned—to increase the doubt and difficulty in which this subject is involved. The main question that was raised before them was one of French law to be decided by an English tribunal. It was a question of the most simple kind in point of form—namely,

    1639
    whether a domicile in France would be sufficient to convey testamentary power unless it had the authorization of the French Government. Several witnesses were examined in the case, among them eight or ten advocates from Paris, whose evidence was of a very conflicting character. The authorities which were appealed to were also found to be conflicting. My noble and learned Friend who sits on the bench opposite (Lord Wensleydale) delivered the judgment of the Court, and in doing so stated that the evidence was confused and unsatisfactory, and that it was extremely difficult for him or for the Court to decide as to the comparative weight of testimony of the different witnesses. The decision pronounced, however, was that a domicile de facto, without the authorization of the French Government, was sufficient to confer testamentary authority in France. Now, I very much regret the absence of a noble and learned Friend of mine in the south of France, because if he were here he could corroborate that which I am about to state—namely, that this decision created an extraordinary impression on the other side of the Channel. My hon. and learned Friend, Sir FitzRoy Kelly, in consequence, conceived he was bound to make application to one of the tribunals in France to investigate the question. It was proposed that ten of the most eminent advocates of Paris should be assembled for the purpose; and when I mention that among them were M. Berryer, M. Dupin, M. Odillon Barrot, I think it will be admitted that a tribunal better qualified to decide a question of French law could not well be found. Well, they came unanimously to the opinion that the judgment of our Courts and of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council was wrong, and that domicile, unless authorized by their Government, was not sufficient to confer testamentary power. The principle of that opinion is, I may add, strictly in conformity with the written views of one of the most eminent of French lawyers. It must not, however, be supposed that in making these observations I am finding fault with the decision at which the Privy Council arrived. I mention these facts simply to show the position in which this question now stands, and the great doubt and difficulty which exist with respect to the form in which wills made by British subjects in France should be drawn up. A noble and learned Friend of mine, who sits opposite (Lord Wensleydale),
    1640
    suggested a mode in which that difficulty might be obviated, which I think somewhat curious. He said a will might be framed in duplicate—one being executed according to the law of England, and the other in accordance with the law of France. But, with all deference to my noble and learned Friend, this process would not obviate the difficulty which he sought to remove, inasmuch as when either one will or the other came to be proved the question of domicile would still arise, and the original difficulty would still have to be encountered. The will of a British subject as to personalty must by the law of England be framed in accordance with the law of the country in which he is domiciled at the time of his death. Such is the law of this country; and everybody connected with courts of justice knows the extreme inconveniences of that law. You must, in order to ascertain the domicile of a testator, ransack, as it were, the whole of his life. You have to read his letters and learn his declarations; so that the inquiry becomes almost interminable, and the expense, as a consequence, is generally enormous. My noble and learned Friend who sits near me (Lord Kings-down), for instance, stated, I understand, in reference to the case of Bremer v. Freeman, that the costs amounted to £5,000—the sum involved having been but £10,000; so that nearly the whole of the estate was, eaten up by the expenses attendant on the inquiry. There was a case decided in this House some weeks ago—" Acton v. Acton" I think it was—in which the question arose whether the testator had been domiciled in England or in Scotland? Now, one would think there would be no great difficulty in determining that point; but the evidence, nevertheless, occupied 1,800 closely-printed pages, and the arguments in the courts in Scotland lasted ten days. The case was brought up to the House of Lords on appeal; the arguments were continued for almost an equal number of days here, and the cost of the investigation must, under those circumstances, have been enormous. What they amounted to I cannot exactly say, because, in consequence of the relationship existing between the parties to the suit, an arrangement was entered into between them. Now, this being the state of things, some alteration in the law on this subject is, I contend, absolutely necessary. I think it right, with respect to the framing of a Bill, that we should go beyond the lex

    1641
    domicilii, and even to the extent of the doctrine locus regit actum. That is the object of my hon. and learned Friend's Bill. I have read many of the observations which have been made with respect to the measure, and I gather from them that one of the main charges made against it is that it is at variance with the principles of international law. Now, no charge can, in my opinion, be more unfounded. So far from being inconsistent with international law it reconciles with that law the law of England. Those who say the contrary misapprehend, in my opinion, the object of the Bill. It relates merely to the form of the instrument, and the manner in which it ought to be executed. It has nothing whatever to do with the construction of a will after it has been submitted to probate. And what, let me ask, is the consequence of a mistake in one of these documents in point of form? Why, that the will entirely fails; that the person who made it is declared intestate, and that his intentions are completely defeated. By the law of England as it at present stands, a will must be executed in accordance with the law of the place where the testator happens to be domiciled at the time of its execution and at the time of his death. That is a doctrine peculiar to the law of England among all European countries. I cannot say, however, that its operation is confined to England, inasmuch as this is also the law of the United States of America, who take it from this country. But it is not the general law of Europe—very far from it. By the law of Europe a person is allowed the option of framing his will either according to the lex domicilii, or in accordance with the law of the place where he happens to be at the time of the execution of the instrument. What, I would ask, can be more reasonable or proper? This is the law of Holland, it is the law of Belgium, of Germany, and of Spain. It is so laid down by ail their most eminent jurists. All the authorities are collected in the fourth volume of Burge's Commentaries. It is also the law of France. Any Frenchman residing in a foreign country, and wishing to make his, will, may, by an express article of the French Code, make it according to the law of France, or according to the law of the country where he happens to be at the time. But, more than this, it is the law of Scotland, and a case was decided not many months ago by the Court of Session in which that question came before
    1642
    them. The testamentary papers were made at Sumatra, and according to the law of Sumatra the question was decided in the Scotch Court, and the decision was that the will was perfectly valid in point of form. The whole scope of the judgment is deserving attention. I have it not here, and if I had I would not trouble your Lordships with it in detail; but I may say that the result of it is that, "according to the most eminent jurists "—these are the words of the Judges—" the party making his will has the option either to make it according to the lex domicilii, or according to the law of the place in which the will is made;" and Lord Kinloch, who gave a separate judgment, said that it was too late to agitate the question, for that it had been decided on the best authority that, with respect to wills as well as deeds, locus regit actum. My noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack stated with great correctness that the question, as applicable to the subject, is of recent origin. My noble and learned Friend, who is accustomed sometimes to mix up a little pleasantry with his great wisdom, told your Lordships on a former occasion that he hardly knew where his domicile was, for that it was at one time in Scotland and at another in England, and like that of a great many other persons, it seemed to be uncertain. It may be described as ambulatory. I can easily understand that when my noble and learned Friend, in early life, first crossed the Border, his motto was "Forward, forward, forward!—Vestigia nulla retrorsum!" and had he not been extremely successful, in all probability his domicile would have been in England. But when, during the last autumn, my noble and learned Friend recrossed the Border, full of years, full of wealth, and full of honours, carrying with him that mystical emblem, the Great Seal of England—[The Loan CHANCELLOR: The Great Seal of the United Kingdom.]—which was exhibited much to the admiration of his countrymen; and when he heard those harmonious tones to which he was accustomed in early youth, I can conceive that he might have said—
    "Still do I hope, this length of lahour past,
    Here to return, and die at home at last."
    This doctrine of domicile dated from a very remote time. In olden times, when a man carried with him most of his personal property in the shape of money, clothes, ornaments, arms, &c., "Mobilia sequuntur personam" was the motto, and we know that

    1643
    the most powerful Baron generally possessed moveables of the most scanty description. In his reception-hall the floor was covered with rushes, and there were stools and forms for the guests; and then it might be very well for such a rule to prevail. But is that the case now? A British subject residing in Paris may possess a large amount of leasehold property, and railway, canal, and dock shares, all of which are personal property; but if a man possesses a single acre of freehold property and makes his will, that will is never affected by the domicile. Now, an Englishman, wherever his domicile, still retains his character as a British subject; and why should he not, as far as his personal property is concerned, have any power to dispose of it that may be consistent with the law of this country? It is to this object that the Bill of my noble and learned Friend is directed. My noble and learned Friend (Lord St. Leonards) stated a singular objection, as I understand, to this Bill. I admire my noble and learned Friend's learning, to say nothing whatever of his enlarged and liberal views. He seemed to consider that Englishmen were of a migratory character, and too much given to visit foreign countries, and that there was some covert design in this Bill to enable Englishmen to spend their money abroad and still remain in enjoyment of all the advantages of English law—by which he must have meant the advantages of his own law—for my noble and learned Friend is the author of the Wills Act, the most complicated piece of legal machinery—
    LORD ST. LEONARDSdenied that he was the author of that measure, and said that he had very much objected to many parts of it.
    LORD LYNDHURST: My noble and learned Friend if he was not the author of the Act was certainly the adopter of it, and I heard him, when sitting on the Woolsack, defend the Bill with the most persevering activity and pertinacity. I believe that my noble and learned Friend who introduced the present Bill considers that nothing could be more advantageous than intercourse with foreign nations—that it tends to humanize mankind, to get rid of prejudices, and promote civilization. In this particular he differs from my other noble and learned Friend; and I can assure your Lordships, from the intercourse I have had with my noble and learned Friend, the author of the present measure, that he has
    1644
    no covert design whatever in the introduction of the Bill. He is entirely incapable of such an object, for there is not in this empire a man more single-minded and more straightforward. He saw the great defect in our law, which required a remedy, and he introduced the present Bill to afford that remedy, and I have no doubt that when it comes out of Committee it will accomplish the excellent and laudable purpose for which it is intended.
    LORD ST. LEONARDSsaid, he was very glad to hear his noble and learned Friend again, although he subjected him to an attack that he did not merit. His noble and learned Friend had designated him the father of the Wills Act; but that was an entire mistake, for he had no more to do with it than any stranger out of the House. He never approved of a great deal of it, and particularly not of that part which was now in agitation. The Act required that the testator should sign his name at the end of the will. Thousands of wills were, however, declared void, and thousands of hearths were made unhappy, because by a mere informality more space was left between the will and the signature than was absolutely necessary. In such cases the question was not whether the will was properly executed, but simply whether there was a certain space left which might be measured by a carpenter's rule; and the consequence was that so many wills were pronounced invalid that they were carried away from Doctors' Commons by basketsful at a time. He was shocked at such a state of things, and as soon as he had the honour of a seat in their Lordships' House he applied himself to frame a remedy. He, therefore, brought in a Bill, of which he was prouder than of any act in his life, which had had this effect—that not a single will had since been made void on this point of form. And the Wills Bill which his noble and learned Friend said he had heard him pertinaciously defend on the Woolsack was not the original Wills Bill but his own Bill to amend it. His noble and learned Friend had quite misunderstood him in representing him as opposed to the principle of the present measure. On the contrary, he approved of it, if the question of domicile could be settled satisfactorily. But had a man who resided abroad any particular claim for facilities that were denied to the man who lived at home? The Legislature had the power to get rid of the law of domicile as between England and Scot-

    1645
    land, but it could not do so as regarded foreign countries. The law of domicile was of the law of nations, and unless they could get foreign nations to agree with them they could not change that law, except in regard to such property as was within the jurisdiction of our own Courts. In effect, an English will executed in this country would now pass both English and French property; one by the law of England, and the other by international law. The Bill, however, proposed to change the law of domicile, and to enact that no domicile should affect an English will. But how would such a law operate in France? If they abolished international law in regard to France, that country would be equally entitled to refuse to admit it as regards England. He was not opposed to the principle of the Bill; but he maintained that as it stood it would deprive British subjects of advantages which they now possessed under international law when they made their wills abroad. By the law of France a foreigner legally domiciled there acquired civil rights, and among others the right to make a will according to French law, and he thought it would be a desirable thing if the noble Earl opposite (Earl Granville) would obtain through the noble Lord the Foreign Secretary a Return of the number of persons who during the last ten years had, by the authorization of the Government, acquired a legal domicile in France, or had been naturalized, so that they might form some idea of the extent to which this measure would operate. He saw no reason why the formalities required by law in making a will should be altered in favour of persons making their wills abroad, while they were retained in the case of persons making their wills at home. He hoped that in Committee such changes would be made as would obviate the objections which now applied to the Bill.
    LORD WENSLEYDALEsaid, that his objection to the Bill was that it was an attempt to do that which such legislation could not do—namely, alter the law of nations. The authorities were full of the principle that by the law of nations the domicile of the deceased at the time of the death governs the disposition of his personal property. He believed the proposed alteration to be useless and unnecessary. His noble and learned Friend (Lord Lyndhurst) had ridiculed the idea of duplicate wills as a means of getting over the difficulty which a testator might some-
    1646
    times feel himself placed when he was not certain in which of two countries he was domiciled. He (Lord Wensleydale) did not suggest duplicate wills, but one executed with the formalities required by both countries. For instance, it was perfectly easy to execute a will valid according to the French form by subscribing in the presence of two attesting witnesses, which would make it valid as an English will.
    LORD CHELMSFORDsaid, that as he believed it was agreed that the Bill should be referred to a Select Committee, he would not trouble their Lordships with many observations; but he must say that the arguments of his noble and learned Friend, and especially of Lord St. Leonards, had clearly established the necessity for such a measure as the present. Why was it that the present Bill had been brought forward? It was because the decision of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in Bremer v. Freeman had shown that it was indispensable that some alteration of the law should be made. Nothing could be more helpless than the condition of an English testator in a foreign country under the present law. It was said that the English law favoured testamentary dispositions because a testator was assumed to be inops consilii; but surely no person could want counsel more than an English testator in a foreign country, when it was impossible for him to determine whether he had acquired a new domicile or not, or whether a new will had become necessary; for although it was necessary that a new domicile should be acquired animo et facto, the circumstances in each case were so varying and often conflicting that it could hardly be determined when this new domicile had been acquired. The proposition to overcome the difficulty by making two wills did not get rid of the evil. It seemed like an attempt to get rid of a difficulty by multiplying it.
    LORD WENSLEYDALEsaid, he proposed that only one will should be executed.
    LORD CHELMSFORD: But in order to make either will good it would be necessary that the testator should have at his elbow somebody who was well acquainted with those portions of the laws of both countries which were not conflicting, and should be able to blend these together. That certainly seemed an extraordinary way out of the difficulty which existed. After the powerful way in which the question had been opened by his noble and

    1647
    learned Friend (Lord Lyndhurst), whose voice they were all delighted once more to hear, it was unnecessary for him to do more than to press on their Lordships the absolute necessity of this Bill.
    THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, he rejoiced exceedingly to see his noble and learned Friend (Lord Lyndhurst) in his place, and he was glad that in the discussion they had had the benefit of his experience, talents, and learning. He thought, however, noble Lords had been rather too hard on this Bill, and had treated it rather as if it were already upstairs before a Select Committee. There was certainly one clause as to which no difficulty could exist, nor any question of international law arise—namely, that a will made in Ireland, Scotland, or England, should be good over every part of the United Kingdom. The question was, undoubtedly, surrounded by many difficulties which could be best discussed in a Select Committee, and he trusted that when it had been there considered it would obtain the approval of their Lordships.
    LORD KINGSDOWNsaid, that after the powerful speech of his noble and learned Friend (Lord Lyndhurst), and the great authority which he brought in support of the Bill, it would be unpardonable if he should trespass on their Lordships with more than a few observations. He did not object to refer the Bill to a Select Committee, on the contrary, he meant to propose that course. The objections that had been made to the Bill were founded on a misapprehension of its objects and scope. It had two distinct objects, one of which was not embarrassed by any difficulties arising from questions of international law. It applied only to the difference between the testamentary law of England and Ireland on the one hand, and of Scotland on the other. Its object was as between those countries to get rid of the question of domicile and to provide that, whatever the domicile of the testator might he, that if a Scotchman made his will in England according to the English form, the will should be good; and if an Englishman made his will in Scotland according to the Scotch form, the will should be good. With regard to the other part of the Bill—that which related to wills made in foreign countries—he must express his surprise to hear it stated that he was interfering with the present law of nations. What he desired to make the law of England was already the law of every country
    1648
    in Europe except England. It was impossible that the law upon this subject could be permitted to remain in its present condition as laid down in Bremer v. Freeman. That decision was pronounced in the ultimate Court of Appeal on such matters at the time it was pronounced, and it must remain the law of England until altered by Act of Parliament. According to that decision a man might for testamentary purposes be held by the law of England to be domiciled in France, though by the law of France he was not held to be so domiciled; and he might have lost the power of making a will according to the law of the one country, without having acquired the power of making it according to the laws of the other. He was satisfied, however, that the objections to the Bill could be best discussed in a Select Committee, and he moved, therefore, that the Bill be so referred.
    The Order for Commitment discharged; and Bill referred to a Select Committee.
    The Lords following were named of the Committee:—

    L. Chancellor.

    L. Rossie.

    L. Privy Seal.

    L. Cranworth.

    E. Stanhope.

    L. St. Leonards.

    E. Malmesbury.

    L. Wensleydale.

    E. Ellenborough.

    L. Chelmsford.

    L. Colchester.

    L. Kingsdown.

    L. Lyndhurst.

    House adjourned at Seven o'clock, to Friday next, half-past Ten o'clock.