Sitting of 24 July 1863

MINUTES.
SELECT COMMITTEE—Report—Navy (Promotion and Retirement) [No. 501].
RESOLUTIONS REPORTED—East India Revenue Accounts.
PUBLIC BILLS—Second Reading—Exhibition Medals (Lords) [Bill 261].
Committee—Exhibition Medals (Lords).
Report—Exhibition Medals (Lords).
Considered as amended—British Columbia Boundaries (Lords) [Bill 187].
Third Reading—Rum Duty [Bill 256]; Augmentation of Benefices (Lords) [Bill 134]; Alterations in Judges' Circuits (Lords) [Bill 252]; Clergymen (Colonies) (Lords) [Bill 251]; Statute Law Revision (Lords) [Bill 233].
Withdrawn—Church Building and New Parishes Acts Amendment [Bill 260].

STATUTE LAW REVISION BILL (Lords).

  [BILL 233.] THIRD READING.
  Order for Third Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed "That the Bill be now read the third time."
  MR. HENNESSYsaid, that the measure could have no practical effect, for, since it came down from the Lords, it had received an important Amendment. The result was, that while the schedule abolished certain rights and privileges, they were preserved by the first clause. The strong objection to the Bill was that it repealed some statutes relating to Ireland, which were not in the Irish Statute Book, and would now be removed from that of England, and one statute to which the Irish courts of law must appeal. He also objected to the Bill because it repealed Magna Charta and other statutes, which were the landmarks of the Constitution, and which ought to be preserved. A Bill of that manitude—comprising 198 pages of important matter, referring to four and a half centuries of our constitutional history—ought not to have been pressed through the House by the Government at that late period of the Session. He would therefore move that it be read a third time that day week.
  MR. LYGONseconded the Amendment.
  Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day week."—(Mr. Hennessy.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
  THE SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, it was a matter of utter astonishment to him to imagine what useful purpose either to his own reputation or to the public interest the hon. Member for the King's County supposed he was promoting in obstructing the progress of a Bill of this kind. Every one of the objections he had taken was utterly baseless. The hon. Gentleman had dipped here and there into Stephen's Blackstone, had taken down a volume or two of the statutes in his leisure moments, and had acquired just the smattering of information which a person might obtain without any real trouble and without attempting to make himself master of a Bill which almost every one else regarded as useful and necessary. The hon. Member had a little knowledge; and a little knowledge, as they knew, was often a very dangerous thing, for the hon. Member asked the House to withdraw its confidence from gentlemen who knew what the hon. Member apparently did not know—namely, that
  1358
  since Stephens' Blackstone was published, several changes had been made in the law. For himself—and he believed he could also answer for the House—he had confidence in the capacity and learning of the gentlemen who had in this measure revised the statute law. He had therefore only to protest against the indiscreet use the hon. Gentleman had made of his undoubted abilities on this occasion.
  MR. HENNESSYsaid, that the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General had delivered to him a severe lecture, but he would remind him that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley) and the Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ayrton) concurred in some of the objections which he had taken to the Bill, and they were no mean authorities. He should also mention that some of the objections made by him to the Bill had been suggested by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. E. P. Bouverie).
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Main Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read 3°, and passed, with Amendments.

EXHIBITION MEDALS BILL (Lords) [BILL 261.]

  SECOND READING. COMMITTEE.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Bill read 2°, and committed.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Milner Gibson.)
  MR. MILNER GIBSONsaid, he would ask the House to suspend the Standing Orders, and allow the Bill to go through Committee. Its object was to give the power of summarily fining those persons who falsely represented that they obtained medals or certificates at the Exhibitions of 1851 and 1862.
  Bill considered in Committee.
  House resumed.
  Bill reported, without Amendment; to be read 3° on Monday next.

AFFAIRS OF POLAND.—QUESTION.
MR. DARBY GRIFFITHsaid, he wished to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether, in any statement which he may have recently been understood to have made on the subject of Poland, it was the intention of the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in any way to recede from or modify the declarations

1359
made by him to the Russian Ambassador, as recorded in his second Despatch of the 10th April, 1863, in which, after saying that the intentions of Her Majesty's Government were not otherwise than pacific, he continues, "but the state of things might change; the present overture of Her Majesty's Government might be rejected, as the representation of the 2nd March had been rejected, by the Imperial Government. The insurrection in Poland might continue, and might assume larger proportions, the atrocities on both sides might be aggravated and extended to a wider range of country. If, in such a state of affairs, the Emperor of Russia were to take no steps of a conciliatory nature, dangers and complications might arise not at present in contemplation"?
MR. LAYARDsaid, he was at a loss to know what answer he should give to the Question of the hon. Gentleman, He could only state that he had no reason to believe that the noble Earl the Secretary for Foreign Affairs had said anything at variance with what he had written upon that subject.

NAVIGATION SCHOOLS.—QUESTION.
SIR HENRY STRACEYsaid, he wished to know, Whether the Regulations coming into force in January, 1864, in reference to Navigation Schools, can be so altered as to make persons ineligible for Masters and Mates unless they acquire a knowledge of the additional subjects there laid down?
MR. MILNER GIBSONsaid, in reply, that as far as the Board of Trade was concerned, they only required an examination for the certificates of Masters and Mates of merchant vessels in respect to such an amount of navigation knowledge as was sufficient to qualify men to act in those capacities. With regard to the Navigation Schools under the Committee of Privy Council for Education, they, of course, must be regulated by that Committee. He believed that it had been ascertained that a great number of youths who attended those schools never intended to go to sea at all, and merely went to the Navigation School because they got a better education there than at the ordinary parish schools. The Board of Trade, as at present advised, could not alter their regulations, and whether any alteration could be made in the Council Schools he could not say.

BOROUGH OF REIGATE.

  QUESTION.
  MR. LYALLsaid, he wished to ask the Vice
  1360
  President of the Committee of Council on Education, Whether it is the intention of the Government to grant any Charter of Incorporation to the Borough of Reigate; and if so, what reasons have induced them to come to that determination?
  MR LOWEsaid, in reply, that he had no official knowledge on the subject, but he believed that it was the intention of the President of the Council to advise the Crown to grant a Charter of Incorporation to the Borough of Reigate, and the reason for that measure was contained in the Report of the Officer who was sent down to the place to make inquiries on the subject.

THE CHINESE INDEMNITY.

  QUESTION.
  COLONEL SYKESsaid, he rose to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, In what Annual Account, and in what year the sum of 451,000·26 dollars, balance of the sum of 3,000,000 dollars received from the Chinese Government under the Treaty of Nankin, in payment of the debts due by Chinese merchants to British subjects, was brought to the credit of the Nation?
  MR. PEELsaid, in reply, that the Chinese indemnity was 21,000,000 of dollars, 12,000,000 for the war, 6,000,000 for the value of the opium, and 3,000,000 compensation to the Hong-Kong merchants. That sum was increased by interest and other charges to 25,800,211 dollars. 250,000 dollars were allowed to the Chinese Government, and 2,548,981 dollars were paid to the merchants of Hong-Kong. The sum received into the Exchequer was 18,158,755 dollars, being equivalent to £4,050,090. This sum was carried to the credit of the Government in succeeding years, as it was received.

CHARITABLE TRUSTS IN IRELAND.

  QUESTION.
  MR. BLAKEsaid, he would beg to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether, in the event of Government not supporting the Hill just brought in by the hon. Members for Waterford and Mallow (with a view to its re-introduction next Session), for "the better Administration of Charitable Trusts in Ireland," he will bring forward a measure for that purpose?
  SIR ROBERT PEEL, in reply, said, he had not yet seen the Bill introduced by the hon. Members for Waterford and Mallow, but he was not prepared to state

  1361
  at that moment what course the Government would pursue next Session in reference to the matter.

SUPERANNUATIONS IN DOCKYARDS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. HENNESSYsaid, in the absence of the hon. Member for Devonport (Mr. Ferrand) he would beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty, Whether the Board will issue an Order granting Superannuations to all Engineers, Fitters, Boiler Makers, Smiths, and Labourers entered as hired men, who shall have completed the regular term of service, upon the same scale as those entered upon the establishment?
  LORD CLARENCE PAGETreplied, that he did not know of any intention on the part of the Admiralty to grant superannuations to the class of persons mentioned in the Question.

THE PAROCHIAL ASSESSMENT ACT.

  QUESTION.
  MR. WESTERNsaid, he would beg to ask the President of the Poor-law Board, Whether he is prepared to take any steps by which the Committees appointed under the Parochial Assessment Act of 1862 may be empowered to appoint their clerk to defend their decisions against appeals made at the Petty Sessions or Quarter Sessions, and that the expenses attending such process may be charged to the common fund of the Union? He also wished to ask, whether it is competent to ex-officio members of the Assessment Committee to sit in judgment on appeals?
  MR. VILLIERSsaid, in reply, that the subject to which the Question of the hon. Member referred, was under the consideration of the Poor Law Board. There was certainly a defect in that part of the Act which related to appeals from the decisions of the Assessment Committee. He hoped that after further evidence was received upon the point an amendment of the Law could be proposed calculated to meet the requirements of the case. With respect to the second question of the hon. Gentleman, he had to state that it related to a matter of jurisdiction on which he did not feel himself qualified to give a decided answer; but he believed there was no Statute to prevent Justices in Petty Sessions from sitting on appeals against decisions they had themselves made in the Assessment Committee.

THE PARLIAMENTARY BAR—FEES.

  QUESTION.
  MR. DARBY GRIFFITHSsaid, he would beg to ask Mr. Attorney General, Whether he will exert his professional influence during the Recess, to obtain an alteration of the Professional Custom, which appears to have grown up at the Parliamentary Bar, that Junior Counsel are precluded from receiving Refresher and Consultation Fees of a less amount than those given to Senior Counsel, however much the Junior Counsel might himself desire it; which restriction Mr. Attorney General, in his evidence before the Committee on Private Bill Legislation, has himself considered to be not in accordance with the well-established professional etiquette of the Bar in general?
  THE SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, in the absence of his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General, he had to state that the Attorney General, did not believe he had sufficient influence with the Members of a branch of the profession to which he did not himself belong to induce them to alter their professional customs. And he (the Solicitor General) might further observe that during the Recess the members of the Bar would be dispersed over all parts of Europe.

CONDITION OF MILLINERS AND DRESSMAKERS.—QUESTION.
MR. KINNAIRDsaid, he would beg ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he will give directions that the Children's Employment Commissioners do institute as soon as possible the inquiry already referred to them into the condition of the Milliners and Dressmakers?
SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, in reply, he did not know exactly on what branch of the inquiry the Commissioners were now engaged, but he would desire them to take up the condition of the Milliners and Dressmakers as soon as they could without interfering with any important question now before them.

UNDERGROUND MINING OPERATIONS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. H. B. SHERIDANsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether it is the intention of the Government to introduce in the next Session of Parliament, a Bill to

  1363
  provide compensation to persons whose property may be damaged or destroyed by underground mining operations?
  SIR GEORGE GREY, in reply, said, the subject had not recently been brought under the consideration of the Government. He was not aware, however, that the general law of the land did not meet the cases referred to.

MURDER OF A BRITISH SUBJECT AT MONTE VIDEO.—QUESTION.
MR. LOCKEsaid, he rose to ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he has seen the account in the newspapers of the civil war in Montevideo, and especially that portion of it relating to the murder of Mr. Smith, a British settler, and whether any official Despatches on the subject have been received by the Foreign Office?
MR. LAYARDsaid, in reply, that the Government had received despatches which confirmed, to some extent, the accounts which had been published in the newspapers. It appeared that a military force from Buenos Ayres, under General Flores, had made a descent on Montevidean territory, and in consequence of that wanton attack a civil war had broken out. An Englishman named Smith had been barbarously murdered, but not by troops acting in the service of the Montevidean Government, for it had been ascertained that they were deserters. As soon as the Montevidean Government heard of the occurrence, they expressed their readiness to arrest the offenders as soon as possible. The English merchants assembled and subscribed a considerable amount as a reward for the capture of the murderer, and a further sum had been added by the Montevidean Government. There was every reason to believe that the capture would be effected, and the Montevidean Government had shown every desire to take energetic steps in the matter.

ADJOURNMENT OF THE HOUSE.
MR. DARBY GRIFFITHsaid, he hoped, that as there was no Supply, the Government would give hon. Members the usual opportunity of raising questions for discussion on the Motion for adjournment till Monday.
SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, that if the Irish Fisheries Bill were disposed of that night, they would not need to meet till Monday. Otherwise, it would be necessary to have a sitting on the following day.
MR. HORSMANsaid, he would suggest that that Order should be taken first.
SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, he had no objection, if the House would agree.
MR. AYRTONsaid, he would put an end to the doubt as to what was to be done by moving that the House at its rising do adjourn till Monday.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House will, at the rising of the House this day, adjourn till Monday next."—(Mr. Ayrton.)

COMPOUND HOUSEHOLDERS.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  MR. AYRTONsaid, he rose, however, principally because he wished to call the attention of the House to the state of the Law affecting the rating of Compound Householders claiming to vote at Elections. Before the Reform Bill, an Act was passed providing that in the case of all property of less valuation than £20 a year the owner might be assessed to the poor rates instead of the occupier, but that that should not interfere with the exercise of the electoral franchise by the latter. The Reform Bill laid down the uniform rule that a voter must occupy premises within a borough for one year, and that during such occupation he should be rated for the relief of the poor. Again, in 1836 another Act was passed, directing the overseers, in making out the rate, to insert the names both of owner and occupier, and to place on the list of voters the name of any person occupying property above £10 in value, who claimed to be so registered. Whenever the overseer neglected his duty in that respect, it was competent for the occupier to apply to be registered. In 1851 it was enacted that an occupier having once given such notice to the overseer, and continuing in the same premises, need not repeat it, but should be entitled to be put on the roll. Last year, moreover, in an Act to regulate the assessment of property, it was provided that the rate should be made out in a prescribed form, and should contain the names both of the owner and occupier of the premises. It was therefore beyond all question that the overseer was to insert in the rate-book the names of both owner and occupier, no matter which was charged with the payment of the rates. But overseers had discovered that the power they possessed of putting occupiers on the rate-book might be used for political ends, for they were not bound to make the inquiry as to the occupier at

  1365
  all costs, but were only required by the Act to insert them as far as they had information on the subject. He did not complain of any overseer who, after taking fair and reasonable trouble, should not be able to ascertain the name of the occupier, and should consequently put the landlord on the rate-book; but where the overseer could obtain the requisite information—where, in fact, he knew the truth—it was his duty to state it on the rate-book. But some overseers were politicians, and they had discovered, that if they omitted an occupier from the rate-book under certain circumstances, they would probably get rid of a voter opposed to them in politics. Another new mode of procedure had also recently been hit upon by overseers which was still more objectionable. Some persons who occupied property which would entitle them to vote in a borough election, finding themselves omitted from the rate-book because the landlord was rated as compounding for the property, gave notice in the usual way to the overseers to have their names put on the rate-book. According to law that had no other immediate effect than making them responsible for their proportion of the rate, but it had also the effect of giving them a right to vote in the election of a member for the borough, provided they continued in the occupation of the property for a whole year. No sooner did the overseer receive the notice than he at once cancelled the rate which had been imposed on the premises, and raised it to a higher standard in respect of the houses occupied by the persons who had given notice. He thus assessed the houses in one row at different rates, leaving the existing assessment upon those occupied by persons who had not claimed to vote, but raising it upon such of the tenants as had requested their names to be put on the rate-book. That might have been done from conscientious motives, but it might also have been done from political motives; and it was therefore a very unsatisfactory state for the law to be in. He did not think Parliament intended that such should be the operation of the law; and, indeed, according to one construction of the original Act which allowed the overseers to rate the landlord, it ought not to be employed in any case at all where it affected the elective franchise. The question had been fairly tried by the tenants, and it bad been held that in point of law the overseers had acted rightly, and that the tenants had no redress. But, on inquiry, he ascertained that in the particular
  1366
  case to which he referred the overseers had not acted under the general law, but under one of those local Acts which Parliament so frequently passed regulating the assessment and management of particular parishes, and that by that Act the overseers had obtained the right of dealing with compositions as they pleased. Under the general law it was extremely doubtful whether they were not bound in all cases to deal with all houses of the same sort in the same manner. As this confusion of the law affected the right of voting in all cases where property was of the value of between £10 and £20, it was a very serious matter for the consideration of the House and of the Government. Local Acts had been passed for many places in which provision had been introduced for the purpose of regulating the assessment and collection of the rates, but in passing those private Acts the attention of the Committee and of the House had not been drawn to their indirect bearing upon the elective franchise. He should not have introduced the subject if he had thought that they were going to have a Reform Bill next Session, but it was a subject which deserved the serious consideration of the Government; and if they found on inquiry that the numerous private Acts alluded to affected the guestion of electoral rights, he trusted that early next Session they would bring forward a general measure defining so clearly upon what conditions the elective franchise should depend, that it could no longer be tampered with by the overseers of parishes.

SMALL-POX IN SHEEP.

  QUESTION.
  MR. DARBY GRIFFITHsaid, he rose to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether the Government intend to take any steps for the prevention of the practice of the inoculation of sheep with the virus of sheep small-pox, or variola ovina, for the presumed object of mitigating the disease, on the principle of the actual prohibition in force against such practice in the case of the human subject, and to inquire what have been the results of the Government experiments of trying the effects of vaccination as a preventive of the sheep small-pox on a certain number of sheep obtained by the Government for that purpose? The disease first broke out about the end of June last year on a farm in the neighbourhood of Devizes, in Wiltshire. Professor Simmonds, who was called in, recommended inoculation of the

  1367
  flocks, but it was not attended with any advantage; on the contrary, nearly half the flock on which it was first tried was lost. The disease spread among the southdowns of Wiltshire, and there was a general panic in the county, for the whole sheep property was threatened. Shortly afterwards Professor Gamgee, from Edinburgh, was applied to, and inspected the flocks, but he took a very different view to Professor Simmonds, and recommended a separation of the infected sheep. The farmers of Wilts formed themselves into an association, for the purpose of insuring their flocks against loss, and of preventing the spread of the disease; and after inquiry into the subject they came to the decided opinion to discourage inoculation. The separation plan was practised with such success that the entrance fees to the association covered the losses, and no further contributions were required. The association also tried vaccination, and, as far as the experiment went, with great success, but of course very little could be done by a private company. Last winter there was a prospect of a very serious aggravation of the distress in the North from the spread of the disease amongst sheep, and he considered that the people of England were much indebted to the Wiltshire Society for the spirited manner in which they had carried out their experiments, which had probably prevented a great aggravation of the distress in the manufacturing districts. The Government had taken a vote for carrying out certain experiments with regard to the vaccination of sheep and cattle to be made by their agents, but they had not made any explanation to the House of the result of those experiments, which he considered they were bound to do before Parliament separated for the recess. He abstained from entering into the question of the importation of the disease, but no doubt the improved commercial intercourse consequent upon the extension of free trade principles must render the examination of cattle and sheep at the time of importation more difficult than it had been previously.
  MR. LOWEsaid, that with regard to the experiments in vaccination, a great many had been tried by Mr. Marsden and Professor Simmonds, but unfortunately the results had been anything but successful. They had first of all tried the experiment of vaccination with the lymph of an Alderney cow, and subsequently exposed the animals to the chance of taking the smallpox;
  1368
  subsequently they tried the lymph from other breeds. Had the result of the experiments been at all successful, they would have been stated long before this time. Of course, as the experiments were still going on, it was impossible to give any decisive answer about them; but he was sorry to say that up to the present time they afforded but very little hope that vaccination would extend to sheep the same benefit it extended to the human body. With respect to the utility of inoculation the hon. Gentleman had correctly stated, that the experience of the late epidemic in Wiltshire was much against it, because in those flocks where inoculation was used twenty per cent of the sheep died; whereas in those where it was not used only 1·6 died. It was a question, however, whether it would be right absolutely to prohibit a man from inoculating sheep which were his own property, provided he took the precaution of separating them from other sheep in order to prevent the spread of the disease. But that question must be considered in connection with the general question of the diseases of cattle, which would have to be examined during the recess. He might, however, observe that it was the conviction of the scientific men who were investigating the subject, that no more imprudent thing could be done than to inoculate sheep.

SUBSCRIPTION TO FORMULARIES OF FAITH.—OBSERVATIONS.
MR. DODSONrose to call attention to the Petition from Heads of Houses, Professors, Present and Former Fellows, in the University of Oxford for the abolition of the requirement of subscription to Formularies of Faith as a qualification for Academical Degrees. The hon. Gentleman said the petitioners disclaimed any intention of impairing the religious character of the education given in the University, but maintained that the present requirement of subscription failed in securing religious peace in Oxford, while it perplexed consciences, and prevented persons who would be valuable members of the University from belonging to that body. The Petition had been signed by some of the most eminent members of the University, and among them were the Dean of Christ Church, the Rev. Canon Stanley, the Dean of St. Paul's, Professor Jowett, Mr. Nassau W. Senior, Herman Merivale, J. A. Froude, and Professor Goldwin Smith. The object of the petitioners was entirely different

1369
from that of the Bill introduced by the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock, and also from that contemplated by the Motion lately proposed by the hon. Member for Maidstone. The Bill of the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock sought to repeal the declaration of conformity to the Liturgy of the Church of England which the Act of Uniformity required to be made by fellows and tutors of Colleges. The Member for Maidstone wished to relieve persons entering holy orders from subscriptions. The Petition applied only to subscriptions required of persons taking academical degrees. It therefore affected almost exclusively members of the Church of England, and these exclusively in their lay capacity. It sought to place Oxford in a similar position to Cambridge and Dublin. Dublin exacted no tests from persons taking degrees. Cambridge in 1772 spontaneously abolished subscription on taking the degree of Bachelor of Arts. The Cambridge University Reform Act of 1856 did away with the necessity of subscription on taking any degree. The Oxford University Reform Act of 1854 put an end to the tests for matriculation, or the Bachelor of Arts degree, but left remaining the subscriptions required for the degree of Master of Arts and other higher degrees. The subscriptions now required at Oxford were two—subscription to the Thirty-nine Articles and subscription to the three articles of the 36th Canon. The Thirty-nine Articles were said, by those competent to judge, to involve no less than six hundred theological propositions. They comprised, no doubt, many abstruse points, which had perplexed the most acute minds in different ages. Many of these propositions related to controversies which were not the controversies of our day, and to which therefore men's attention was not directed. It was not easy to see how any man, who had not made controversial theology his special study, could be in a position to express an intelligent opinion as to the doctrines they involved. The Church of England did not claim infallibility, and did not pretend to impose her doctrines on her members Upon her mere ipsa dixit. Either subscription was meant to express an intelligent persuasion on the part of the subscriber that the Articles are correct and satisfactory to his mind, or it was intended simply as a general declaration of membership, or an absence of hostility to the Church of England. If subscription implied an intelligent opinion as to the truth of the doctrines, it became in many cases,
1370
if not a deliberate lie, a very rash profession. If subscription meant nothing more than membership of, or neutrality to the Church of England, then he thought the object might be obtained in a much less objectionable manner. Such a subscription to the Thirty-nine Articles must beget a habit of playing fast and loose with pledges. Subscription to the Three Articles of the 36th Canon was still more unreasonable. Subscribers thereby not only engage themselves to all contained in the Book of Common Prayer, but further undertook to do what laymen could not have the opportunity of doing—namely, using the Liturgy in public prayer, and administering the sacraments according to the rites of the Church of England. Such a system was morally injurious to those who imposed subscription, in so far as these restrictions could be strained or relaxed, insisted on or dispensed with, according to time or opportunity. The history of religious controversy in Oxford for the last twenty-five years was sufficient proof of this. Subscription was also mischievous as regarded the person who subscribed, because the making a solemn declaration in a loose manner must beget a habit of considering a pledge a mere form, and a promise nothing better than a conventionality. The University somewhat absurdly imposed a test of impossible stringency, and, by the lax interpretation she herself recognized, sanctioned its invasion. She showed a mistrust of her own work by exacting security from her disciples. That security, however, could not be enforced, and remained a dead letter. Thus, instead of giving strength, it was a new element of weakness. This Petition was signed, as he had stated, by most distinguished members of the University; by men who had carried off its first prizes, and not a few of whom had earned a European reputation. He would not analyse the signatures; he would only mention one fact which might serve to give the House an idea of the weight to be attached to the Petition. The present body of Fellows of the University of Oxford had among them 131 first-class men; of these not less than fifty-six had signed the Petition. He might be told, after all, this was but the Petition of a minority. That he did not dispute; but he asked the House to consider the character of the men composing this minority and also the nature of the request they made. They said subscription to these formularies was painful and offensive to them and to those who thought

1371
with them; and unless its maintenance was shown to be vitally necessary or highly beneficial to the majority, it was but just and reasonable that the wishes even of the minority should at once be deferred to. Supposing the prayer of the Petition granted, what possible evil could be expected to flow from it? How would it impair the connection of the University with the Church of England, or the religious character of her education as teaching the doctrines of the Established Church? Tuition at the University would remain to all intents and purposes as much in the hands of the Church of England as at present. Masters of Art, as such, had now nothing to do with teaching at the University; that was altogether in the hands of professors, and the fellows and tutors, who were required to declare themselves members of the Church of England before they became fellows or tutors. It would not interfere with the securities taken on entering holy orders, and it would leave every reasonable security that now existed that persons taking theological degrees were also Members of the Church of England, because the University did not confer theological degrees except on those pronounced by the bishops qualified to enter holy orders. It must not be supposed that those who had abstained from signing, or had not had the opportunity of signing this Petition, were to be reckoned as opposed to it. This Petition had been long the subject of conversation in the University. It had been discussed in Congregation, more than once in the Hebdomadal Council, and a copy of it had been placed in the hands of the Vice Chancellor several weeks, if not months, ago. Attempts were made to get up one or more counter Petitions. Those efforts, however, appeared to have been unsuccessful, as he had not heard of any Petition being presented to the House in opposition to the views put forth in the Petition to which he was now calling attention. The effect of granting the prayer of the Petition would be to place the University of Oxford in a similar position to that of the Universities of Cambridge and Dublin, and he thought it would be admitted that the abolition of the test at these educational establishments had not had the effect of severing the connection between them and the Established Church. There was another point to which he would advert, but upon which he would not dwell. It was, how far, if the University of Oxford was to be regarded
1372
as a national institution, it was justifiable, by any religious tests, to prevent any man from completing his educational career there and to exclude him from the enjoyment of the honourable distinctions and civil advantages to be obtained by such a career. It was difficult to understand why a University which, although connected with the Established Church, was essentially a lay University, should require from laymen, upon taking their degrees in arts and science, a strict religious test as to their opinions Upon abstract theological points. He regretted that circumstances beyond his control had prevented him from bringing forward the subject of this Petition at a period when he might have invited the House to express some definite opinion; but he had felt it to be his duty, considering the importance of the question, and the respect due to those who had signed the Petition, even at this late period, to bring the subject before the House. He earnestly entreated those Members who felt an interest in the stability and prosperity of the University to give the subject their best attention, and he hoped that many of them would arrive at the conclusion that it would be for the benefit of the University, and just towards individuals, that the prayer of the Petition should be granted.
MR. HENLEYsaid, he had come down to the House that evening at some little personal inconvenience to himself, as he was rather curious to know upon what grounds the Petition which had been hanging upon the notices for so long would be urged upon the House, what was its object, and why it was to be handled in the dying hours of the Session. He must confess that he had heard a good deal which somewhat surprised him. The House would recollect that at an early period of the Session they had three distinct Motions upon the notice paper. The hon. Member for Maidstone (Mr. Buxton) dealt with the clergy, the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Bouverie) dealt with fellows of Colleges, and the hon. Member for Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn) dealt with the schoolmasters. So that between them they took the whole sweep of the Act of Uniformity, and dealt with subscriptions with the same sort of arguments which had been used by the hon. Member for Sussex. The hon. Member told them that the Petition had been a good while before the University. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman might have heard that there was a Petition going about the University just at

1373
the time the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock was bringing forward his Motion. A friend of his, the Read of a House at Oxford, wrote to him at that time to say that a Petition was going about, but that he could not get to see it, and he asked him (Mr. Henley) to watch whether it came before the House. Something had been said about Convocation, but surely the hon. Member did not mean to tell the House that the Petition, or anything like it, had been before Convocation? The hon. Member must know that Convocation met and affixed the seal of the University to a Petition against the measure of the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock, and generally against all those schemes. But the Wandering Jew was said to be abroad at Oxford, and everybody heard of another Petition which no one could see. He had himself heard of it, but he could never see it, nor any one who had seen it. There was an old proverb that "good wine needed no bush," but he could not see how all those distinguished men whose names the hon. Member had mentioned would be benefited. Did the hon. Member think that he could make the name of the Dean of Christ Church higher by quoting him as one of 107, or could the name of his old friend Dr. Daubeny be made higher by such a circumstance. Out of the 107, two of the signers were undergraduates with himself—Dr. Daubeny and Mr. Senior; in fact, the latter had ceased to reside when he entered the University. Thus it appeared that to collect the 107 names the ground of half a century had to be gone over by the promoters of the Petition. What reasons had the hon. Member given to induce them to consider any proposal in the spirit of the Petition? What the course had been at Cambridge or Dublin he could not say; but this much he did know, that nine years since, when the University of Oxford was reformed, it was decided in that House that the governing body, composed of masters, should make the subscription. The hon. Member had told them the subscriptions were made in a vague manner, and also that the gentlemen who had signed the Petition said that the subscriptions were hateful to them. But did the hon. Member mean to say that those gentlemen had themselves made subscription in a vague manner? That would be rather an interesting matter to know, in order that they might be able to judge of the authority due to those gentle-men. But 107 Masters of Arts out of
1374
3,500 had signed the Petition. The right hon. Gentleman opposite (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) knew more about the composition of the University than he did; but he believed the number of masters ranged between 3,000 and 4,000. Surely 107 was not a large number out of such a body. But then it was said they made up in quality what they wanted in number. If a tavern-keeper were to say, "I will give you a smaller quantity of wine, but it shall be of superior quality," the public would not frequent his house, because, they would say, "We prefer to have both quantity and quality." There were some remarkable facts to which the hon. Member had not adverted, Almost at the time when the Petition, which no one could see, was going about in the hands of the Wandering Jew, a body of some 1,000 undergraduates and bachelors signed a Petition in a contrary sense. That portion of the members of the University who were about to come under the subscription did not seem to think the requirement was so very onerous or grievous. The hon. Member had said that no one should sign the declaration or subscription who was not up in controversial divinity. How far was that argument to be carried? Was no clergyman to sign unless he was well up in controversial divinity? In that case he thought we should get a very queer set of clergymen. He did not think that those most versed in controversial divinity would make the best clergymen. But, after all, the fact was, those distinguished men, beginning at Dr. Temple, Dr. Stanley, the Dean of Christ Church, Dr. Pattison, and going down to Dr. Colenso, were setting up a new school. Dr. Temple had laid down the principle that there is no faith without reason, and all the others were acting on what the Americans called the same "platform." That was raising a distinct question. It was, no doubt, hard to subscribe to all things, but there were also difficult things in the Belief which was taught to children, and in Confirmation, and in the Administration of the Sacrament, and yet it was said that the only stumbling-block was in signing the Thirty-nine Articles. It seemed odd that the hon. Member should contend that a mere Motion to do away with subscription would not give the governing power of the University into the hands of "Turks, Jews, and heretics." In the Petition the Dean of Christ Church disclaimed any interference with theological teaching. Now, who could suppose

1375
that the Dean of Christ Church, a dignitary of the Church, would ever think it necessary to interfere with theological teaching? It did seem odd, and one was reminded that those who excused themselves were sometimes said to accuse themselves. No one would think that the Dean of Christ Church wished to remove reasonable securities against any attempts to impugn the doctrines of the Church. From all that he could gather from various sources, he believed the real history of the Petition to be this:—Those who got it up first tried their hands at a Petition in favour of the measure then before the House, but they found it would not do, because the number of signatures they could obtain was so few. The promoters then thought they would draw it a little milder, and taking advantage of the immense congregation of people in Oxford at the time of the visit of the Prince and Princess of Wales, they contrived to get 107 signatures to the Petition from people who had belonged to the University during the last half-century. It seemed to him that the memorialists, although there were among them some great men—there being thirteen professors, including two of the Essayists and Reviewers—Dr. Temple and Dr. Pattison—were altogether a curious party. He did not see what object the hon. Member had in bringing the subject forward, except it was to afford them a little amusement on one of the last days of the Session, for no practical result could ensue; and, for his part, he entered his protest against any steps in the direction indicated by the Petition.
MR. GOSCHENsaid, he would admit that there was a similarity between the prayer of the Petition and the Motions which had been submitted to the House by the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Bouverie) and the hon. Member for Maidstone (Mr. Buxton), and that they raised one broad issue. [Mr. HENLEY: Hear, hear.] He was willing to meet the right hon. Gentleman upon that issue in its fullest sense—the issue being whether a system of tests was injurious or otherwise to the interests of the Church of England. As he admitted the sincerity of the motives of the right hon. Gentleman and his party, and credited them with every desire to support and maintain the Church, so he begged that he also and those who acted with him might be generously judged, and that it might be thought, that in any measures and Motions they supported they had the interests of
1376
the Church at heart. They believed, however, that the interests of the Church were better served by relying on her native strength than by the interposition of those tests and artificial measures which a weak Church might require for her defence, but which a strong Church ought to dispense with. Were not the members of the Church, he would ask, practically a defined and acknowledged majority of the nation, and had they not exercised an ascendancy and supremacy for two hundred years which ought to have rendered them unassailable? The chief power of the State was in their hands, and therefore let them trust the Church, and not let it go forth to the world that they feared, if a few Dissenters or Roman Catholics entered the Universities, their Government would pass from their hands and the Church of England be injured. The issue which all these measures raised was—whether the Church required that rigid system of tests. Let them assume that the system of tests had so far worked well; the question then arose whether the circumstances of the present day were identical with those of times past. Fortunately or unfortunately, the fact was that there existed a greater spirit of inquiry, more independence of judgment and individuality of thought; and a system of tests that could be applied when men, rightly or wrongly, followed leaders more than they now do, was injurious when every man thought for himself. With that increased tendency to inquiry, accompanied as he thought with greater conscientiousness, it was more difficult than it used to be to get a man of any abilities to sign the Thirty-nine Articles. There was a time when a man would sign them on the authority of a friend, a tutor, or a parent; but now, at the Universities, men were encouraged to study divinity; and they were told beforehand, "If you do not arrive at a certain result, if you find fault with one of these Thirty-nine Articles, if you find any flaw in them, then you shall not have a degree." The natural result of enforcing such a system must be to discourage theological discussion—the object of the right hon. Gentleman opposite, who said, "We do not want a controversial clergy." He replied that "As a Churchman I do want a controversial clergy; we require men to be powerful enough to grapple with the adversaries of the Church;" and there was a party in the Church who said, "If the Church is still

1377
to maintain its supremacy, as it can do and will do, it is necessary that its defenders should fight with somewhat different weapons from those they have hitherto used; but if you discourage theological study, if parish priests are not to acquire intellectual proficiency, if you will not admit amongst them men capable of taking part in controversies, there is less hope for the Church." It was no easy thing to sign the Thirty-cine Articles, embodying so many propositions; and he doubted whether hon. Gentlemen who spoke so glibly about them had studied them closely and given their intellectual belief to every one. Hundreds of persons had signed them, not against their consciences, but carelessly; but now if an undergraduate came to his tutor and said, "This is a point I can't get over," the reply would hardly be "Yours is a morbid feeling; we used not to have these scruples," In his opinion, it was not necessary, to be a stanch member of the Church of England, that a man should implicitly believe every one of the Thirty-nine Articles. As to the small number of names attached to the Petition, he accepted the simile of the right hon. Gentleman, and would say that he preferred a good glass of wine to gallons of negus. Small in number though they might be, those who had petitioned the House were men of the greatest weight and authority. Everybody knew that it was much easier to rally for the defence than for the attack; and if you could raise an alarm among the non-resident members that the Church was in danger, as many names as you chose might be obtained. While on this point, he would say that it was little to the credit of the other party at the University that they had encouraged undergraduates who had not studied the Thirty-nine Articles to sign the counter Petition. Such a document could have no weight with the House, and was a weakness instead of being a strength to the cause; while to have a hundred picked men signing the Petition before the House showed a very considerable unanimity of opinion among a very influential body of men. So far he had treated the question from a Church point of view, as it could not be too often repeated, or too widely known, that there were good and stanch Churchmen, men quite as devoted to the Church as hon. Gentlemen opposite, who believed that a system of tests was injurious to the Church.
But he would now ask the House to
1378
consider the question from the point of view of the Dissenters. The question was, whether Dissenters could be relieved from a grievance, while at the same time the Church was strengthened? It had been said, that if a Dissenter went to the University, it did not signify whether he afterwards wrote M.A. to his name. They might as well say, what did it signify if he could not put M.P. after his name? The question was, could he through life remain a member of the University? It was not fair to say it was not a grievance he should be excluded. A Dissenter who went to Oxford remained under a certain sense of inferiority, and far from being won over by the influence of the Church, as he might be, and as a friend of the Church he was bound to believe he could be, a spirit of antagonism was excited in him smarting under a sense of grievance, and he became an opponent instead of a friend of the Church. It was notorious that at Cambridge Dissenters who had gone there had imbibed more or less the doctrines and the tastes of the Church of England, but what influenced them there was that they could not become fellows. Here he might observe that very ungenerous things had been said of a Dissenter who had lately been Senior Wrangler there—namely, that he had only refrained from subscribing because he desired to keep up a Dissenting grievance. He knew that that imputation had caused considerable pain, but the real motive of the conduct of that gentleman was, that out of a regard for the Dissenters, from whom he sprang, he did not wish, at a moment when a pecuniary advantage would result to himself, to abandon his previous opinion, though he was nearly won over to the Church of England. Thus the present system was certainly against the interests of the Universities, as they lost good men and the opportunity of exercising a softening and conciliatory influence. The question seemed to lie between the principles of inclusion and of exclusion. Every party that became really strong became so by the principle of inclusion. If, in the present days of inquiry, they continued to enforce in respect to the Church of England a rigid system of tests, the days of the Church of England were gone; but if the Church relied on its truth and purity, he could not but say that the Church of England might still flourish and become stronger and stronger every day. He did not wish the Church to retreat, but he wished it to defend its position

1379
on the unassailable heights of revealed religion by the force of reason, and then it might defy the assaults of rationalism.
LORD RORERT CECILsaid, that one inconvenience in the mode in which the question had been brought forward by the hon. Member for Sussex was, that hon. Members did not exactly know what it was they were called upon to discuss. The hon. Member for Sussex asked for a limited measure of relief. He desired that subscription should be abandoned in the case of Masters of Arts only, The hon. Member for the City of London (Mr. Goschen) went farther, and desired that subscription should be abolished altogether. He could not agree with the latter hon. Member when he said that it was a question between exclusion and inclusion, and that all success was achieved on the principle of inclusion. As he understood the hon. Member, he seemed desirous to set up a coalition church, There had been coalition ministries, which had extended the principle of inclusion very widely, but he did not know whether their success had been so brilliant as to warrant the extension of the principle to ecclesiastical matters. The answer to those who wished to abolish tests in the Universities altogether was, that if they had their way, the Universities for which they sought to legislate would simply cease to exist. Let the House imagine the state of things that would follow the adoption of such a measure. Suppose tests abolished, and fellowships and tutorships thrown open to persons of all faiths and religions, what would be the effect of such a proceeding on the simple-minded people of England? Placards of special sermons would announce that the Rev. Rabbi Moses So-and-So, Senior Fellow of Christ Church, was about to preach at such and such a synagogue; that the right rev, the Bishop of some place in partibus, Fellow of Christ Church, Oxford, would preach somewhere else; or that a fellow of some college would preach in the Essex Street Chapel to prove the absurdity of all the articles in the Nicene Creed. Conceive what would be the state of mind of an ordinary country gentleman and of those persons who send their sons to the Universities. They would immediately infer that their faith, which they wished to keep alive in their children, would be in danger at the University, where religious teaching was in such hands, and they would be careful to find some other educational instrument, which had not the misfortune to be under
1380
the control of the House of Commons and under which the religion of their children could be kept intact? If it were simply a question whether a man should be allowed to put the letters "M.A." after his name without signing a religious test, that would be an exceedingly unimportant matter; but that was not the proposition. It was proposed that the degree of Master of Arts, with all the powers and privileges attached to it, should be given to any person of any religion, who would thus form part of the governing body which decided what should be the education in the Universities connected with the Church of England. It was in the power of Convocation absolutely to remodel the whole system of education in the University, to decide that any particular religion should be taught or excluded, or to determine that religion should be set aside altogether. Consequently, if those who were opposed to the Church of England were allowed to govern the religious teaching in the University of Oxford, it followed that it would be in their power to sever the University from its connection with the Church. He knew he should be told that these parties were few in number, and could not seriously affect the decisions of Convocation; but precisely as it was the duty of Parliament not to allow a foreigner, alien to the allegiance of Englishmen, to become a Member of the Legislature, so it was the duty of the Convocation of the University of Oxford to keep out of their body all aliens to that religion which it was their highest function to teach. The hon. Member for Sussex said that he did not desire to trench on the tests which excluded certain men from being Fellows; but the Petition which had been referred to said it was desired that persons whose talents might be of great service to the University should not be prevented from giving to the University the advantage of those talents. But how could they be connected with the University in any official capacity except as being engaged in teaching at the University? Those Dissenters who desired to take the degree of Master of Arts without signing the Thirty-nine Articles either wished to teach in the University or not. If they did not wish to teach, the affair was but a slight matter with them; but if they wished to teach, the whole of the tests must be removed before they could reach the object of their ambition; and then the proposal of the hon. Member for East Sussex lost the innocent character it bore in his hands,

1381
and became identified with the Bill introduced by the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock. He felt convinced that all these propositions, great or small, moderate or extreme, whatever the object of those who brought them forward, could have but one end, and that was the severance of the Universities from the Church of England.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Sir, I listened with the greatest interest to the able speech of the hon. Member for the City of London (Mr. Goschen), and I take this opportunity of congratulating the House upon the accession of a gentleman of so much ability and distinction to our ranks as the successor of one who enjoyed the respect and regard of the Members of this House in a degree not exceeded by any one within its walls. The hon. Gentleman has spoken in a manner quite in keeping with his high reputation, and though persons might differ from some of the hon. Gentleman's opinions, we must all admit that his speech was characterized by a spirit not only of fidelity, but of warm loyalty to the Church of England. The hon. Gentleman, however, and others, as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley), seemed to me to treat this question as if a much broader issue had been raised in debate than was raised by the Petition, or the interpretation which my hon. Friend the Member for Sussex put upon it. Most of the remarks that we have heard in this debate have referred to a question which is indeed a very wide and very profound question—namely, whether there ought to be in the Church of England any system of religious tests. Some part of the declarations of my hon. Friend seemed to me to be directed against the exaction of any test. I must confess that I do not myself comprehend how you are to separate the essence and the principle of tests from the propagation and the maintenance of a system of religious truth, which purports to be revealed, which is essentially definite, and which is to live in the world. It seems to be like dividing the bone and flesh, and vitality itself must necessarily escape in the severance. Let us look at the illustration afforded of this matter. As far as we know anything of the Christian system, it does appear that that which we now call the Apostles' Creed is a document in its substance belonging to the Apostolic age, or to a period immediately subsequent; and what in practice is the Apostolic Creed but a test?
1382
It is a very mild test, and very happy were the circumstances of the Church when a test so mild would suffice. But I want to draw attention to two questions involved in this discussion which appear to me essentially different and distinct. The one is, are we on principle to say that all tests are a grievance to those without as well as injurious to those within the Church? The other question is, are we to say of this or that particular test, it is a test which is cumbrous, unnecessary, and oppressive, and your system of tests ought to be simplified and reduced? The first is one which I confess myself wholly unprepared to grapple with, or rather I should be prepared to make strong objections to that doctrine which condemns all tests on principle, because, as I have said, I cannot conceive how you are to separate them from any system of Christianity. The other is a question which appears to me to be a very fair one for discussion according to the times and circumstances. What is the effect of the Petition before us? The Petition states, "Your Petitioners, therefore, humbly pray that the requirements of subscription to the formularies of faith as a qualification for academical degrees may henceforth be abolished." I admit that the effect of that prayer is different according to the sense in which it is interpreted. If the Petition is intended to imply that those who are to receive academical degrees without subscription to the formularies of faith as a qualification are to go forward and exercise all governing functions in the University, that, I admit, raises a practical question of the utmost difficulty; nor do I know in what manner it would be possible to govern Universities constituted like those of Oxford and Cambridge upon the principle of a general mixture of belief in the governing body. I do not now say whether in particular professorships with particular qualifications, it might not be possible for the University to devise some exceptional system for individual admission. I speak of the general character of the governing body, and I must confess that it appears to me a fair and just demand on the part of the Church of England that the governing body in her University and her Colleges should be composed of her members. The system of the Universities is one which involves full and plenary responsibility, not merely for the instruction in the narrow sense of the word, but for the moral training and the entire formation of the character of the youth committed to their

1383
charge. I will not stand upon any abstract principle of an abstruse character, but I will say these two things—in the first place, I think that the parents of England will not be satisfied to send their children for academical training to an institution calling itself a University, and professing to take charge of their whole life, and the formation of their whole moral character, unless they be convinced that it is administered in conformity with some definite religious system. I lament extremely that in the case of a University and especially an ancient University, full of splendid and venerable traditions, any fraction of the population should be excluded from any portion of its benefits; but if it be true, as I believe it is true in the main, that the religious system of the Church of England as administered in the English Universities is suitable to the wants, feelings, and convictions of, perhaps, nineteen-twentieths of the community who are in a condition to avail avail themselves of University education, I say we must consider the case of those nineteen-twentieths first and in preference to that of any minority which is numerically small. I have spoken thus far of what I think seems to be the justice and fairness of keeping the governing body of the universities in the hands of members of the Church of England.
But my hon. Friend the Member for Sussex, who presented the Petition, did not, after all, raise any question with regard to the composition of the governing body of the Universities. If I understood my hon. Friend rightly, he stated that the object of those who signed the Petition is to establish in Oxford the system which is established in Cambridge and Dublin. With regard to the establishment of that system in Oxford, I must say, in passing, that I should be very sorry to see the intervention of Parliament used at the present time, except under an urgent necessity, for the purpose of effecting a compulsory change in the regulations of the University. I frankly own that I am of opinion an improvement in those regulations might be made, but I think it most desirable upon every ground that that improvement should rather owe its origin to the spontaneous and enlightened convictions of the University itself than to an invocation of the arm of the State. I am disposed to regret, therefore, that these petitioners should not have made their appeal to the University before coming to
1384
Parliament. But to come back to the object of the petitioners, I treat this as a Petition praying that the subscription to the formularies of the faith as a qualification for academical degrees henceforth be abolished, exclusive, of course, of theological degrees; and then I ask myself what it means? If it means the adoption of the system that prevails in Cambridge, I am by no means prepared to determine in my own mind how far a change of that kind would give satisfaction to persons outside the communion of the Church of England. It may be that it is hardly possible to content the views and expectations of all, but at the same time I think the fair principle to act upon is this—that we should reserve to the University and the Church of England in the University all which is really necessary for the effective prosecution of the purposes of the institution, including, of course, above all others, its religious purposes; and while maintaining that principle, to make every other practical concession to those who are without. I confess I do not know upon what principle, strictly speaking, to justify the present state of the subscription at Oxford—and upon this ground, not merely that there is an exclusion of Dissenters from the honour of degrees to which they might, without injury to any one, be admitted, but likewise because I am doubtful about the authority and wisdom of the use of the Thirty-nine Articles as a test of lay communion with the Church. This is a matter of fact—that there is no office, or place, or emolument, unless it be one flowing indirectly through University degrees, to which a layman of the Church of England is obliged to declare his acceptance of the Thirty-nine Articles as a condition of exercising any duty or function to which he may be called. I confess I feel great force in the objection urged by the hon. Member for London to the unnecessary complexity of tests. I do not think that the Thirty-nine Articles were framed in any vexatious spirit. On the contrary, they were framed, I think, with great moderation and even freedom of spirit, considering the circumstances of their origin. At the same time, it is a serious question whether this body of Articles can be said to form a fair and legitimate test, excepting for those who are to be the ministers of religion in the Church. If there were anything in the law or custom of the Church to show she

1385
intended that these Articles should be exacted from lay members, that would be a point of importance; but I cannot find that there is any such principle belonging to the Church as a Church, and there is certainly none such belonging to the constitution or law of the land. In fact, this requisition grew up within the University itself. If the right hon. Member opposite (Mr. Henley) were to put to me the question he addressed to the petitioners, "Are you sore?" I would answer frankly, "No, I am not at all sore under the subscription." I deem myself entirely bound by it, and I am now discussing the question without the least reference to any personal grievance, and simply on grounds of general expediency. I must say, it is not easy to find a justification for exacting from lay members a test so wide as that which consists of the Thirty-nine Articles and the three articles of the canon law. With respect to the question, whether the test now taken upon masses of words ought to be taken from all persons, I know no reason why we should not adopt that system which has been adopted, and I believe works well, in the University of Cambridge; but then comes the question, what test should be applied to those who are members of the Church of England? I have been proceeding all along upon the supposition, that if you are to reserve the power of acting in the governing body to members of the Church of England, that fact must be ascertained by some test, and the question would be what test is the proper one—whether a simpler test than the present one would not be more appropriate and more in consonance with the general spirit and law of the Church of England. I confess I am of opinion that an improvement might be made in that direction in the present system. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxfordshire referred to the 107 persons who have signed the Petition, and appealed to me on the proportion they form of my constituents. I believe that the number of the constituents I have the honour to represent is very close upon 4,000, but it would not be quite fair to speak of the 107 as gathered out of the 4,000. As I understand it, they are gathered out of that portion of the 4,000 who have at some period been either teachers or fellows of colleges at the University. That is certainly a very much smaller body—perhaps numbering six or eight hundred—but there is no question, on the one hand,
1386
that the 107 names comprise a very large proportion indeed of the ablest and most distinguished men; and on the other, that they are a decided minority even of that special class of the constituency from which they are selected. If, however, we are to take age into account, and it be our duty as Members of Parliament to consider not merely the past but the future, they are certainly a growing minority; they are possessed of a weight much beyond that which their mere numbers would indicate, and almost every year makes sensible additions to their numbers. As I have said, I am the last person to invoke the intervention of the State in the management of the University. On the contrary, I desire that that intervention should be limited to the fewest and the gravest occasions. The free action of their governing bodies is of the utmost moment to the welfare of the Universities and of the country; but I do, I confess, arrive at the conclusion that it might be for the peace of the University, as well as the means of attaining other advantages, if the University herself were to consider the question whether the present state of her subscription is that which is most agreeable to her interests and to the purposes for which she exists. These are views which I am far from pretending to say can be expected to make a complete settlement or to give entire satisfaction to all classes of persons. Those who object to the principle of tests appear to me to make demands which it is impossible to concede without surrendering in substance everything that is essential to the vitality of the Church and of the University; but, on the other hand, I am disposed to think that the present state of the law and practice of the University admits of improvement. The right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Henley) treated the question as one that had undergone full legislative consideration in 1856, but I contend that such was not the case. The desire of the Government of that day was to exclude altogether from the Bill of general reform which they introduced the subject of religious tests, not because all or most of the members of the Government were not of opinion that there was need of change, but because they thought that the mixing up of religious questions with the general topics of University Reform they had to discuss would not be satisfactory to Parliament. It was against the will and the votes of the members of that Government, that in one of the last stages of that Bill

1387
the House, by a large majority, carried a forcible alteration on the state of subscription at Oxford. But what was done then was done somewhat hastily, and was not the result of any deliberate arrangement or compromise. That it was not regarded as a matured decision of Parliament may, I think, be inferred, among other circumstances, from this—that when, a few years afterwards, a Bill was introduced for the reform of the University of Cambridge, it was founded in that respect on the principle that all the degrees, except the theological ones, should be accessible to all persons without distinction of sect. I believe that, upon the whole, was the wiser system. I do not mean to say that the present arrangement presses with severity, but certainly I think it is a matter which well deserves the consideration of the University of Oxford, both on the sound and just principle that she ought to extend her advantages as far as possible without vital injury to her own essential principles and likewise upon the ground that even as regards the status of lay members a system of tests less complex than that now in operation would be more in accordance with the spirit and purposes of the Church and the University.
MR. LYGONobserved, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had identified himself with the petitioners, although he had endeavoured to reduce their demand to the narrowest possible dimensions. He (Mr. Lygon) concurred with the noble Lord the Member for Stamford (Lord Robert Cecil) in thinking that it was extremely inconvenient to discuss a subject of such grave importance without having a definite question submitted to their consideration. The prayer of the Petition was that those who had religious scruples to professing their belief in the Thirty-nine Articles should have the right of affixing M.A. to their names without subscribing to any religious formulary. Now he (Mr. Lygon) could not see what good object was to be gained by the adoption of such a change. If any advantage were to arise from it, it would be one infinitesimally out of proportion with the evils that would be created by disturbing the present relations of the University of Oxford and the Church of England. It was said to be painful and humiliating to persons who did not belong to the Church to be checked in their academical career on that account; but he did not see how the difficulty would be met by merely moving the restriction a
1388
stage further, and, while admitting Dissenters to the M.A. degree, denying their admission to Convocation and any share in the government of the University. It was due to the public that the circumstances of the Petition should be fully understood. The Petition had been talked about in the latter part of last year, but the knowledge of the terms of the Petition and its exact prayer was confined only to those who were known to be friendly to its object. Towards the close of last year, a manuscript copy of the Petition was intrusted to the Vice Chancellor. Its terms, however, were not spontaneously given to the public generally. There were 107 signatures to the Petition; but one gentleman, in his enthusiastic zeal, signed twice, and the real number of the Petitioners was 106. He had taken the trouble of examining into the relative proportions of residents and non-residents. He found that forty-eight were non-resident, and that of these some had left the University at a rather remote period. Eight of the Petitioners were still in statu pupillari—that was to say, though entitled to write the magic letters B.A. after their names, they had not yet obtained the degree of Master of Arts. A few of the Petitioners, though called Fellows, were only probationary Fellows when they signed the Petition, so that the number of resident members of the University signing the Petition was only fifty. Now, he readily admitted that a Petition, signed by fifty resident members of the University engaged in the work of education, was entitled to great respect at the hands of that House; but it ought to be understood that they spoke for themselves, and themselves only, and that they could in no way be held to represent the University at large. He thought, moreover, that the House would establish a very dangerous precedent if it encouraged a small portion of a body which, like the University of Oxford, had the power of regulating its own affairs, to appeal to the superior authority of Parliament, instead of availing itself of the more legitimate and regular means at its disposal for obtaining assent to its views. With regard to the general question of subscriptions or tests, he thought it should be borne in mind, that if they were to teach revealed truth, they must have, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer observed, some test for the purpose of ascertaining the religious opinions of the teachers, whether it took the form of subscription or of discipline.

1389
They might abolish the existing system of religious subscriptions, but in so doing they would not promote peace and harmony; he felt, on the contrary, that the system of subscription had been one of the most effectual means of preventing undue religious animosities. The recent state of religious opinion seemed to him to afford a very forcible proof of the accuracy of that conclusion, because as long as there was no question as to the meaning of the subscription the system worked well, and the University and the Church continued most closely united. But since measures had been taken to render that meaning as vague and confused as possible, religious discord and acrimony arose, and it became necessary to evoke the aid of the tribunals to settle the dissensions in the Church, and supplement the work which subscription was intended to perform. If subscription were abolished, they must replace it with a much more rigid and distinct system of ecclesiastical discipline than had ever yet been attempted in the Church of England; and he left it to the House to decide whether such a state of things would be likely to insure religious harmony, or to promote the interests either of the Church or of the University. Something had been said in the course of that discussion as to the Universities being places of national education. No doubt they were so in some sense, and he trusted the day would never come when they would wholly cease to be places of national education. But the reason why they had been places of national education was that they had commanded the confidence of the people of this country, and they commanded that confidence because they taught a definite system of religious truth. He believed that if they dispensed in the Universities with the necessity of teaching the system of religious truth inculcated in the Church of England, they would at once shatter the confidence of the people in those great educational establishments. The hon. Member for the City of London said that they ought not to distrust the results of their own education over young men who spent three years at a University, surrounded by those special Church influences which those establishments supplied. But the hon. Gentleman stated only one-half of the case. It was not the mere prospect of writing "M.A." or "B.A." after people's names that induced them to enter the University. The honourable distinction and the civil advantages
1390
which attended the acquisition of University degrees formed a powerful attraction in that case. Many men went to the Universities from the very legitimate and honourable desire of obtaining a share of their endowments; and if there were no chance of participating in those endowments, and of directing the education of the country by means of the possession of a degree, there would be no necessity for enforcing any test or taking any measure to ascertain that those who gained that distinction were members of the Church of England. But so long as those advantages attached to a University degree, it was only right that the University should exact from those whom she had educated some proof that her teaching had not been altogether futile, and that her words of wisdom had not been thrown away. He would not enter further into the merits of the general question; but he trusted it would be understood that the Petition was signed by a very small minority of the resident members of the University, and that that minority had never ventured to apply any test which would enable them to ascertain what was the general feeling of the University upon that subject, and still less what was the feeling of the larger body of Convocation. He had one other observation to make with respect to the Petition. He found that it was signed by 106 members of the University, and that seventy-three of those members were laymen. Now, any alteration in the relations of the University of Oxford to the Church of England was a matter in which the clergy might be expected to take a very considerable interest; and it was important they should remember that they had no good reason to believe that the Petition represented the wishes or opinions of the clergy of the Church of England. For his part he felt persuaded that it would be an evil day for the country in which anything should be done by that House to sever the connection between the University of Oxford and the Church of England; it would be a misfortune for the Church, but it would be a still greater calamity for the country at large.
MR. GRANT DUFF: Sir, an elaborate analysis of the Petition which we are just discussing has just been placed in my hand. It is too long and too complicated to read to the House, but it proves—what, indeed, I knew well before—that these 106 consist of the very élite, the blue blood of the Oxford constituency. Since the fateful

1391
year 1845, when the great secession took place to Rome, under the leadership of the illustrious Newman, there has been a steady reaction in Oxford towards Liberal principles. Surely everybody knows that at the present moment five-sixths of the men who get fellowships belong to the Liberal party, and would abolish tests, if they could, to-morrow. The assertion of the noble Lord opposite, that the University of Oxford would dissolve or come to an end, if tests; were abolished, sounds strange indeed to a Scotchman. Why, in the Scotch Universities we have not got these precious tests; and although religious dissensions in Scotland are proverbially bitter, we do not find that the absence of tests make our Universities less peaceable and agreeable places to live in—nor do we find that the students receive a bad education in consequence of the absence of tests. Again, if the abolition of subscriptions would be so fatal to Oxford, how is it that nine-tenths of the literature used by the young men there comes from Universities where there are no tests? Whence comes our best classical books? whence our best philosophical books? whence our best historical books? nay, whence our best theological books, orthodox and heterodox, the bane and the antidote, as the phrase is? Don't they all come from Universities where there are no tests? But before I sit down, I wish to congratulate the House on the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University. It is only a crumb of comfort, and not a very large crumb; but still, as the Liberal party has starved for two Sessions, it is something to get even a crumb. On the second night of this Session I called the attention of the House and the party to the fact that the Government programme did not contain one Liberal measure, properly so called, and the performance of the Government has, to do it justice, been quite in keeping with its programme. I want to ask how long this state of things is to continue. Are not we Liberal Members supporting a negation? Is it not a sort of practical falsehood, that a Government should sit year after year upon that bench, calling itself a Liberal Government, but really, as it would seem, existing chiefly to put a spoke in the wheel of Liberal measures. How is my hon. Friend the Secretary of the Treasury to keep the party together? The great politico-economical questions which have been 'of the order of the day' for the last twenty
1392
years have, as their apostle, the hon Member for Rochdale told us recently, been definitively and satisfactorily settled as far as regards this country. Well, then, if Reform is not to be meddled with, and there seems no chance for the present of resuscitating that question—if, I say, neither Reform, nor any of these religious questions to which the Government has been giving the cold shoulder this Session, are to be taken up by us, what in the name of wonder are we to do? Are we to be bound together by personal ties to the Gentlemen upon the Treasury Bench? If so, it is rather a pity that some of them have no very strong claims to our personal attachment. What is to happen when an event occurs, which in the nature of things must one day occur? How is my hon. Friend the Secretary of the Treasury to gather us, the rank and file of the Liberal phalanx, around any successor who may seek to ascend the vacant throne of Alexander?
MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, that the question on which the debate really turned was one of very great magnitude. He felt bound to tender his best thanks to the hon. Member for the City of London, for his very manly and frank declaration of the objects of the movement for the alteration of the formularies of the Church. The hon. Gentleman said, that in these days there was more individuality of thought and a greater spirit of inquiry than had prevailed in former times. Now, he (Mr. Newdegate) was inclined to dispute that opinion; but if the spirit of inquiry was to end, as the hon. Gentleman suggested, in the Church's changing her position, they ought to pause before they adopted any course which was calculated to lead to so great a change. There was once a country gentleman who was also a scholar and a man of refined taste, who suggested this grave question, "What is the Church?" That gentleman was Evelyn, who, in the year 1688, on finding that the word "church" was used with such various meanings, and produced confusion in the minds of the people, warned his friends that they ought to come to some understanding with respect to the sense in which it should be understood. It was because he (Mr. Newdegate) wished to see the Church trustworthy, that he was jealous of any abandonment of her declarations, her subscriptions, or her tests. The hon. Member for the City of London set so high a value on the opinion of the minority in the University of Oxford that he invited the House

1393
to make that minority the governing body in that University. [A gesture of dissent from Mr. GOSCHEN.] The hon. Gentleman surely had proposed that the suggestion of the minority should be adopted by the Legislature for the government of the University, without reference to the opinion of the majority of that body. But that brought him (Mr. Newdegate) to observations which fell from the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The right hon. Gentleman had thrown it out as a subject well worthy of consideration, whether they should not have for the laity some test of churchmanship which would not be the Thirty-nine Articles, and which would differ from that which the clergy should be required to subscribe. He would still require from the clergy a declaration of their assent and consent to the Thirty-nine Articles, but he would exempt the laity from that declaration. Let the House consider for a moment the magnitude of that suggestion. The Church of England held that the laity formed in their appropriate sphere the body of the Church, and that no clergyman was more a churchman than a layman: if the legislature were to establish a distinction between the churchmanship of the laity and the clergy, they would at once approach the position of the Church of Home, which held the clergy to form the governing body of the Church in all matters relating to religion, and the laity to be only their subjects. He need scarcely say that he was no advocate for such a change. It was well known in that House that he valued equality of the laity with the clergy in churchmanship, and for the purpose of government, more highly than most Members; or, at all events, as highly as an Member of the House. Attempts to unduly simplify tests very frequently led to interminable confusion. He was glad to be able to think that the House and the Government had virtually come to the decision that they would not, without far more consideration than they could then give to the subject, offer even a recommendation that the only University in this country which remained limited to members of the Church of England should be opened to persons holding any other religious opinions. The University of Cambridge and the University of Dublin had given up the subscription in the cases referred to, and had been thrown open to other denominations than the Church for the purposes of education It was not, he thought, too much to require that there should be left in Oxford one great
1394
educational establishment to which the Protestant laity of the Church of England might send their children with the conviction that they would be brought up in the doctrines and discipline of the Established Church. Had Oxford suffered from the existence of the tests? Experience showed that the alleged limitation of the spirit of inquiry did not practically exist: if there was danger, it must be attributed to the latitude of speculative opinion now publicly indulged, not to restriction. He rejoiced to say that the University to which he belonged had not suffered. They might see what was the feeling of the nation on the subject when they compared the position of the University of London, in which no religious tests were required, with that of Oxford. The trial had been fairly made, and it had been cleary shown that there was no probability of the University of London rivalling those of Oxford or of Cambridge in the estimation of the country. Why, then, should hon. Gentlemen seek to reduce Oxford to the level of London University? He repudiated the idea that these declarations or subscriptions were generally accepted without being understood by those who took them. For himself, he could say that there was no branch of study in which he so much prepared, or in which he was so severely examined, as the question whether he understood and could accept these declarations. He trusted the opinion in favour of the change would not expand as was hoped, though he admitted that those who advocated the change were an active party, and that they had an energetic leader in Dr. Stanley; but he believed, that when the attention of the great body of the Masters of Arts had been aroused to the question, the strength of the feeling against the change now virtually proposed would be made manifest, and that this would show the value they attached to the existing system.
MR. BUXTONsaid, he was surprised at the remarks made by some hon. Gentlemen as to the manner in which the Petition had been got up. The intention to present it had been the subject of general conversation at Oxford; and those who took the opposite view of the question had ample opportunity of preparing a counter Petition if they thought proper. He agreed with the Chancellor of the Exchequer that it would be more satisfactory if the University herself made the proposed change, instead of coming in the first place to that House; but then it was extremely

1395
doubtful whether the University would have any power to legislate on a subject of the kind. Again, there was naturally a very conservative feeling among the members of the University, and it was next to impossible to introduce reforms in such bodies without external assistance. For himself and his friends who advocated that and kindred improvements, he disclaimed being actuated by any other motive than the conviction, that if carried out, they would not only not weaken the Church of England, but would rather strengthen her and ennoble her character and position in the country. The noble Lord the Member for Stamford must have been very hard up for arguments when he warned the House not to accept the proposal of the hon. Member for Sussex because its ultimate result might be to astonish the minds of country gentlemen. It was not to be supposed that any ordinary country gentleman would send his son away from the University merely because he happened to hear that the Rev. Mr. So-and-So, M.A., was going to preach in a Dissenting chapel. The practical question at the bottom of the discussion was as to the admission of Dissenters to the Government of the University. He could not help thinking, however, that nothing could be easier than to make an arrangement similar to that existing at Cambridge, by which the governing power should still be retained in the hands of Members of the Established Church. But even if they should admit a few Dissenters into the governing body, he did not believe that any danger would result to the Church teaching of the University. As the Chancellor of the Exchequer said, nineteen out of twenty, and probably ninety-nine out of every hundred, of those who were likely to enjoy the advantages of the University, would naturally either be members of the Established Church or her friends and allies. The admission of a small minority of Dissenters would, he thought, have a wholesome effect upon the governing body; and as to any apprehension that they would get the controlling power into their hands, it was likely to prove about as chimerical as the fears formerly expressed by some that that House would shortly become a Judaical assembly if a Jew were allowed to sit in it. The question was not whether they ought to abolish every kind of test at the University, but whether these particular tests did not go beyond the purpose for which they were first intended.
1396
They were originally introduced by the Earl of Leicester for the purpose of bullying the High Church party, and then the High Church party introduced further tests and declarations, in order "to trim the way boats" that way. Nothing, then, was less dignified or less worthy of respect than the origin of these tests at the University; and men of different shades of theological opinion had been accustomed to cast a slur upon each other's sincerity in subscribing them. Indeed, they had had an example that very night, for the right hon. Member for Oxfordshire had ventured to insinuate a doubt whether the distinguished gentlemen who signed the Petition had themselves taken these tests in a sincere and genuine spirit. The present system required, as had been stated by the Bishop of London not long ago, a perfect science of interpretation; and those who were most anxious to preserve their truthfulness unstained invented all sorts of explanations and excuses to keep their conscience clear. Many who took these tests explained them away, saying, "Oh, they meant nothing, or amounted only to a a general adhesion to the doctrines of the Church of England." He believed, with his hon. Friend the Member for the City of London, that a minute and anxious conscientiousness was more rife among young men than it used to be, and that was a reason why these tests should be relaxed. The effect of the present system was to exclude some who would be an honour to the University, which was thus narrowed, and suffered some degree of loss. The essence of the matter was this—there was intrinsic absurdity in the system. A Master's degree implied that he had received the best education which the University could bestow. That was felt to be an honour. It was valued by men, and it was absurd that when a man had gone through the education necessary to obtain it, and derived all the benefit of it, he should not be able to place after his name the sign that he had done so, because he might differ from one or two of the Thirty-nine Articles. He thought that was one of the last shreds of a system which had been virtually condemned by the acts of that House. At Cambridge it did not exist. At Cambridge no kind of harm had resulted from its abolition; and he could not see why in a matter of the kind Oxford should not be as liberal as Cambridge.

GREECE—CESSION OF THE IONIAN ISLANDS.—OBSERVATIONS.
MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCKsaid, he rose to call attention to the proposed cession of the Ionian Islands to Greece. He felt it to be his duty, in the absence of any more experienced Member accepting the task, to inquire of the Government what course they were about to follow, and the reasons for the extraordinary change in their opinions upon the subject. The first announcement of the intended cession was made before the meeting of Parliament, by the publication of a despatch of the Foreign Secretary, dated November 30. There was then a difference of opinion respecting the object of that despatch. Some persons thought that it was one of those wild and reckless effusions, full of sentiments of liberty and freedom, which singularly distinguished the official career of the noble Lord. Others regarded the proposed cession as a clever device to bind the Ionian Islands more closely to this country—a device which might well be described in a word of one syllable, which fortunately had not found its way into the vocabulary of that House. But it was certain that at that time there was no desire on the part of the British public that the cession should be effected, nor any belief on their part that it would be effected. When Parliament met, however, it appeared that the Government were in real earnest. The proposition of the Government, as marked out by the speech from the Throne, by the Greek despatches, and also by the declaration of the Minister, might be summed up in these words:—That the new Greek assembly were to maintain a constitutional monarchy—to refrain from any aggression upon neighbouring states—to choose a Sovereign under whose sway the Greek nation might enjoy internal prosperity and peace; and then if the Ionian Legislature expressed a wish for annexation to Greece, the British Government would take steps for consulting the great Powers upon the subject. If these were the conditions which Her Majesty's Government proposed, it was clear that if Greece remained in a state of anarchy and disorder, and if a Sovereign was not found who would be likely to carry into effect the line of policy which was traced out by Her Majesty's Government, then the latter would not be prepared to try the very dangerous experiment of ceding a possession to which
1398
previous Governments of all shades of opinion had clung with singular tenacity. Time passed on. Two Sovereigns of great experience were applied to to fill the vacant Throne. They both refused, and at length, by a telegram which came from Athens, and was received here at the end of March, it was announced that the Greek Government had unanimously elected Prince William of Denmark for their future King. During April and May various questions were put to the Government, but no satisfactory replies were obtained. First of all, they said they could not answer, then they would not answer, and finally they did not answer. During the month of May the disorders and anarchy of Greece increased, and an opinion was confidently entertained in that House that Her Majesty's Government were about to postpone sine die the question of the cession. It was therefore with very great surprise that on the 11th or 12th of June he read the papers relating to Greece (No. 2), and containing the protocols of various conferences held at the Foreign Office during May and the beginning of June, and especially a protocol of a conference held on the 5th of June, by which the Foreign Minister changed entirely the basis and principle of the cession, and abrogated those conditions which had been insisted on as precedent to the first negotiations. The Danish Minister announced that Prince Christian, acting as guardian of Prince William, accepted the hereditary Sovereignty of Greece, but only upon the express condition of the Ionian Islands being effectively united to the Hellenic Kingdom. There was, then, no condition of good Government nor of abstinence from aggression upon the neighbouring States. But, beyond that, it was agreed, that if the union of the Ionian Islands to Greece should obtain the sanction of the great Powers, Her Majesty's Government would recommend to the Government of the united States of the Ionian Islands to appropriate £10,000 a year for the new King, and further that Her Majesty's Government would give up in favour of Prince William the sum of £4,000 a year now received from Greece in part payment of debts due. Such a change of policy was, in effect, trifling with the House and the country at large, and he therefore was justified in asking now what really were the intentions of the Government, and for what reasons they had abandoned the conditions they had previously laid down,

1399
or, if not abandoned, what guarantee had they that such previous conditions would be discharged. The Prince might be elected and crowned, and yet within a few weeks, or even days, the Government might be upset, and a republic proclaimed. What guarantee had they that the new King would govern, to use an expression of the Foreign Secretary, by an enlightened code, or according to liberal principles? The Prince had not yet completed his eighteenth year, and it was a singular coincidence that he was within a few months of the age Prince Otho had attained when he was elected to the throne in 1833; and there was no guarantee, that however excellent his intentions, he might not be misled by bad advisers into a course similar to that of his unhappy predecessor. There was no guarantee against aggression upon other States except that of the good faith of the Greek people, and those of our countrymen who had lent money to that nation would not attach much value to such a guarantee. Greece was plunged into the depths of democracy—disorder and anarchy were prevalent—within the last two days a despatch had been published, in which the President of the Council of Ministers, who would of course be disposed to make the best of the actual state of things, admitted that the army was in a state of mutiny, and had imbrued its hands in what was called a fratricidal strife, and that the National Bank had to be guarded by soldiers belonging to the three protecting Powers. The throne of Greece had been hawked about and offered to the highest bidder. No bidder had appeared, and the King of Denmark had only accepted the throne for his nominee, upon the conditions precedent that the Ionian Islands, which were in a state of prosperity, were annexed to Greece, and that the great Powers would forego a sum of money to form a civil list for the new King. Supposing, then, the islands ceded, and Prince William crowned, if another revolution occurred in Greece, we should have parted with those islands without any possibility of recalling our decision. Besides, by abandoning our protectorate without conditions, we committed an indefensible breach of trust. The islands were given to us to preserve the balance of power in Europe, and we have no right to abandon them without the full assent of all the Powers interested. France and Russia would, no doubt, consent to the cession of the islands, and with good reason,
1400
for our possession of them was a barrier against Russian aggression, and would prevent any attempt on the part of France to gain power in the East. But Austria and Turkey were of a different opinion, and while Austria was disinclined, Turkey positively objected to the cession. The noble Lord had said that Turkey had no right to be admitted into the Conference. Legally speaking, the noble Lord might be right; but having regard to the present position of Turkey, and to the fact adverted to by Lord Stratford de Redcliffe in another place, that by ceding the Ionian Islands we were opening the flank of the Turkish European possessions, would the noble Lord say that Turkey had no moral or equitable right to be heard? On the whole, he thought that neither reason nor the force of circumstances warranted the Government in their determination to surrender these islands. Moreover, it was said that a strong disinclination existed on the part of the Ionians themselves to the transaction. He learnt from the noble Lord that there was a treaty in preparation, but whether it was to be signed before the vote of the Ionian Legislature was taken upon the subject he did not understand. He trusted that the Government would come to no hasty conclusion on the question, but it would be allowed to stand over till Parliament re-assembled, when statesmen of all shades of politics would have full information before them, and sufficient opportunity of making known their sentiments upon the subject.

MONUMENTS IN WESTMINSTER ABBEY.—OBSERVATIONS.
MR. MONCKTON MILNES: I rise, Sir, to call attention to the Fees demanded by the Dean and Chapter of Westminster for the erection of Public Monuments in Westminster Abbey. In this closing Parliamentary conversation of the year I do not think that the few remarks which I have to make on this subject will be regarded as intrusive, because it is one of considerable interest; and it is also one which for some time has not engaged the attention of the House. I wish to make a few remarks on the circumstances connected with the erection of the monuments of illustrious men in Westminster Abbey. The last time when this subject came under the attention of the House was in 1854, when I brought it forward in connection with a monument to the poet Campbell—a statue erected by subscription,

1401
and which his friends and admirers desired to place in the Abbey, where he was buried The Dean and Chapter of that day asked a fee of £200 before they would allow this full-length statue to be erected. Sir William Molesworth was then at the Board of Works, and promised to give the subject his serious consideration. He afterwards made a strong remonstrance to the Dean and Chapter, and in consequence the fee was either wholly remitted or considerably reduced; but that concession was followed by a resolution in the Chapter that they would admit no other monument into the Abbey, however illustrious was the person in whose memory it was to be erected. Now, I desire to recall those circumstances to the House, because I conceive that such a resolution on the part of the Dean and Chapter was one which did not carry with it either the consent of Parliament or the assent of the country. It had, indeed, so little effect that from that time to the present continual applications have been made to the Dean and Chapter, and have either been met by a refusal, or else, as in a case which has lately occurred, by a most inordinate demand. A short time after the appointment of the present Dean an application was made for permission to erect a monument to a Prime Minister, whose name is associated with many very important public measures. The Dean refused to admit such a monument, on the plea that there was no room in the Abbey for any more statues, The same excuse was made when it was proposed to erect monuments to Lord Macaulay and also to Mr. Hallam. In the case of the statue to Mr. Hallam, I was a member of a Committee whose duty it was to go over the Abbey and see whether this assertion was well founded; and I am bound to say that it was my conviction, and that of the other members of the Committee, that there was plenty of room for the erection of this and of many other monuments. Another case—that of the late Earl Canning—has brought the matter strongly before the public. In the Abbey stands a statue over the grave of Mr. Canning. The son has followed the father into that illustrious repose; and the friends of the family, representing here the instincts of public opinion, strongly desired that some memorial should exist there of the son as well as of the father, that posterity may see what their contemporaries thought of these two illustrious men. That proposal has also been met by a positive refusal, although
1402
it is the impression of Earl Canning's remaining relatives and friends that there is nothing in the locality to prevent the erection of such a monument. Again, there was a modest proposal to place in Westminster Abbey the bust of Sir George Cornewall Lewis, a name so freshly as well as so regretfully remembered among us here that it sounds almost strangely in connection with those mournful associations. The Dean and Chapter, however, said, if ever they did make an exception in the admission of a tablet and bust, they should demand the sum of £200. Now, they seem to rise somewhat in their demands, for they asked only £200 for the full-length statue of Campbell. Of course, this question might be dealt with by a Royal Commission, or an Act of Parliament might be passed to place these monuments, and the sites for monuments, at the disposal of the Board of Works or the Crown; for I cannot admit that there is in the Dean and Chapter any such vested right in Westminster Abbey as that which is assumed to exist in other cases. The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary lately read a letter from the Dean, who stated that these monuments very much intruded upon the worshippers, and therefore it was not intended to allow any more of them; and he justified the large demand made for the tablet and bust by saying that it was necessary in order to operate as an exclusion. Now, such an argument seems invalid, because we know that in this wealthy country £200 is not such a sum as would prevent the intrusion of the remains of unworthy persons into the Abbey. I do trust, therefore, that the Dean and Chapter of Westminster may be brought to a more just consideration of this matter, and one more consonant to the feelings of this House and of the country, and that it will not be necessary to have recourse to such extreme measures as those I have alluded to. I know the present Dean of Westminster intimately, and I know him to be a man whose motives are as little sordid as possible, who is full of high and patriotic sentiments, and who in early life ventured his person in the cause of national freedom. I cannot suppose him to be naturally deaf to argument; such an act on his part would give some justification to an opinion I have heard expressed—namely, that there is something in high ecclesiastical office which tends to blunt the feeling and to stifle the patriotism of a man. It should

1403
be remembered that Westminster Abbey cannot be placed in the category of ordinary cathedrals. It is the place, above all other ecclesiastical edifices, where the great, the wise, and the illustrious of England have desired to repose. There, as it has been said—
"Through the dim aisles all shapes of empire gleam,
Near the dim 'Corner' of the poet's dream."
We must have some place for the monuments of our illustrious dead, and the jealousy of a free Government would naturally render it very difficult to determine between the claims of those whose friends might seek their admission to a secular building like, for example, the Houses of Parliament. On the other hand, the sense of religion and the sacredness attaching to the edifice, would render it far more easy to obtain a general acquiescence in the determination of the Dean and Chapter in such cases. I trust Her Majesty's Government will seriously remonstrate with the Dean and Chapter on this subject. It is not true that there is no room in the Abbey. There is room between the several arches throughout the whole have for a full-length statue of some illustrious person, which would add very much to the decoration of the building, and be in harmony with the solemnity of the place. A great many of the chapels are no doubt crowded, and a great many of the monuments are not so well exhibited as we could wish, but we must take this as an accident, for it is much better to have a plethora of the monuments of remarkable personages there than to be deprived of the advantage of having them there at all. I trust the Dean and Chapter will reconsider this matter, and find means to reconcile the convenience of worshippers with the wishes of the country, and not insist on their inordinate demands. That an ecclesiastical Corporation should require to be paid £200 for admitting the bust of a great man shows a want of sympathy with that great man, and indicates a feeling which I should be sorry the country should believe that they entertained. The excuse that those fees are necessary to keep up the fabric is utterly futile; the sums thus obtained are not considerable, and the fabric might be sustained either out of the large corporate funds belonging to the Abbey or from some other collateral source in the hands of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. I trust, if the question be seriously considered, that several of the members of the
1404
Chapter will feel ashamed of the spirit which has been exhibited, and that they will induce their recalcitrant colleagues to yield to the wishes of the country.
MR. F. S. POWELLsaid, the more the House and the country considered the condition of the Abbey, the more they must be convinced that some change was required in order to bring it into harmony with the sacred purpose for which it was designed. The hon. Gentleman who introduced the subject seemed to regard the Abbey, not so much in the light of a national church as of a national museum, and to think that the more it was dissociated from the religious sentiment the better pleased the House and the country would be. It was the opinion of eminent men who had studied ecclesiastical art, that in the grandeur of its proportions, the beauty of its details, and the religious sentiment which breathed from every feature, Westminster Abbey was at once unrivalled and unequalled. But if that were so, there was another judgment which was arrived at by no less common consent—namely, that there was no building dedicated to ecclesiastical purposes which was so degraded in regard to monumental taste by everything which aimed at beauty, but succeeded only in reaching the highest point of the deformed and contemptible. His desire was, not to add to this aggregation of monuments, but to remove some of them from the aisles and the nave. There were some monuments there which were Hindoo, and some which were classical, but not one which was Christian. [Sir GEORGE BOWYER: Hear, hear!] In a former generation there was in that House a distinguished man who had accomplished the emancipation of the slaves—Mr. Wilberforce; but no one could walk in the Abbey without being struck with his painful contortion as he was represented in marble, and the expression of misery he seemed to evince at the company amongst whom he was placed. A suggestion had been made by Mr. Beresford Hope, that at some future time, when the Chapter House was restored by the munificence of Churchmen, the Dean and Chapter might, under proper regulations, admit into that building, not dedicated to the highest sacred purposes, but of a semi-secular character, the monuments of men distinguished in every department of civilization. That seemed to be a reasonable proposition. He hoped, in this case, the Dean and Chapter would be firm in maintaining

1405
that the Church over which they were constituted guardians was a building intended for the worship of God, in which congregations of Christian people were accustomed to meet for holy purposes one generation after another, and not a mere hall in which an enormous mass of marble might be erected in every corner, and that there should be a clear space in which worship might be conducted in a decent manner. As to the suggestion that there should be monuments under every arch, he doubted whether the hon. Gentleman had ever attended service in the nave. [Mr MONCKTON MILNES: I have, several times.] If so, the hon. Gentleman must have felt that the have was already sufficiently cumbered. It was not for him to defend so distinguished a man as the Dean; but he thought the duty of Churchmen was rather to diminish than increase the number of monuments in the Abbey; and on that account it was that he had not remained silent.

INFANTICIDE.—OBSERVATIONS.
MR. COX, in calling attention to the subject of infanticide in England and Wales, said, the question was one which had occupied public attention for a considerable time. In the course of the last year he was very much struck by the constant reports in the newspapers of verdicts given by coroners' juries of the wilful murder of children, and he had in consequence moved for a Return of those verdicts in England and Wales during a period of eighteen months—namely, for 1861 and the first half of 1862. He found from that Return [Parl. P. No. 39, 39-I.] that the total number of children under two years of age, who had met with untimely deaths within that period was 5,547. In 224 cases verdicts of wilful murder were returned; in 697 open Verdicts of "found dead;" and there were 956 cases of suffocation; so that out of 5,547 deaths of children under two years of age in England and Wales, in which it was necessary that inquests should be held, there was a total of 1,887 cases of what might fairly be called "murder." He was sorry to say that the metropolis had a bad pre-eminence in regard to child murder, for during those eighteen months no less than 297 children were murdered in the metropolitan district. Coroners' juries seemed anxious to avoid giving a verdict of "wilful murder" even though against some person or persons unknown; they preferred such a verdict as
1406
"found dead." He submitted, that if in their state of boasted civilization there were upwards of 5,000 violent deaths of infants in the course of eighteen months, it was a matter which ought to engage the attention of the Government. The Secretary for the Home Department might doubt whether a remedy could be found for that state of things; but having had the subject long under his consideration, he (Mr. Cox) was ready to make a few suggestions with that object. From a careful examination of the Returns, he was inclined to think that a number of the child murders did not arise from what suggested itself as the most obvious cause, the desire of a woman to get rid of the evidence of her shame at the earliest opportunity. In a great number of the cases of wilful murder, the children had attained the age of twelve months and upwards. The bastardy laws, he thought, were much to be blamed for these results, the allowance of 2s. 6d. a week for the maintenance of a child being wholly insufficient. In some instances, women brought before the metropolitan police magistrates had confessed the crime with which they were charged, giving, as a reason, that the sum allotted weekly was not sufficient, and that they might as well murder the child at once as see it die of starvation. As the law stood boards of guardians were not entitled to assist or aid a woman in any way, even to recover the 2s. 6d. weekly. If that restriction were removed, they would in many cases be able to procure for a woman the means of supporting her illegitimate child, and would take away from her the temptation of murdering it. He was corroborated by Dr. Lankester, one of the coroners for Middlesex, in the assertion that juries were averse to finding verdicts of wilful murder against mothers, because the punishment for murdering a child was the same as for murdering an adult. During the recess he trusted that the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department would take the subject into his serious consideration, and see whether he could not devise some remedy for a great and crying evil existing in the midst of our civilization.

POLAND—AFFAIRS OF GREECE.

  QUESTION.
  MR. MONSELLsaid, he wished to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether there is any objection to laying upon the table of the House, the Correspondence which took place in 1825

  1407
  and 1826, between the Government of this Country and that of Russia, with reference to the Affairs of Greece? The correspondence for which he asked had a direct bearing on the question of Poland. The answer of Russia to the notes of England, France, and Austria, was before the House; and the Russian Government, in that their latest communication, put forward principles which they conceived would justify them in hounding General Mouravieff against the women of Poland, in setting peasants against the landed proprietors, and in carrying on the most barbarous system of extermination that was ever witnessed in the civilized world. It therefore became a matter of importance to find out a case in which the Russian Government had stood towards another country in the same position that we now occupied towards Poland. The case of Greece afforded a remarkable parallel. He appealed to the noble Lord at the head of the Government to print the despatches of which the Duke of Wellington, then extraordinary ambassador at St. Petersburg, was the principal writer, which would show the principles which actuated the Government of Russia at that time. Into the general question he would not enter, but would leave the responsibility entirely with the noble Lord, upon whom it then rested. From the conduct of Austria, and the feeling exhibited by France, there could be no doubt at all, that if England remained firm, great results would be achieved for Poland. The passages hitherto in the history of England connected with Poland were not the most glorious to look back upon. In 1772 France, then under a feeble sovereign, and weakened by a sanguinary war, appealed to England for assistance in preventing the partition of Poland, and England refused. Again, in 1831 France was ready to act, but England refused. The circumstances of the times might have justified such a policy in those days; but now, at all events, Russia was weak, Austria had shown a chivalrous determination to stand by her engagements, France was ready to act, and Prussia by her conduct had, for the moment, almost blotted herself out of the number of the great Powers of Europe. As he had before said, the responsibility rested on the noble Lord, who, better than any other statesman in Europe, was capable of judging how far he would be able to carry out the ends he proposed to himself. In two particulars
  1408
  the case of Poland was far stronger than that of Greece. In the first place, in 1826 there were no treaty engagements like those of Vienna relating to the Kingdom of Greece; and in the second place, the Greeks, in 1821, had undoubtedly been guilty of a most frightful massacre of the Turks living among them, of men, women, and children to the number of 20,000. No act of barbarity of that sort could be charged against the Poles; under most trying circumstances they had acted for the last two years with the greatest moderation, avoiding offensive demonstrations of any kind. The points of resemblance between the two nations were very striking. One of the great difficulties which had to be encountered in the case of Greece was that it was almost impossible to define the geographical limits of the country, whether it extended to Thessaly or Epirus or Albania. Questions of precisely the same character had since arisen with regard to Poland. In the second place, the war was produced by the strong feelings of animosity which prevailed between two races. Precisely the same feeling existed in the case of Poland. The whole population of Greece were unanimous in their desire to shake off the Turkish yoke, and determined at every sacrifice to do so; in Poland, at that moment, precisely the same spirit existed. What was the course pursued by the different Governments of Europe? It was a remarkable circumstance that Russia was the first to act. The insurrection broke out in 1821, and in 1823 Russia communicated to every Court in Europe a project for settling the question of Greece. It proposed to interfere directly in the struggle, although it had no treaty rights whatever, and objected in the present day to the interference in Poland of other Powers having treaty rights; and it suggested that Greece should be divided into three different governments, with a governor at the head of each, subject to the general suzerainty of the Porte, but having each the power of managing their own concerns. As in the case of the Six Points of our own day, the project was distasteful to both the contending parties. The Greeks did not want to be divided, and the Porte resented interference with its authority. That proposal fell dead, the war proceeded with frightful bloodshed and massacre for a year or two, and in 1826 Mr. Canning sent the Duke of Wellington on a special embassy to St. Petersburg, where a protocol was drawn up, in concert with the

  1409
  Russian Government, recommending certain arrangements to the Porte, but without menace in the first instance. These propositions were rejected, and England and Russia then concluded a treaty to which France afterwards gave its concurrence. Sir J. Macintosh said that that treaty was not only founded on principles of reason and justice, but was conformable to the soundest principles of the law of nations. By it the three Powers, in the interests of humanity and for the sake of the tranquillity of Europe, offered their mdiaetion and demanded an armistice, as a preliminary condition of any negotiations. They further required that the Greeks should be entirely independent, paying a certain tribute and remaining under the suzerainty of the Porte, but having power to buy up all the Turkish property and turn the Turks out of the country; and stipulated that the limits of territory should be settled by negotiations. The contracting parties engaged that they would seek no augmentation of territory or exclusive advantage for themselves; and there was a secret article providing, that if these propositions were refused, the three Powers should take counsel together as to the course to be pursued. The Turks refused to accept the propositions. They dwelt a good deal upon the revolutionary spirit which was displayed by those who took the part of the Greeks, and declared that if foreign Powers did not interfere, they would be as quiet as possible. That answer was not satisfactory to the Powers, and therefore, with Russia at their head, they took steps to enforce the armistice which they had recommended. The battle of Navarino was fought; and although it was considered in England an untoward event, Sir E. Codrington was applauded by the Emperor of Russia in the highest terms for all that he had done. It was of the highest importance that full details of these negotiations should be laid before the public. The world would then see how Russia acted when she stood towards Greece in a position similar to that which we now occupied with regard to Poland; how different were the principles by which she was then guided from those laid down in Prince Gortschakoff's despatch, and probably even Russian statesmen would be shamed into taking a course somewhat different from that which they were now pursuing. He therefore hoped that the noble Lord would consent to the production of these papers. Statesmen and philosophers had dwelt
  1410
  much upon the value and importance of that comity of nations by which the public law and public morality of civilized Europe were maintained; but it would be at an end if Russia was allowed to continue the course of murder and extermination by which she had disgraced herself during the last few months.
  MR. HUNTsaid, he thought they were indebted to the hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. Cox) for bringing forward the subject of infanticide, which he (Mr. Hunt) knew, from his magisterial experience, was largely on the increase. He did not, however, think that the bastardy law had much to do with the matter. The real cause of half the child-murders in this country was the desire to conceal the shame of giving birth to an illegitimate child. There were two reasons why this crime was on the increase. One was a proper subject for the consideration of the House; the other was beyond the scope of the House, and though very important was calculated to provoke a smile. It was the existing style of dress of the females of this country. He believed that the dress of females in the present day conduced very seriously to immorality. The crime of infanticide was very prevalent among domestic servants, to whom the large full dress had descended, and that dress not only interfered with their usefulness in household work, but assisted greatly in the concealment of pregnancy. With such a dress it was almost impossible for any one living in the same house with a pregnant woman and even sleeping in the same room to know that she was in the family-way. He repeated that this matter was entirely beyond the power of the House; but hon. Members would do themselves a good turn, and at the same time promote morality, if they forbade their female servants to adopt the present fashionable mode of extending their dress. The other cause was the way in which the law was administered, or rather altered by the Judges with regard to child-murder. In former times the questions put in such cases were—whether the child was born alive; whether it came by its death by violent means; and, if so, whether the child came by its death by the hands of the prisoner. The first question was generally answered by a surgeon by means of the lung test. If the child had breathed, it was held that it had been born alive, and could be murdered. That was the old and he believed the right principle, but the Judges, from tenderness and a re-

  1411
  luctance to convict a woman for the crime of child-murder, had explained away that doctrine. One Judge held that the question was not whether the child had breathed, but whether it had done so when it was entirely separated from the mother. That, he believed, was not a correct interpretation of the law; but yet it had recommended itself to the minds of almost all the Judges. It was now almost impossible to convict a woman of the murder of a new-born child unless she confessed, and even a confession was sometimes not sufficient for conviction. There was a case, for instance, which recurred to his memory in which a woman was brought up at the assizes of Northampton for the murder of her child—a crime which she appeared to have perpetrated in the most deliberate way. She was a widow, she sent every person out of the house when she expected her confinement; she delivered herself; she tied some portion of her dress round the throat of the child, she placed the body under the bed, and she slept upon it for some time until she found time to bury it. The Chief Baron was the presiding Judge, and the woman pleaded guilty. The Judge asked her whether she understood what was meant, and she insisted on pleading guilty. He, however, would not receive the plea, and she was consequently sent back to prison, the result being that when she was brought up the next morning she pleaded not guilty under the tuition of the Judge. The usual question was then put as to whether the child had an independent existence. The doctor said, "No," and his Lordship persuaded the jury to find, which they did with great reluctance, the prisoner guilty of concealment of birth, and not of murder, and he only sentenced her to one year's imprisonment. It would have been much better for the morality of the parish from which she came, that the crime should not have been detected than that it should have exposed and made known that the law only gave one year's imprisonment for such an offence. As a sequel, he might mention that in the garden attached to that woman's house there was found the skeleton of another child to which she had given birth, and which she had no doubt also murdered. Now, such a thing as a woman being hanged for the murder of a new-born child was never heard of. Such being the case, they ought to pass an Act to give some severe punishment for the destruction of child-life, and
  1412
  not leave the Judges to the alternative of convicting a woman either of child-murder, which they would not do, or of the concealment of the birth, when the evidence clearly proved a murder.
  SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, that owing to the desultory nature of the discussions Which had taken place, he felt himself called upon to mix up several subjects in replying to the Questions which had been addressed to him. He wished, in the first place, to answer those which had been put in the early part of the evening by the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ayrton) with respect to the state of the law affecting the rating of Compound Householders claiming to vote at Elections, and he must observe, without making any general statement on the subject, that the complaints which arose in connection with it, had their origin principally in the provisions of those local Acts which authorized the imposition of the rate in certain places on the owners, instead of the occupiers. The hon. Gentleman had asked him to look into those private Acts during the recess, and that he was very willing to do. It might be a question for consideration hereafter, whether there might not be a general Act declaring that the provisions of general statutes which did protect voters in the exercise of the franchise under those circumstances should not be made applicable to all private Acts, but he did not wish to express a positive opinion upon the point without further consideration.
  He should next advert to the Question put to him by the hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. Cox), which was one of general importance. There was no doubt that the crime of infanticide did exist to a very great extent, but whether it was or was not on the increase was more doubtful. He was not sure, whether, taking into account the increase in the population and increased facilities of detection, the number of this description of crimes did bear a greater ratio to the population than was the case some time ago. A great many cases were brought to light through the agency of the police which previously to their establishment escaped detection, and the Returns were therefore not to be taken as conclusive on the point. Be that, however, as it might, the suggestions made for the prevention of the crime did not appear to him of a very practical character. The hon. Member for Finsbury suggested that there should be an increased allowance to the mothers of illegitimate children,

  1413
  but he doubted whether, if such a proposal were carried into effect, it might not tend to the increase of their number. Then, as to the suggestion made by the hon. Gentleman opposite with regard to the dress which women should wear, he must say that it appeared to him to be a matter rather for the consideration of heads of families than of the House of Commons. He should be very slow to condemn the rules of evidence in cases of this nature laid down by the Judges, and in reference to the case mentioned, in which the Lord Chief Baron was concerned, he thought that learned Judge, who was a man of great experience, was perfectly right in the course he took, if he believed the woman to be ignorant of the legal effect of the plea of guilty which she put in. The best means of checking the crime of infanticide, in his opinion, was to improve the morals of the people, and for that they must look to an improved education and the spread of religious instruction. No law which Parliament could frame would be effectual to prevent it.
  With regard to the question of the erection of monuments in Westminster Abbey, he had the other day road a letter from the Dean explaining the grounds on which he acted in such cases. The Government, he might add, had no power to interfere in the matter, and the Dean and Chapter were, he thought, quite right in principle in objecting to any interference with that portion of the building devoted to the celebration of Divine service. Every facility ought, at the same time, to be given, in his opinion, to the erecting of monuments to distinguished men, provided they did not trench on the space devoted to public worship. With respect to the erection of busts in the Abbey, the Dean and Chapter reserved to themselves the right of granting or refusing permission, permission being granted in no case without the payment of £200. In laying down this rule no sordid motive could be imputed to the Dean and Chapter. They had no pecuniary interest in it, but it was deserving of their consideration how far they might be able in the case of distinguished men to avoid imposing charges of such an amount.
  MR. KINGLAKEsaid, that taking into account that that was probably the last occasion in the Session on which the House would have an opportunity of discussing the position of that great nation the Poles—for a great nation he would call them—and bearing in mind also the grave
  1414
  peril which at that moment threatened the peace of Europe, he hoped to be allowed to address himself briefly to the interesting question which had been introduced by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Monsell). In his opinion, the right hon. Gentleman had succeeded in establishing the analogy which existed between the situation in which Greece was in 1825, and the position of affairs at the present moment with respect to Poland. The right hon. Gentleman might have added one or two circumstances tending to clinch the analogy which he had so well established. The right hon. Gentleman might have said that the condition of Greece at the time she was taken up by France, England, and Russia was inferior in point of strength in many respects to that of the Polish insurgents. Again, the right hon. Gentleman might have strengthened his argument by a reference to the language recently used by the noble Earl the Foreign Secretary, which brought the two cases into a condition of strong resemblance. After deprecating war, and saying that it would take a great deal to cause England to pass from a state of peace, the noble Lord said it would nevertheless not be tolerable, in the existing state of feeling in Europe, that the Polish nation should be destroyed. That was the principle upon which the Powers proceeded in the case of Greece, and that was a principle which he ventured to say could not now be neglected. He regretted that the debate which took place the other night did not occur twenty-four hours later, when they would have been in possession of the despatch addressed by the Russian Government to the Government of Her Majesty. In one sense it was an advantage that the discussion took place without knowledge of the terms of that despatch, because he was inclined to think that a production of that despatch during the discussion would have generated a feeling of indignation in the House of Commons which would have been hardly compatible with the maintenance of peace. Every word which he uttered on the last occasion was spoken with a full sense of the duty which was incumbent on every one of making great allowance for the situation in which Russia was placed. Therefore he hoped that nothing he might say now would be regarded as the result of a too hastily-formed sympathy with Poland, or a too hastily-kindled indignation against Russia. But he confessed he

  1415
  was unable to read the Russian despatch without feelings of the greatest astonishment. In the first place, the tone was more extraordinary than even the contents. There was a tone of sarcasm which, considering the grave situation of which it treated, was altogether surprising, and must tend to irritate every man who cast his eye over the document. The despatch set out by saying that it was the right of every country to put forward any interpretation which it liked of a treaty, provided that the interpretation was consistent with the words of that treaty. There was some other trifling of that kind, and then there was a great deal of satirical writing founded upon an expression in Earl Russell's despatch. It commented on some words of the noble Earl that every Government should be founded upon the confidence of the people, by raising the question whether the people ought to begin by having confidence and then respect, or begin by having respect and afterwards confidence. It then went on to speak of the despatch itself as giving an indication, forsooth, of compliance by the Russian Government with their own proposal to have an exchange of ideas. In effect the Russian Government put it thus:—"You say one thing; we say the opposite. Now there is an exchange of ideas, and we have fulfilled our promise." Passing from the tone of the despatch to the purport of it, they found no comfort at all. The despatch held out, in the harshest terms, that there could be no end to the sufferings of Poland until they were ended by the unconditional surrender of the Poles. It then went on to reject altogether the idea of any further negotiations with any of the eight Powers who signed the Treaty of Vienna, and proposed to confine all negotiations to the three partitioning Powers. Russia would not consent to any consultation with the eight Powers, but only with the three Powers who were all in the position of participes criminis. The despatch ended with the extraordinary request that the English Government should declare in clear and categorical terms that the insurrection in Poland should not be interfered with by any kind of intervention from this country. Now, not to intervene was one thing; but to declare that they would not intervene was another. In one point of view be hoped that the demand on the part of the Russian Government would be
  1416
  complied with. He hoped that the answer of Her Majesty's Government would be categorical and clear, and he also hoped and ventured to believe that it would be a categorical and clear refusal. If the despatch from Russia was of a nature calculated to make them despair of any good likely to result from negotiation, they had some consolation in finding that the course taken by Austria was exactly such as the friends of Austria and the friends of Poland would desire to see her taking. The noble Earl at the head of the Foreign Office spoke the other day in very strong and almost enthusiastic terms of the position which Austria was resuming in Europe, and he could not but think, knowing the noble Earl's sympathy with the cause of a suffering people, that when he uttered those words he had some foreknowledge of the honourable and bold course which Austria was about to take. The despatch which had been forwarded by the Government of Vienna to the Cabinet of St. Petersburg was little short of what all the friends of Poland and Austria would desire. The Government of Russia had affected to believe that Austria suggested a conference merely on the supposition that possibly Russia might like it. Austria repudiated the notion, and declared in plain and open terms that the conference she suggested was so suggested that a refusal to grant it must involve the responsibility of the Russian Government. Then, again, the Russian despatch had submitted that Galicia, an Austrian possession, should be brought into the same arena of controversy as the Kingdom of Poland. The Austrian despatch explained that there was a material difference between the two—a difference illustrating that honesty was the best policy; for in the one case all constitutional Government was wanting, while in the other constitutional Government was in full operation. But, above all, Austria declined to enter into any separate negotiation. Austria declined to take any course which could by possibility separate her from the Western Powers; and he perceived by the newspapers that Austria had instructed her representatives in all the Courts to declare that no consideration should induce her to separate from the understanding which she had contracted with the two Western Powers. He thought a despatch in these terms was in a high degree satisfactory. Still, he desired more. Considering that Austria was a Power whose territories bordered upon Poland, he must hold that

  1417
  it was her duty to take a more prominent part in putting down the sufferings of Poland than was incumbent on the other Powers. Her frontier was disturbed. She had the means of action. He held that where the power existed responsibility followed, and that Austria would do less than her duty if she only did what France and England were prepared to do. He could not but feel that some intention of that kind was shadowed out in part of the Austrian despatch; for in words sometimes used in diplomacy, but not often used unless there was a prospect of negotiations coming to an end, Austria had declared, that if Russia should persevere in the course she had adopted, the grave responsibility involved in that course would rest entirely on the Government of St. Petersburg. He considered that in those grave words there was shadowed out something like an intention on the part of Austria to fulfil the duty which devolved on her. The papers moved for were of great importance in regard to their bearing on the Polish question. It might be that they were in the library, but that would not be an answer to the Motion, because it was extremely desirable that they should be in the hands of hon. Members, and he should see their production with pleasure because of the significance there would be in producing papers relating to Greece, as an illustration of the way in which it might become necessary to deal with Poland. Before Parliament separated, he trusted the Government would consider the position in which this country would stand if massacres and executions in Poland should be horrifying the people of this and of the adjoining country at a time when no negotiations were going on to give a hope that those massacres and executions would cease.
  MR. HENNESSYsaid, he considered it fortunate that the responsibility of criticising the important despatch recently laid on the table had devolved on an hon. Member distinguished alike by his ability and his moderation. The replies sent by Russia to the three Powers were in truth an insult to each; and the invitations which Russia sent to Austria to join her and Prussia in another Holy Alliance of the partitioning Powers was an insult to Europe. He had no doubt that Russia would receive from this country, France, and Austria, fitting answers. Indeed, it was stated that Austria had already rejected with indignation the invitation of Russia. That was a most critical time in
  1418
  the history of Poland. For fifty years this country had been giving to Poland words in every shape and form, and there seemed to be at length some appearance of a practical and even speedy settlement of the Polish question. How was that to be brought about? Was it to be achieved by the further continuance of diplomacy? Did they believe that the Government which had sent those insulting despatches could be any longer convinced by the arguments of diplomacy? He thought not, and he would urge on the Government to pay particular attention to the wishes of the people of England, as expressed at numerous public meetings, that they should act in cordial alliance with the Emperor of the French. He believed that the people of this country had full confidence in an alliance between England, France, and Austria, in favour of Poland, and would rejoice to see an end put now to the old policy of words. The time had come for something more creditable to England and more useful to Poland than diplomatic notes.
  MR. SOMERSET BEAUMONTsaid, he did not entirely agree in what had fallen from the hon. Member for the King's County (Mr. Hennessy), because it appeared to him that the only subject of suspicion and mistrust, in reference to the solution of the Polish question, was what would be the conduct of France if there was a joint intervention on the part of Poland; for France never made war without an object of aggrandisement. He thought, however, that the hon. and learned Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Kinglake) had shadowed out the policy which would remove all grounds for mistrust. It was the first time that there had been an alliance of Austria with this country on behalf of Poland, and it was not merely the alliance of Austria, but of the whole German nation, as appeared from the opinions of all the British Ambassadors and consuls who had alluded to the subject. According to Mr. Buchanan, writing from Berlin, the Chamber there was in favour of the policy of Austria, not that of Prussia. Sir Alexander Malet, writing from Frankfort, said the whole of Southern Germany was in favour of the Austrian policy. And Bavaria, Saxony, Wurtemburg, and the whole of Germany looked to Austria to lead them. He therefore agreed with the hon. Member for Bridgewater that Austria rather than France had better be looked to in order to solve

  1419
  the question. Austria would not much longer remain in the situation in which she now found herself—of being obliged to arrest her own subjects, and to prevent arms being sent to people with whom she sympathized. She must soon take an attitude more decided. When she did so, Germany would follow her, and then the solution of the Polish question might be hoped for. He trusted the House would receive such an assurance from the noble Lord at the head of the Government, that it might continue to give him that cordial support and approval which he had hitherto received on the Polish Question.

THE INTERNATIONAL EXHIBITION GROUND.—QUESTION.
LORD ELCHOsaid, he was anxious, before the prorogation of Parliament, to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, What course the Government intend to take with regard to the Land purchased by Parliament at South Kensington? On the part of those who had resisted the purchase of the Exhibition building, there was no wish to offer obstruction to any proposal for rendering the ground available for the promotion of science and art, and he believed that no objection would be offerred to the transfer from the British Museum to that spot of the Natural History collection. Of course, the hon. Members of that House did not pretend to give any advice on the subject; but, speaking individually, it seemed to him that the Government were in the same position as the landowner who was about to build a house for himself and his family. The first thing he would consider would be the wants of his family and the probability of its extension; then he would consider the best means of getting a suitable design, and would proceed afterwards to build it on the best principles, combining as far as possible utility and appearance. The country had bought the land, and it would soon be clear; for though the Chancellor of the Exchequer had endeavoured to persuade the House that there would be some difficulty in getting rid of the building, the contractors the very next day repudiated the statement, and had gone to work to pull it down. There was a hoarding erected all round it already, and in process of time no doubt it would be all cleared away. That no time might be lost, the best course would be for the Government
1420
to make up their minds what would be required, and what collections would have to go there. He believed it would be found that the Natural History collection was the only one which it would be necessary to remove. The noble Lord had given an assurance that the National Gallery should not be removed there, and by a vote of that House the Portrait Gallery must go along with the National Gallery. It had been shown that the Patent Museum, to be of use, must be somewhere in the centre of the town; therefore, practically, it was only the Natural History collection which required accommodation. However that might be, the Government ought to make up their minds as to what was required, and then advertise, inviting the architects of Europe to send in plans, one of the main features of which should be that they should be capable of extension.

AFFAIRS OF POLAND.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  VISCOUNT RAYNHAMsaid, that as that was probably the last opportunity he would have, he hoped the House would allow him to make a few remarks on the subject of Poland. General sympathy had been expressed by the House and the country on behalf of that distressed nation, and no one in that House had attempted to discountenance that general expression of sympathy; but sympathy was not enough—in fact, it might mislead the Poles, and damage their cause. Material assistance was what they needed, or the present year might see the last gasp of the Polish struggle for liberty; but the great obstacle to this was the fear of war. Everybody, of course, must be opposed to war, except in oases of extreme necessity. If there were any cases in which a war would be justifiable, they were those in which our honour was involved, and he had never heard it disputed, that we were in honour bound to regard the interests of the Poles. He did not attempt to dictate to the House what course ought to be pursued, but the Government had admitted that we were implicated in the cause of Poland, and that we were bound to a certain extent to regard the interests of that country. The cause of humanity and the interests of civilization called upon this country to take decisive steps in support of the Poles. It was clear that the Poles were now heroically striving for that liberty which

  1421
  was their birthright, and the honour of this country was involved in the policy of taking a most active part on their behalf, even to the extent of drawing the sword. The gross violation of the Treaty of Vienna was a sufficient justification for our most active interference in defence of the rights and liberties of Poland. A large portion of the people of this country had expressed a desire to go to war if it should be necessary. Diplomacy, he was afraid, was likely to be of but little advantage. The adversaries of the cause of Poland had been very active. Many pamphlets had been distributed, in which the most extraordinary statements had been made against the Poles. It had been said that the insurrection was got up by the Catholic party, and that the priests were at the bottom of it. Some people, indeed, asked, what was Poland? He was afraid those who asked that question did so more for the purpose of sowing dissensions amongst the advocates of Poland than in any interest for that country. The people of this country were parties to the treaty of Vienna, and he hoped they would not sanction the oppression of the Polish nation which was carried on under that treaty. Much had been said of the benevolence of the present Emperor, but he did not know that there was anything to show that he was much better than his father of execrable memory. The conduct pursued towards Count Zamoyski showed that there was no change in the conduct of the Russian Government towards the Poles. Compromise would no longer answer, and the distinct independence of Poland must be recognised. The conduct of the brutal Mouravieff and the barbarous cruelties that were now being committed were a further inducement to pursue such a course. It was true Her Majesty' Government had expressed the greatest sympathy for the sufferings of Poland. He was, however, sorry to find that they evinced reluctance to aid that noble people with something more substantial than mere words. He had given notice of a Resolution to the effect that the Emperor of Russia had set up a claim to sovereignty in Poland directly at variance with the treaty of Vienna, and that, as one of the contracting parties, Great Britain could no longer continue to the dominion of the Emperor over Poland that sanction which she granted by that treaty under conditions inseparably connected with it, which had been grossly and systematically violated by Russia. At so
  1422
  late a period of the Session he could not hope to have an opportunity of bringing on that Motion, and he would therefore abandon it. He would, however, ask the noble Lord at the head of the Government whether he did not think that the policy indicated in his Resolution was the one which England ought to follow.
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: Sir, let me, in the first place, answer the Question of my noble Friend with regard to the Exhibition ground. It is quite true that the ground will probably be cleared of the building now upon it as fast as that operation can be performed. I may say, that whereas the House of Commons thought it a dear bargain to buy that building for £80,000, we have been informed—whether truly or not I cannot say—that the contractors are now going to get £100,000 for it. [An hon. MEMBER: £90,000] That shows that the bargain we recommended was not such a bad one. Between this time and next Session Her Majesty's Government will consider what will be the proper disposition of the ground in question, and will take steps for forming such plans as will provide for the immediate wants to which it may be suitable.
  The hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. C. Bentinck) began that evening with a discussion upon the state of Greece, and he appeared to imagine that Her Majesty's Government had changed their policy with respect to the union of the Ionian Islands with the Greek Kingdom, and with regard to the views which they entertained as to the conditions under which they thought that those Islands might properly be added to Greece. No change whatever has taken place. The hon. Member stated, that as set forth in the Speech at the commencement of the Session, we held the opinion, that if a Sovereign were chosen for Greece, who gave a promise of maintaining constitutional Government, peaceful relations with his neighbours, and an abstinence from any system or policy of aggression, the Ionian Islands might usefully be added to the Kingdom of Greece. All I can say is that I trust such a Sovereign has been chosen. The hon. Member thinks that because the new King is young we cannot reckon upon the policy which he may pursue; and he instanced the case of King Otho, who was about the same age when he was chosen, and who certainly did not justify the hopes of constitutional Government which at the time of his selection we thought we were entitled to entertain. I am convinced that

  1423
  such disappointment will not be experienced in the case of King George, which is the name the Greeks have given to their new Sovereign, William of Denmark; for I am satisfied that that Prince will govern Greece in the manner in which we think it ought to be governed by him, that he will develop the internal resources of the kingdom, that he will maintain constitutional institutions, and that he will preserve peaceful relations with his neighbours. We believe that the Ionian Islands were placed under the Protectorate of England for their advantage, and that it was the duty of Great Britain to promote their interests as far as it was possible to do so. We think that has been done by the manner in which the Islands have been governed, and we believe they are now in a state of much greater prosperity and happiness than they ever before enjoyed. But we have thought, that there being a prospect now of a Greek Kingdom constitutionally governed, and of a Sovereign under whom the internal prosperity of the country would be susceptible of that great development for which its natural position and its resources qualify it, we should be consulting the interests and wishes of the Ionian people, as well as the interests of Greece, by offering to the Ionians union with Greece if they should consider it for their advantage. Of course, they will not be united to Greece unless they themselves express a desire to be so. They have upon former occasions frequently expressed such a desire, and that, too, at a time when Greece was under a Government which rendered union, we should have thought, a punishment rather than a boon. The course we shall follow will be this:—We shall obtain the concurrence of those Powers by whom the Ionian Islands were placed under the protection of Great Britain to an application to be made to the Ionian Parliament to know whether it is their wish and the wish of the people to be united to the Kingdom of Greece. If that wish is expressed, the union will take place; if it is not expressed, of course no violence will be done to the feelings and desires of the Ionian people. But I cannot believe that they will do otherwise than express a desire to be united to that body of their fellow-countrymen who occupy the Kingdom of Greece. The hon. Member reverted to the discussion which took place yesterday with respect to the right of Turkey to be a consenting party to the proposed transfer. I have endeavoured to show, and I am persuaded that those who study
  1424
  the Treaty of 1819 will see, that that treaty was not an engagement placing, or contributing to place, the Ionian people under the protection of Great Britain; that it was a treaty by which the Sultan acknowledged a pre-existing fact—a fact which had been created without his concurrence or sanction—and that there is nothing in the treaty which implies that he acceded to the Treaty of 1815. He simply acknowledged that the Ionian Islands are under the protection of Great Britain, and in virtue of that protection he engaged to give the Ionians certain privileges as British subjects. There is a fundamental difference between a treaty which acknowledges a fact created independently of the Power concluding the treaty, and a treaty which is an accession to one already concluded. The case would be exactly the same, supposing a treaty were concluded between the Federals and Confederates in America, by which the latter were erected into an independent State, and Great Britain were afterwards to make a treaty with the Confederates for the regulation of commercial intercourse. That would not be a treaty of accession to the Convention between the two parties in America; it would simply be a treaty acknowledging the fact of the existence of the Southern States as an independent country, and arranging certain matters between Great Britain and them. I think, therefore, there is no just ground for stating that we have in any degree departed from our policy with regard to the union of the Ionian Islands with Greece. I trust and believe that that union will be accomplished, and that it will redound, first of all, to the honour of England, as acting from the most disinterested motives, for the good of the people who were placed under her protection, and next to the happiness and prosperity both of the Ionians and of the inhabitants of Greece.
  The right hon. Member for Limerick (Mr. Monsell) has asked whether Her Majesty's Government are disposed to lay before Parliament the Correspondence which took place in 1825 and 1826 between this Government and the Government of Russia with respect to the interference which subsequently happened relative to the affairs of Greece, and which resulted in the independence of Greece and the creation of the kingdom. My right hon. Friend has certainly established a very strong resemblance in some points between that transaction and the affair now under discussion in regard to Poland. There was an insurrection

  1425
  which went on for some time without any material interference by the other Powers. At last, the sacrifice of human life, and the attrocities committed in the course of the struggle, attracted the attention of the other Powers, who interfered first of all by friendly representations, and then in a more decisive manner. That which ultimately led to the active interference of the Powers was the announced intention of Ibrahim Pasha to remove the whole population of the Morea to Egypt, and to re-people the Morea by fellahs brought from Egypt, which was thought a measure so outrageously violent that it led to the immediate decision of the three Powers to interfere. I have not heard as yet that there is any precisely similar occurrence likely to take place in Poland. Still, there is no disguising the fact, that the present state of things in that country is most lamentable. It is not only in the Kingdom of Poland that the state of things is deplorable, but in Lithuania and other provinces as well. The landowners are in this lamentable condition:—On the one hand, the Russian Government declares, that if they do not actively assist it, they will be subjected to every sort of penalty that can be inflicted upon them; while, on the other hand, the revolutionary Government at Warsaw tells them, that if they do not aid the insurrection, they will be subjected to all the penalties which it may be in the power of that Government to impose. Between the two, therefore, their condition is most pitiable. I need not say that the correspondence of 1825 and 1826 is very voluminous, and it is probable that some portions of it need not be laid before Parliament. We shall look over it, and if there are any parts of it which really have an interesting bearing upon the present question with respect to Poland, there will be no objection to produce them. Undoubtedly, the questions are so far similar that the principles which Russia maintained in the case of Greece may have some resemblance to the grounds taken by England, France, and Austria in regard to Poland. As for the Polish Government itself, I am sure the House will not expect me to go into a discussion of it on the present occasion. I would just offer one remark with respect to the observations which have been made on the Russian despatch. I stated, on a previous occasion, but I may as well repeat it, that in all former correspondence on the subject of Poland, the ground taken
  1426
  by the Russian Government has been, that the quelling of the insurrection in 1831 and 1832 emancipated Russia from all obligations under the Treaty of Vienna, and that from that time she held Poland as a conquered province to do with it what she pleased, treating it as a part of the Russian Empire: hence she denied the right of any of the parties to the Treaty of Vienna to question any of her proceedings in the government of Poland. That ground has not been maintained, and so far in the recent despatch a great step has been gained. Russia now admits that the parties to the Treaty of Vienna are entitled to discuss with her the government of Poland within the limits of that treaty; and that is a very great advance made by Russia in regard to any negotiations which may take place with respect to Poland. We are asked what our conduct will be in future. That is a matter far too important to be the subject of an offhand answer to questions put in this House. The only thing I feel it my duty to say is, that we shall continue to consult with France and Austria on a matter in which, as the House knows, we have been acting in concert with them. What the result may be it is impossible for me to state; and even if it were possible, it would be unbecoming in me to do so.
  SIR JAMES FERGUSSONsaid, that the speech of the noble Lord in no way relieved the discussion from those features which might cause it to have a grave effect on public opinion, and on the view which foreign countries might take as to the opinion of Her Majesty's Government in respect of the Polish question. Some hon. Gentlemen had expressed sentiments calculated to create alarm on this subject, and it was desirable that something should be done to show the world that they did not express the opinion of that House. As an humble Member of the House of Commons, who was only entitled to speak for himself, he protested against reckless statements to the effect that Great Britain was ready for any eventuality arising out of the present negotiations. Such statements might do for popular meetings, to the proceedings of which little importance was attached, but they did not befit the House of Commons, on whom a grave responsibility rested. England, he affirmed, had never in the present century undertaken a war except where her own interests or honour were concerned. The Crimean war was undertaken to prevent the overthrow

  1427
  of a balance of power in the Mediterranean. But Poland was a country with which we had no special relations, and she might be removed from the map of Europe without in any way affecting our interests. It was one thing for this country to sympathize with the feelings of a suffering people in any part of the world, and another for this country to engage in a struggle in which it had not the least concern. He sympathized with the people of Poland, and he sympathized with the people of the Confederate States of America; but he did not see that we were to interfere as the police of the world, unless the interests and the honour of this country imperatively demanded it. Our duty, then, was to remain spectators of the events in Poland. It might be that Her Majesty's Government had erred in the tone of their despatch; but he protested against this country being, on that account, dragged into a position of greater difficulty, and into a war from the consequences of which he turned with horror.
  SIR JOHN SHELLEYsaid, he presumed that the allusion made by his hon. and gallant Friend to statements elsewhere referred to a public meeting over which he had had the honour of presiding, and he could only excuse those observations from the fact that the hon. and gallant Member had not read the speeches delivered at the meeting to which they had reference. He denied that there had been reckless speeches, or speeches unworthy of a Member of that House, made there, and all that he had said as president of the meeting he was prepared to repeat in his place in Parliament. If his hon. Friend would read what fell from him and other speakers at St. James's Hall, he would be sorry for the observations which had fallen from him; for if there was one thing more than another which was foremost in his thoughts and in the thoughts of others who spoke upon that occasion, it was their desire to strengthen Her Majesty's Government if they should find hereafter that insults were heaped upon this country, and to ensure them of support in any course which might be necessary, even though it should lead to war. If any mistake had been made upon this subject, it was by the Government in making a proposition to Russia which no man of common sense could believe her likely to accept, and the reply was an insult to this country.
  SIR JAMES FERGUSSONsaid, he had no intention to convey anything disrespectful
  1428
  to his hon. Friend, and he was sorry that any remarks of his should have led to that impression.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

ALKALI WORKS REGULATION BILL (Lords)— [BILL 220 & 266.]

  LORDS' AMENDMENTS.
  Lords Reasons for disagreeing to one of the Commons' Amendments considered.
  Amendments made by The Lords to the Amendments made by this House agreed to.
  MR. SOMERSET BEAUMONTsaid, that that House had decided by a majority of 87 to 62 in favour of the insertion of a clause taken from the Factory Act, but the Lords had disagreed to that Amendment. The clause was one of two which provided that masters should not be liable for the acts of their servants of which they had no knowledge, and which the manufacturers had particularly urged should be adopted for the protection of their interests. As the manufacturers had given every assistance to the passing of the Bill, although it interfered with their trade, it was only fair that the House should now adhere to its previous decision in regard to the clause. He moved that the House do insist on its Amendment.
  LORD STANLEYsaid, that the Lords had disagreed with the Amendment after a full discussion, and involving as it did a vital point—namely, that the penalty should be imposed on the manufacturer rather than on the workman, he saw no reason for disagreeing from it. The penalty proposed was very small, and would probably be attended with great benefit. The clause inserted in that House was at variance with the general principles of the law.
  MR. DOULTONsaid, he hoped the clause would be retained. No sufficient reason had been assigned by the Lords for its omission.
  COLONEL WILSON PATTEN, said, he thought the arguments in favour of the adoption of the Amendment made by the Lords was conclusive. The master manufacturers deserved every consideration at the hands of the House, but they need be under no apprehension as to the manner in which the Act would be worked if the Amendment of the Lords were adhered to. Prosecutions would be undertaken solely by the direction of the Inspectors, and in giving those directions they would be governed by fixed rules.
  MR. H. A. BRUCEsaid, he did not attribute very great importance to the clause on cither side. Prosecutions could only take place at the instance of an Inspector, in concert with the Board of Trade. But the masters preferred the protection of the clause rather than the arbitration of the Board of Trade. He was therefore inclined to support the proposal of his hon. Friend for insisting on the re-insertion of the clause.
  Motion made, and Question put,
  "That this House doth insist on the Amendment made by this House to the said Bill to which the Lords have disagreed."—(Mr. Somerset Beaumont.)
  The House divided:—Ayes 46; Noes 31: Majority 15.
  Committee appointed,
  "To draw up Reasons to be assigned to The Lords for insisting on the Amendment made by this House to the said Bill to which The Lords have disagreed:"—Mr. SOMERSET BEAUMONT, Mr. DOULTON, Mr. BRUCE, Sir GEORGE GREY, Mr. PEEL, and Mr. BRAND.
  To withdraw immediately; Three to be the quorum.

MALTA NEW DOCK.

  PAPERS MOVED FOR.
  SIR JOHN HAYsaid, he could not but complain of the inconvenient site chosen for the new dock at Malta, which was to be nearly two miles distant from the dockyard. The site had been condemned by Sir W. Martin, Admiral Codrington, and almost every naval officer, who all recommended the French creek in preference. He had been commissioned to report on the sea defences of Malta, and could confirm the statements of Sir W. Martin and Admiral Codrington on this subject. The dock also would be much more costly than was supposed. He begged to move for any further papers which might have reached the Admiralty with regard to this dock, especially a paper written by Admiral Codrington, who, on resigning his command at Malta, thought it his duty to state anew the reasons why he thought the French Creek preferable.
  LORD CLARENCE PAGET, said, he had no objection to the production of the papers if his hon. and gallant Friend would specify which he wanted. The Admiralty had obtained the best opinion they could on the subject of the dock, and were acting on it. The estimate
  1430
  made by Mr. Churchward for a dock at French Creek was double the cost of the computed expense of the one selected; and Mr. Churchward admitted that that estimate was made on an uncertain basis. There was no reason to suppose that the calculation of the cost of the new dock would be exceeded. He did not deny that French Creek was a very good site for docks, and probably at some future time it would be taken advantage of for that purpose. It could not, however, come into the hands of the Admiralty for at least three years, whereas they were able to begin the proposed dock at once. The authorities who had been referred to disagreed with one another in their plans, and they all agreed to disagree with her Majesty's Government. He would like to know whether the opinion of Sir F. Grey and Mr. Whitbread was not quite as much entitled to confidence as that of Sir William Martin and Admiral Codrington. It was quite easy for hon. Gentlemen to come down here at the end of the Session, and advocate schemes put forward by various parties; but the Government were responsible, and they had acted for the best, and with full consideration. We required a dock at once, and the plan adopted was the readiest and best method of meeting the necessity.
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, the noble Lord had no right to reproach the hon. and gallant Baronet with coming down at that period of the Session to raise a discussion on this subject. The Papers were moved for six weeks ago, and when they were produced the most important of them was omitted.
  LORD CLARENCE PAGET: No Paper, that he was aware of, which bore on the subject, was omitted. If any one were omitted, it must probably have come after the Papers were moved for.
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, it ought to have been produced. It was important, because it contained the opinion of a competent judge. Before they embarked in that large expenditure they ought to adopt the best plan, and having regard to the conflict of opinion on the subject, he wanted to know whether the Government would give a pledge that they would not incur any expenditure during the recess which would bind them to proceed with the works until the opinion of the House could be taken upon the matter next Session.
  MR. STANSFELDsaid, it would be

  1431
  impossible for the Government to give any such pledge. The Government had taken the very best advice upon the matter, and felt bound to proceed with the works. It would, of course, be open to the right hon. Gentleman to raise the question in the next Session, when the Admiralty would state the reasons for the course they had taken.
  Copy ordered, "of any further Papers relating to the proposed New Dock at Malta."—(Sir John Hay.)
  House adjourned at a quarter before Two o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Partnership Law Amendment* (No. 250); Rum Duty* (No. 251).
Second Reading—Pauper Lunatic Asylums * (No. 215); Consolidated Fund (Appropriation)*; Indemnity *; Land Tax Commissioners Names * (No. 246); Promissory Notes and Bills of Exchange * (No. 244).
Report—Poisoned Grain, &c. Prohibition* (No. 243); Removal of Prisoners (Scotland)* (No. 200); Charitable Uses* (No. 152); Companies Clauses* (No. 232); Expiring Laws Continuance* (No. 241).
Third Reading—Trustees (Scotland) Act Amendment* (No. 53); Navy Prize Agents* (No. 235); Nuisances Removal Act (1855) Amendment* (No. 249); Union Relief Aid Acts Continuance* (No. 236); Turnpike Trusts Arrangements* (No. 233); Waterworks Clauses* (No. 235); Turnpike Acts Continuance, &c. * (No. 240); Petty Sessions (Ireland) * (No. 242).

EMPLOYMENT OF CHILDREN.
THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURY: My Lords, in rising to call attention to the First Report of the Children's Employment Commission (Parl. Paper [1671]), it is not my intention to detain your Lordships long; but I think, that after hearing the short statement which I have to make, you will agree with me that it would not have been right to allow the Session to close without your attention being called to the state of things disclosed in that Report as existing in many parts of the country with reference to the employment of children. I am sorry to stand between the House and a debate on Poland; but the facts which I am about to state are very much akin to those which we witness in
1332
Poland. In one instance you see the evils which result from the lust of money, in another those which arise from the lust of power; and not even General Mouravieff, in the plenitude of his power at Kieff, can have inflicted more misery upon Poland and the children of that unhappy race than the commercial spirit has caused to tens of thousands, and almost hundreds of thousands, of children in England. About the year 1840 I moved for a Commission to inquire into the physical and moral condition of children and young persons employed in trades not protected by the Factory Acts. That Commission reported, and under it a certain amount of good was done. I was enabled to introduce the Colliery Act and the Print Works Act, and a Member of the other House has since introduced the Bleaching Works Act. But although the Report of that Commission disclosed some terrible facts as regarded the health and morals of the children, the country was not then ripe for propositions such as these, and the consequence was that I was very much obstructed in my endeavours to carry into effect many of the recommendations of that Commission. Since that time the mind of the country has made great progress, and the desire for the education of all classes has directed attention to the great disproportion between the number of children under instruction in this country and the number which receive education in America and other countries. The perusal of the Report to which I am about to call attention will explain this circumstance. These children of tender years are engaged day and night in the most destructive works; their moral and physical strength are absorbed by their employment, and they have neither time nor energy for the improvement of their minds. Two years ago I moved for the revival of that Commission—because some of the trades inquired into under the first Commission having become extinct, and some having become worse, and others better, it was necessary to have a fresh picture of the state of things, in order that the necessary remedies might be applied. I will refer to a few of the trades as to which the Commission has reported. The Commissioners in their first Report refer, among others, to the following works:—potteries, lucifer-match manufactories, percussion cap manufactories, paper-staining works, fustian-cutting works, and lace and hosiery manufactories. They also make observations and produce evidence upon the violation of

1333
the Act relating to chimney-sweeps or climbing boys. I will first call attention to the potteries. The number of children between the ages of six and eighteen, generally designated as children, and young persons employed in these works in Staffordshire, is 11,000; those in other places not mentioned may amount to half as many more. Their hours of work are from half past six o'clock in the morning until half past six o'clock in the evening, and sometimes even till eight or nine o'clock. One of the reporters states, that the places in which they work are perfectly intolerable on account of the dust and the total absence of all ventilation. Many children of tender years are constantly employed in the stoves, which the Inspector who visited them says are rooms, or rather ovens, twelve feet square and from eight feet to twelve feet high. Dr. Greenhow tried the heat of three of these rooms, and found that in one the thermometer stood at 120°, in another at 130°, and in another at 148°. This is the state of places in which children work from half past six in the morning till eight or nine o'clock at night. As to the moral effect of this system, the Inspectors report the existence of all the usual disorders arising from ignorance, neglect, and vice. As to education, out of 256 children in one school 138 could not read the Testament, and 127 could not write their names. Mr. Lodge, one of the Inspectors, examined in different factories no less than 243 children, of whom no less than 48 per cent did not know their letters. What is the physical effect upon these children? This is the evidence of medical men of great experience, resident on the spot. They say—
"The potters are, as a rule, stunted, ill-shaped, and frequently ill-formed in the chest. They become prematurely old, are short-lived, are especially prone to chest disease, pneumonia, phthisis and asthma. Scrofula is a disease of two-thirds or more." "Each generation," says Dr. Greenhow, "becomes more dwarfed and less robust and but for their occasional intermarriage with strangers this deterioration would proceed more rapidly."
So much for the pottery. I will now direct your Lordships attention to a department of trade of which you may have heart much, but with respect to the details you may not be informed—I allude to lucifer-match making. That is an employment which began somewhere about 1833, but which at first made but little progress. About 1845, when it became more fully developed, a surgeon at Vienna discovered
1334
that it was one of the most dangerous and unwholesome of industrial pursuits. He found that it produced a peculiar disorder affecting the jaw, which ended in what is called necrosis. The number of children and young persons between six and eighteen years of age employed in this trade is 1,800, and the general statement with regard to it is that the hours of work are frequently prolonged deep into the night. The Reports with respect to the places in which the work is carried on state that some are good, and the tendency to disease is abated; but of forty-eight of those places visited by Dr. White only fourteen were found to be tolerably safe, the others, be stated, being conspicuously the contrary. The moral effects produced upon the children engaged in the trade are, in the terms of the Report, as follows—
"The mental state of the children and young persons calls for an effort to remove a dark blot from this portion of society. It would be difficult to find an average state of intelligence so low as that exhibited by the answers to the questions addressed to these children. A very small proportion can be said to have been taught. The ignorance of a great many, indeed, considering their age, and that they live in the midst of a society keenly alive to social and political duties, cannot be contemplated without pain and sorrow."
Such is the Report of the Commission, and I now beg your Lordships' to listen to an account of the condition of these wretched children in relation to the physical effects of the occupation in which they are employed. The Report says they suffer from
"the usual and various results of intense labour and bad air; but the peculiar disease is the phosphorous disease, or 'necrosis of the jaw.'"
Dr. Letheby, to whom tire country is so much indebted for the great intelligence and labour which he has brought to bear on the subject, has delivered lectures on this disease, and he says, in describing its effects, that he knows it to be one of the most terrible which can afflict humanity, and that it ends frequently in death. He adds—
"The pain is followed by inflammation of the jaw, abcesses about the gums, and finally necrosis. It is in many cases followed by death, in others by the removal of the jaw by surgical operation."
Mr. Pegg says—
"The sufferings of a patient in the earlier stages of the disease, until the jaw be quite dead and exposed, are intolerable."
This evidence is confirmed by several other eminent surgeons, among them being the late Mr. Stanley. I now come to the percussion-cap manufacture, the total number of children and young persons employed

1335
in which is, I find, 665, of whom 566 are females, there being about 150 children and young persons. The condition of these children may be summed up in the words of Mr. White, the Inspector, a gentleman who discharges his duties in the most admirable manner, and who says—
"The manufacture is very limited in extent. It is carried on mainly by female labour, including that of many young girls, and is, perhaps, the most dangerous of all general manufactures. An explosion occurred in Birmingham three days after the visit of the Inspector, which caused the death of nine persons, and wounded upwards of forty, many of whom were young girls."
Surely such a state of things as this, existing in the case of a large number of females of a tender age, is well worthy of the consideration of the Government. The next trade to which I will advert is the paper-staining, in which the total number of children and young persons engaged is 1,150. The effects of the work are thus described—
"The labour," says Mr. Lord, "is not in itself injurious, but it is made so by the length of overtime, being protracted oftentimes late into the night."
Next comes fustian-cutting, in which the numbers under the age of eighteen employed is 1,563, the hours of work being fourteen hours daily, but oftentimes, "to bring up arrears," eighteen or twenty hours. The nature of the work is described as—
"Nothing in itself prejudicial, but, as at present conducted, it is productive of the very worst results of prolonged labour, both as regards health and education."
Then there is a very important branch of industry, which is the machine-lace finishing, which employs no less than 10,000 children and young persons in various factories. The state of the workplaces is spoken of by Mr. White as being—
"Generally injurious to health, hot and ill ventilated. He has noticed crowded places in which the space gave only 100, 92, 90, and even 67 cubic feet for each person, it being considered necessary to give a soldier in barracks from 500 to 600, and patients in hospitals 1,200 each."
I now come to the pillow-lace making, in which children of five years of age and even younger are engaged. Its effects are that it causes the children to
"Suffer considerably in health from closeness of confinement and bad air, as well as in their eyesight from the mode of working."
In many cases they have become irretrievably and hopelessly blind. I beg now to call your Lordships attention to the state of the great mass of those ordinarily called
1336
chimney-sweepers and climbing boys, for whose protection an Act of Parliament has been passed, which has been systematically, openly, and pertinaciously violated in the country districts. The Act itself is imperfect, but it is rendered still more so by the magistrates neglecting to inflict the proper penalties when it is proved that its provisions have been violated. In the country, it appears, the number of these climbing hoys is on the increase, while in London, with a population of 3,000,000, there are, I believe, but one or two to be found. The cause of the increasing number. I believe, is to be found in the fact that the proprietors of houses and mills in many cases insist upon having the climbing boys instead of the machine. The number of these climbing boys throughout the country is 2,000, and they begin to work about eight years of age—some as young even as five. In the smaller towns the hours of work vary from eight and nine hours a day, in the larger towns from twelve to sixteen; I shall now submit to your Lordships' notice not one-twentieth part of the evidence contained in these volumes with respect to this employment. These boys arc, in the first place, subject to a most frightful disorder called the chimney-sweeper's cancer. I have been in hospitals and seen cases of it myself. I would now ask your Lordships to listen for a moment to the evidence given on the point by Mr. Ruff, of Nottingham, who was himself a master-sweep, and who, be it said to his credit, has come forward to give testimony against the continuance of this abominable system. Mr. Ruff's evidence is as follows:—
"No one knows the cruelty which a boy has to undergo in learning. The flesh must be hardened. This is done by rubbing it, chiefly on the elbows and knees, with the strongest brine, close by a hot fire. You must stand over them with a cane, or coax them by the promise of a half-penny, &c., if they will stand a few more rubs. At first they will come back from their work with their arms and knees streaming with blood; then they must be rubbed with brine again."
Is this a state of things, my Lords, which is to be permitted to go on? Are we to call ourselves a free and Christian country, knowing that 2,000 of our fellow-creatures, just as good as ourselves, are doomed to the most excruciating and intolerable agony, because some gentlemen say they will have sweeping-boys and will not use machines, and because magistrates refuse to act upon the clearest and most indisputable breaches of the law being proved before them? Another master-sweep, Mr.

1337
Stansfield, says, "In learning a child you must use violence that I shudder to think of." I will not detain your Lordships. There is much more of the same evidence, and many more witnesses might be brought forward to show the physical Buffering which these poor children undergo. But what is their moral condition? "They are bought, sold, and leased by their parents and guardians." "They areas completely slaves," says Mr. Ellis, a magistrate of Leicester, "as any negro children in South Carolina." I have received from America at various times letters from persons rebuking me for the part which I have taken, and which, with the blessing of God, I always will take, in favour of the extinction of slavery—rebuking me and at the same time asserting that a state of things exists in England with regard to young children ten times worse than anything which exists in relation to negro children in any part of South America. I should like to know, indeed, where we can find children treated like these white children of this country are treated, with all our boasted civilization. I remember when that admirable lady Mrs. Beecher Stowe was in this country, at my house, she spoke to the late Lord Campbell on the subject, and Lord Campbell replied, "What you say is strictly true. The only difference between America and us is this. With America it is permitted by law. With us it is forbidden by law; but the law is constantly and openly violated, and we cannot get the Legislature to come forward with sufficient vigour to maintain its own acts, and to put an end to this cruelty and violence." Another master chimney sweep says, "I have hired a lad for £1 a year, and I have bought lads myself, giving the parents so much a year further." Great efforts have been made in Scotland to suppress this system, and I believe that, greatly to the credit of that country, it is very nearly extinguished. Let me call your Lordships' attention to the words of Lord Cockburn, in passing sentence on a chimney sweeper at Glasgow. Lord Cockburn said—
"It was a scandal to the law to allow the sweeping of chimneys by children—it was indeed monstrous to allow any child to be employed in such a way; and if the trade were but once put down, it would be looked upon with so much horror that it would be difficult to convince the next generation that it had ever existed in a country claiming to be Christian."
What is there in such a declaration as that to which, in your consciences, your Lord-
1338
ships cannot say "Amen." There is not one evil among those which I have mentioned which is not capable either of entire removal or of very considerable abatement. Let us now be guided by foreign countries. We set them the example. Our factory legislation preceded theirs, but they have pushed it further, and applied it to a number of trades. No less than twelve foreign countries have introduced regulations and enactments limiting the hours of labour, providing instruction, and suppressing the cruelty practised towards these little and helpless children. My Lords, I think I have said sufficient to show your Lordships what there is for study during the recess, and what inducements there are for this House coming forward early next Session to blot out so great a reproach and so great a disgrace to the civilization and honour of this country. I am most anxious that these facts should go forth to the public. I hope what passes here will meet with a response out of doors. I hope that at the commencement of the next Session, either by myself, if life and strength be spared to me, or by the Government, whose duty it is to undertake the task, some effort will be made to remove this great abomination. This first Report includes only six trades, and applies to 27,000 children of tender years. Other Reports will bring up the number to 100,000. Although every child has a claim on our attention, when the number is swollen to 100,000, the claim, besides resting on the ground of humanity, rests also on political considerations, because the welfare and well-being of so many future citizens are involved. With many thanks to your Lordships, I now commit what I have said to your judgment and consideration.

POLAND.—ADDRESS FOR PAPERS.
THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDEsaid, that in moving an Address on the subject of the atrocities committed or threatened by Russians and Poles during the insurrection in Poland, he did not want to raise any discussion, whether it might or might not be possible for Poland to continue under the dominion of Russia with any guarantee or probability that that country would be pacified. But there was one part of the question upon which they ought to have fuller official information—namely, as to the atrocities and cruelties which were now going on in this lamentable civil war. It might or might not be true that these atrocities were all on one side, but it appeared to him, that having in-

1339
terfered on the ground of humanity, and having taken action with France and Austria, England was bound to see upon what foundation the statements which reached this country rested. It was entirely upon the ground of humanity that our Government had taken the course which they had taken, and were placed in the almost unprecedented position in which they now stood. The English and the French had never made so serious an attempt at intervention between Poland and her Russian subjects as at the present time. Any man who at the commencement of this year had predicted that we should find ourselves engaged with France and Austria in what practically was an intervention on behalf of Poland would have been deemed to have a very fertile imagination or else to possess very little political knowledge. The conscription had excited universal indignation both in France and England, and it was impossible for the two Governments to sit still and do nothing. Diplomatic representations were made, with what result everybody knew. The object of our interference had been to stop the effusion of blood and the perpetration of numberless atrocities; but the effect of it, so far as it had any effect, was that almost greater cruelties were committed. Since March, when our representations were first made, General Mouravieff bad been appointed, whose proclamations could not be read without horror and indignation. Few people knew the full extent of these proclamations. Among other things, women wearing mourning in the streets, no matter what bereavement they might have undergone, were to be treated like common women of the town, registered, and subjected to all the examinations to which that class were liable. He bad received many accounts of cruelties which had been committed, but would only mention one as a sample of the Russian rule. A priest who had administered spiritual consolation to a dying insurgent was first sentenced to death, and afterwards, as an act of mercy, that sentence was commuted to twelve years' exile. It was most discreditable to England and France, that after having taken this office upon themselves, such outrages as were reported should have been since committed. He did not think that the sneers and sarcasms of Prince Gortschak off at the reasoning of our Foreign Secretary would disturb him or the public, but it would be felt to be intolerable that Russia, while denying our
1340
right to remonstrate, should call for what was called "increased energy" in Poland, which meant fresh atrocities and increased severity, and should hold out no prospect of a mitigation. It was right to say that we did not mean to go to war; but the three Powers were bound, before God and man, to put a stop to these cruelties which were being perpetrated in Poland if they bad the power. He did not agree in the interpretation which in another place had been put on the words used by the Foreign Secretary on a previous occasion. He did not understand his noble Friend to say that under no circumstances would we go to war in this matter, but rather that these negotiations had not been commenced with a view of attacking or injuring Russia. Her Majesty's Government might not upon other grounds have a right to meddle in this matter, but they bad pledged themselves to interfere to put a stop to those unchristian and barbarous practices. Their Lordships ought to have full information in reference to what was now taking place in Poland, in order that they might see whether there had been any mitigation of the atrocities which had been practised in that country. He therefore begged to move
"That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty for, Copies of any Reports that may have been received from our Diplomatic or Consular Agents on the Continent of Atrocities committed or threatened by Russians or Poles since 1st May;"
And to inquire whether Her Majesty's Government had reason to hope that the civil war now raging in Poland would be henceforth conducted according to the usages of civilized warfare.
EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, my noble Friend has asked us to produce the reports of our diplomatic and consular agents relating to atrocities committed or threatened by the Russians and Poles. In answer to my noble Friend, I have to state that it is very disadvantageous to our diplomatic servants abroad to produce to Parliament, and thereby to publish to all the world the communications which they make from time to time to Her Majesty's Government. Of course, it is essential that Her Majesty's Government should have all the information that can be collected on such subjects as those referred to by my noble Friend, and that such information should be of the most authentic character possible; but our diplomatic agents say, and I believe rightly, that they find great difficulty in obtaining in-

1341
formation if it is supposed that it is to be laid upon the tables of the Houses of Parliament and published to the world. There are certain cases in which that objection must be overcome and papers from our diplomatic agents be produced; but I do not think there is anything in the present case that ought to make us depart from the general rule. The statements made to our diplomatic agents are, of course, liable to question. What Lord Napier says, being himself far away from the scene of the insurrection, he hears from the Russian Minister of Foreign Affairs or derives from the Gazette of St. Petersburg, which is open to all the world; and, on the other hand, Her Majesty's Consul at Warsaw reports from time to time accounts which come from different parts of Poland; but these accounts, some of them accurate, must be liable to question, because they refer to matters which do not take place within the immediate neighbourhood of Warsaw, but come from various parts of the country. It would, therefore, be inconvenient, not only to Her Majesty's Government—who would get less information, and information less trustworthy—but also to Parliament itself to produce Reports which, on further examination, might not turn out to be strictly correct. My noble Friend has spoken of the acts of General Mouravieff with reference to a proclamation respecting the wearing of mourning. It was published in the newspapers, and has never been officially contradicted, and may be regarded as perfectly authentic. When Lord Napier asked Prince Gortschakoff what bad taken place, he said it was quite true that pecuniary penalties had been inflicted on women who had worn mourning, that fines to the amount of £110 or £120 had been paid, and that the consequence had been that the custom of wearing mourning as a patriotic badge and political manifestation had been discontinued. With respect to the more general question, my noble Friend says that we ought not to have begun any negotiations at all unless we were determined to obtain that for which we set out. I will not enter into a controversy with my noble Friend on that point; but I may observe that my opinion differs from that of my noble Friend. I think it is very often expedient to make representations to different Governments as to their conduct, without being determined to push the controversy to the extent of war. I must, however, notice what is evidently and cer-
1342
tainly a great misrepresentation of that which I said on a former occasion. It appears that somehow or other Mr. Horsman has made a statement, which is so important, and so evidently contradictory of what I did say, that I must call your Lordships' attention to it. I find he has said that a statement which I was supposed to have mode was, "that however much the honour and interests of England may demand it, and however much the safety of Europe may require it, England will on no account draw the sword for Poland." Now, my Lords, that statement is so absurd, it is impossible I could have made it. I beg to call your Lordships' attention to the nature of my argument. I said that where the honour and independence of England are in question there can be no calculation of consequences—you must defend your honour whatever the consequences; but when the question is one of general humanity—when it is one of the balance of power, and the bearing of a certain treaty, it then becomes the Government before it takes any course, and becomes Parliament before it comes to any decision, to see clearly what the object is which you have in view, and whether you have the means and whether there is a probability of effecting it. There was no question, then, as to the honour of the country, the independence of the country, or the safety of the country; but the national consideration was whether you were likely to obtain the object in view, and especially whether that object was a definite one. Without going over the reasons on which I based that argument, I am persuaded that there is sound reason for saying that you ought not to engage in hostilities without having a clear object in view, and without having clearly in view the means by which that object is to be effected. There is another statement made in the same speech of a very different character. It is there attributed to me that I said, "If Poland obtain its independence, it will be not only without the goodwill, but contrary to the judgment, the wish, and the desire of England." Something like that interpretation was put on my speech by a noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Derby); but I submit that that it is not a fair construction of my words—it certainly is not a just construction of my meaning. I stated elsewhere and some time ago my opinions regarding the independence of Poland, and expressed a hope that one day or other that independence would be

1343
restored. What I was arguing against was an independence which should be established by a foreign Power—whether France, or Austria, or England—which I said might become an element of disorder in Europe. It appears to me that that is not only a fair argument, but that it is exactly what would happen. If Poland were able to establish her own independence, it would be an element of order and peace in Europe; but if foreign Powers were to establish an independent Kingdom of Poland, which could not subsist of itself—if Poland were exposed to continual contention and conflict with Russia in order to maintain her independence or to extend her territory—if France and England were continually to be called in to support the kingdom which they had artificially created—such a kingdom would be a source of disorder, and not of order to Europe. That was my argument. I think it is a very plain one, and I do not believe that men generally will dissent from it. With regard to what is going on in reference to the Polish question, Her Majesty's Government have received a very important communication from Russia, which has been laid before the House. All I have to say to that communication is, that the only practical part of it is a recommendation on the part of Russia that Austria should combine and place herself in conceit with Prussia and Russia, that there should be a conference between the three, that they should settle the details of what should be done with regard to "the six points," and that when they had come to an end of their labours—when they had decreed certain details and certain measures—England and France should have the benefit of being informed of the result. That is the only practical proposal contained in that communication; and I am glad to say that no sooner had it reached the Austrian Government than they at once telegraphed to St. Petersburg declining the proposition. I have had placed in my hands by the Austrian Ambassador a very able and straightforward despatch, in which Austria entirely refuses to be a party to such a conference. I have only to add, that as far as the communications have gone, France, Austria, and England are entirely of accord as to the course which they will take, and I hope that concert will continue, and will be followed by good results. At present, I certainly should not be justified in entering further into the subject.
VISCOUNT STRATFORD DE REDCLIFFEsaid, the House must have heard with deep interest, if not with equal satisfaction, the explanations which had been given by his noble Friend. It was difficult for him to conceive that under present circumstances the Secretary of State should have gone so far out of his way as to exclude himself from the possibility of following up any negotiations which Her Majesty's Government might have embarked in, even at the risk of producing a more complicated state of relations than any that had hitherto existed on the subject before their Lordships. The conduct of Austria on this occasion must have been regarded by the House with great satisfaction. If Austria had not taken a line completely in harmony with the two Western Powers, it was difficult to conceive how any practical result could have followed from the negotiations. The course which Austria had taken was not only important as it affected Poland, but it showed that the Austrian Government had really and sincerely made up its mind to that line of policy which many of its recent acts had led them to expect. Austria was no longer the oppressor of Italy and the opponent of every liberal opinion connected with social progress; she had chosen the better part, and we might henceforth have the satisfaction, not only of seeing maintained the good understanding which from an early period had existed between that country and England, but we might look upon Austria as an efficient co-operator in those matters which affected the interests of Europe in a political as well as in a commercial sense. He could not entirely agree with the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Clanricarde) that the Polish question was one which rested exclusively on considerations of humanity. No doubt, those considerations had materially influenced Her Majesty's Government, and produced a strong impression, not only in this country, but in other parts of Europe. But there were others of equal importance which must have had no trifling weight in the councils of Her Majesty's Government—nor could they, indeed, be lost sight of by Parliament. It required none of those painful details which we had read so frequently of late in the public journals, and which had been so fully confirmed by official correspondence, to show us the nature of this war. On the one side, by a long series of unjust and oppressive acts, a great nation of several millions of men had been reduced to the necessity of risking

1345
everything against a Power of far greater magnitude, and consequently, by the desperate nature of her position, was compelled to resort to the most unusual and distressing extremities. On the other side, that same spirit of injustice and oppression which had been too manifest in the proceedings of Russia for the last fifty years, had made her assume the character of an exterminator, and plunged her into measures of the most violent and outrageous severity. How, indeed, could it be otherwise? Cruelty and unlimited violence must, of necessity, mark every act of warfare on both sides; and he confessed it was comparatively indifferent to him whether the blame could be brought home either to Russia or to Poland. Where-ever it originated, its effects could be no other than such as he had described; and in those effects we might read a most important lesson, a clear admonition of what it was our duty to do in order to assist in putting an end to a state of things so contrary to every principle of humanity, and so well calculated to endanger the peace of Europe. It could not be denied, up to the present time the negotiations had not been attended with the success which Her Majesty's Government had seemed to expect. The despatch which his noble Friend had laid upon the table some few days ago must have struck their Lordships as not less remarkable for the skilfulness of its composition than for being destitute of everything which could afford hope of a satisfactory solution. The spirit by which it was too evidently pervaded appeared as remote from the establishment of a good understanding as anything that could well be conceived; and, except that it offered some insight into the real intentions of Russia, it could only excite feelings of regret that a paper devoted to such important and delicate interests, and proceeding from a Government standing so high among the Powers of Europe, should have been marked by a tone of sarcasm so little in keeping with its subject-matter, and so far from being, in that respect, creditable to the Premier who had signed it. If Russia would reconcile us to the vigorous system of measures by which she was labouring to suppress, she would have best consulted her own interests by the use of a more courteous style of correspondence, even if she could not go the length of holding out some hope of a satisfactory solution. But, however painful it might be that diplomacy on this occasion had obtained so little success as
1346
to be reduced to the necessity of either stopping short in its humane exertions, or continuing negotiations under circumstances of greater risk, it was but fair to consider the conduct of Her Majesty's Government with reference to the difficulties under which they had been called to act, and which it was impossible to disguise. No one who looked back to the part which England had taken in the transactions respecting Poland could fail to be convinced that a certain amount of moral obligation had devolved upon us in common with our allies. There was, no doubt, a duty which neither they nor we could easily shake off. Though diplomatic negotiations could hardly be pursued without risks more or less serious, he would venture to say that affairs in Poland could not go on as they had done without occasioning a chronic danger, not only to the peace of Europe, but to those interests which in England were closely connected with the maintenance of tranquillity, and were of the utmost importance to her industrial and commercial population. He did not think the conscience of this country would be satisfied till every exertion, short of plunging the country into war, had been made; and he, for one, should be sorry to see it laid down as a rule that the policy of a great country like England was to be determined by the fear of war. No great country could retain its high position in the councils of Europe without fulfilling the conditions of its greatness; and by shrinking in any one instance from the performance of an essential duty it might do an irreparable injury to its character, and perhaps only postpone the evil hour, laying the materials of future war upon a broader foundation. Were we to be deterred from redeeming our pledges by so unworthy a sentiment, we might as well throw up our Commission as a first-rate Power at once, and fall back into that secondary position which might be maintained at less cost and perhaps with more dignity. England might still have measures at her disposal, and a sense of duty might prescribe the adoption of them—measures to which we might fairly resort, which are recognised by the law of nations, and which would not entitle Russia to seek redress by a declaration of war. He admitted that a policy of the nature he referred to could hardly be carried out without exposing us to some unpleasant contingencies; but if the circumstances now before us involved our credit and the future tranquillity of Europe, not

1347
only were we entitled to pursue that policy, but called on to do so with a pressure which it was difficult to resist. After all, perhaps the danger was not so great as some persons conceived. Russia was not the Russia of ten years ago; she had felt the reaction of that injurious system she had so long pursued—the effects upon her own internal prosperity of the losses of war which she had more than once entailed upon other nations. She had herself experienced the pernicious effects of an offensive war, and found those losses which she had so often inflicted on other nations brought home to her own bosom. With these circumstances borne in mind, ought we to permit ourselves to entertain an exaggerated alarm? He might be told that it would not be generous to take advantage of the weakness of a friendly Power, or to press our demands upon her acceptance so forcibly as to cause her any embarrassment or serious inconvenience; but in this, as in other cases, an exception was to be observed. But was Russia entitled to this delicacy? Were we at liberty to sacrifice humanity and justice to mere courtesy? Was it true that the policy of Russia and her conduct towards surrounding States had been one of almost continual encroachment? Had it been such as to justify the general distrust of Europe? If it were so, he must say that it comported well with the interests of Europe and with our own rights not to be too delicate in our proceedings on the present occasion towards Russia. In employing these arguments, nothing was further from his thoughts than any desire to recommend a course of diplomatic action not fully warranted by the suggestions of prudence and the obligations of duty. His opinions were not even coloured by any feeling of hostility to Russia. Such was by no means the spirit in which he addressed their Lordships. At the same time, he thought that the measure of our proceedings in the present case could only be found in a conscientious discharge of our duty on the grounds of humanity, of treaty, and of the general tranquillity; and moreover, that the principles of action they pointed to forbade the negotiations to be left where they stood at present. From the line which the Austrian Government had taken, we might feel additionally justified in the course on which we had entered; and Russia herself, if she would only take a hint from the strong feeling expressed throughout Europe at her conduct to Poland, might find an opportunity of relieving herself from
1348
much of that mistrust and irritation which her former policy had occasioned on all sides. What adjacent country was there, which, either by negotiation or by war, had not been forced to subscribe largely to the grandeur of that empire? Russia, no doubt, was destined to play an important part in Europe; her territory and her resources Were almost unlimited; but just in proportion to her magnitude and importance was it expedient that the spirit of enlightenment which led to the late emancipation of the serfs should strengthen and develop it self, till it resulted in the adoption of a more considerate and less encroaching policy towards her neighbours. Then, indeed, would Russia be a really great Power. Instead of remaining an object of jealousy, distrust, and anxiety to Europe, she would take her proper place in that great union of civilized Governments, which, with all its errors and imperfect views, taken on the whole, does honour to the nineteenth century.
THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGH: As the state of the question now is very different from what it was when I last addressed your Lordships five or six weeks ago on the subject of Poland, I trust I may be permitted to express the opinion I entertain under the change of circumstances which has taken place. I do not find fault with the Government for having endeavoured to obtain a diplomatic solution of the difficulties which have arisen in Poland. On the contrary, I said then, and I think still, that it was the duty of Her Majesty's Government to endeavour to place itself at the head of public opinion in this country. But this answer of Prince Gortschakoff I regard as a practical termination of all attempts, with any hope of usefulness, to continue diplomatic discussion with Russia; to go further in that course would be perfectly idle. It is said that there has been no result from these interchanges of diplomatic notes. I think there has been this valuable result, that we know exactly where we are; we know that by diplomacy we shall obtain nothing from Russia, as she insists on continuing the same course she has been pursuing so long. This first act being entirely over, it is for Her Majesty's Government to consider what they shall now do. I do not think it would be expedient for me to enter on that subject. It is one demanding, and I have no doubt undergoing, the gravest consideration at the hands of the responsible advisers of the Crown. I do not

1349
think I should assist them, or do the public any service by endeavouring to state the arguments in favour of one course or of the other. The noble Marquess who introduced this discussion spoke with the gravity which it is impossible not to feel on such a subject of the atrocities said to have been committed by the Russians. I do not ask for letters from Warsaw or any other part of Poland to substantiate the statement of the atrocities which the noble Marquess has adverted to. The proclamations of General Mouravieff in themselves are an atrocity. The state of things they produce, of general persecution, of confiscation of property, of want of private and public security, are in themselves an atrocity as yet unknown in Europe; and I feel convinced every day more and more, that be the prudence of Cabinets what it may, desirous as they may be to prevent the spread of war in Europe, their efforts will be altogether vain if these atrocities are continued. The feelings of the people of Europe will overcome the prudence of their governors. I do trust that the Russian Government will seriously consider the position in which it stands. It has had the same opportunities of making the Kingdom of Poland useful to it as have been possessed by Austria in Galicia, and by Prussia in Posen. There is no difference. In the two provinces which are in the hands of Austria and Prussia we see great prosperity, and, to a great extent, content. For thirty-three years the Kingdom of Poland has been in a constant state of dormant or active insurrection. The cause is bad government, and bad government alone. It arises from that brutal contempt for the feelings of persons whom they consider their subjects against which human nature revolts. I do trust, I say, that Russia will really consider the position in which she stands. We are not enemies of Russia. We desire the continuance of the state of things which was established at Vienna. It was not what we then desired. We acquiesced in it; Europe has become accustomed to it, and would to a great extent be broken up if it was materially altered; and to avoid the difficulties and dangers of a change, we had rather that it should be retained than altered. Russia, if she proceeds in the course upon which she has entered, will render its retention impossible. Let her look at what Poland has been to her for the last thirty-three years. Has she derived any advantage from it? Has it not, on the contrary, cost
1350
a great deal more than it has produced, and occupied a large portion of her army? Has she derived any prestige from the possession of Poland? Quite the contrary. Prestige arises from a succession of victories, from success in all operations. In Poland hers has been a continual failure during the life of man—a failure because she has been persisting in that which is wrong. I wish that the Emperor, who speaks through his ministers, against what he calls revolution, attributing to revolutionary feelings in France and other countries that which takes place in Poland, would consider that he is himself at this moment the first revolutionist in Europe. He is placing himself at the head of the emancipated serfs against their late masters, and against the proprietors of land in every part of Poland. It is a popular insurrection against property, and the Emperor is at the head of it. My Lords, it never answers for an Emperor to adopt that line. He may depend upon it that he and his family will suffer for the confusion and the danger which they are exciting in Poland. Is it possible for him not to know, if he looks through any portion of history—more especially that of Eastern countries, with which he is greatly more connected than with the West—is it possible for him not to know that justice and generosity on the part of a man in the possession of great power are more efficacious in the management and government of nations than the greatest severities that can be exercised; that severity may, for an instant, create an apparent calm, but that that calm is delusive, and is always followed by a reaction which produces a state of things more dangerous than that which preceded the calm? My Lords, there have been atrocities mentioned arising out of the proclamations with respect to the treatment of women, which it appears to me impossible that any one who lives in civilized Europe should at any time have sanctioned. The man who outrages a woman makes mankind his enemy, and exposes himself to all the consequences of the loathing which he excites. And yet it is impossible to doubt that under the orders of Mouravieff—and Mouravieff is at this time apparently the favourite agent of the Russian Government—these atrocities are committed. I will say no more. I leave the matter in the hands of Her Majesty's Government. I will not in any way increase the difficulties of which I recognise the existence. I do trust that the Government will most gravely

1351
consider what shall be the next step; but if it be a further step in such negotiation as they have had with Russia, it will fail like the last.
THE EARL OF MALMESBURY: My Lords, your Lordships will, I think, feel that we are again placed in the position which was described by my noble Friend behind me (the Earl of Derby) the other night. We are struggling between our feelings and our judgment. Our feelings did not require the eloquence of the noble Earl who has just sat down, of the noble Earl near me (the Earl of Shaftesbury), who addressed your Lordships on the subject of Poland on a previous occasion, or of the noble Marquess who commenced the present debate, to rouse them. The noble Viscount (Viscount Stratford de Redcliffe) has gone even further, because he has not only expressed the feelings which every man must entertain with regard to a gallant nation struggling for its liberty, but he has gone perhaps a little too far in attacking the Russian Cabinet. I shall not detain your Lordships by defending the Russian Emperor or his instruments. I only beg that you will not let your judgments be overthrown by your feelings. I have never, since the end of the Session of 1853, felt so much apprehension with respect to the state of Europe as I do now, and I much fear that many things which have been said this evening are not calculated to remove the difficulties under which Her Majesty's Government are now labouring. Those difficulties are entirely to be attributed to Her Majesty's Government having left the safe course of non-intervention. When they entered office, they promised that they would follow that road; and so long as they have followed it, they have maintained peace. They followed that road in a case almost analogous to that of Russia and Poland—I mean America—and we all, I believe, admit the wisdom of the course which they have pursued. Your Lordships must have had even stronger feelings when you saw the blood of your own relations, I may say, shed in torrents in America than those which you entertain with regard to Poland, and yet your judgment got the better of your feelings. You declared that you would not interfere on any occasion, and even refused to propose an armistice when the Emperor of the French proposed to join with you to stop that cruel war, and to put an end to cruelties quite as revolting—even against women—as are committed in
1352
Poland. I must say I think that you were wise to subdue the feelings of anger and horror which must have been excited by these acts, and to recollect that you were not poets or sentimentalists, or even humanitarians, but that you were politicians and statesmen, and that you had your own country to consider before you regarded the feelings and interests of others. Why have not Her Majesty's Government followed the same course with respect to Poland?—and what has been the result of their deviating from the course which they adopted in America? It has been said by the noble Marquess and the noble Viscount that we are drifting into a war. The noble Viscount said that he would not willingly go to war, but that if our honour became involved, we must not hesitate for a moment, but must take the lead in Europe. The noble Earl also told us that we ought to take the lead in Europe. That system of taking the lead in Europe, which used to be so rife at the Foreign Office, is one of the most dangerous that can possibly be followed. It is averse to the present state of civilization in this country, to its social state, and to its political interests. At the beginning of this century circumstances were quite different. England was obliged to take the lead every where, and keep it everywhere: but the conviction of this country now is that our safety, our dignity, and our happiness depend upon a policy of non-intervention. When you leave that course, you are not safe for a moment. At the beginning of the century we were not strong enough to follow that policy. We are strong enough now. From our tower of strength we may look down without losing any dignity or any of our power, upon what takes place around us, without meddling with the affairs of others, or interfering with the most dangerous questions which can arise. What is the position in which we stand? First of all we gave advice, and then we made positive propositions. These have been refused:—and what follows? The controversy will be continued by angry arguments, which will gradually drift into reciprocal recrimination, and possibly end in a war. That is what we have to apprehend. When the noble Earl who last spoke (the Earl of Ellenborough) says that the course which Her Majesty's Government have taken shows us where we are, he will not say where we shall be three months hence. I think that this position of things is extremely alarming. I think that by entering upon

1353
this Polish controversy we have followed the impulse of our feelings rather than of our judgment. I think we might have interfered innocently and with dignity by simply letting Russia know what was our opinion of her government in Poland, of her breach of treaties, and of the cruelty with which she is prosecuting this war. You might have done what you did in the case of the King of Naples. You might have withdraws your Ambassador, and thus shown that you would no longer have any relations with a Power so uncivilized, so uncertain in its faith, and whose acts are so revolting to the feelings of the people of this country. You might have done that without being placed in a position derogatory to your honour, and without jeopardizing peace, as there is a risk that you may do by the policy you have adopted. It is natural that we should feel respect for a brave nation which has been defending itself as Poland has; but our duty is this—to consider well what we owe to our own country, and to take care that we do not lead it into a war which, if it does take place, we can have but little interest in prosecuting. When you speak of the question of the duty of England with regard to Poland, you have to consider what are the causes for which a nation interferes on behalf of another nation. You probably make it depend on one or two general considerations. You may advocate interference on her behalf on the score of humanity. But how, let me ask, if you involve England in a war with Russia, will it further the cause of humanity that thousands of your countrymen should be slaughtered, and their blood added to that which has already been shed in Poland? Again, you may seek to justify interference on the score of national interest. But is there any national interest involved which should induce us to embark in a struggle like this? Putting the question on the lowest footing, is there any commercial interest at stake? For my part I see none. It cannot, I may add, be contended that there are associations which bind us to Poland. We know that she sent the best of her soldiers to fight against us in the armies of Napoleon, nor do I recollect any act, epoch, or circumstance which has tended to bring the two countries into friendly association, or has left behind it any of those feelings which are naturally produced when two nations have been acting together for centuries. I can, I confess, see no excuse for Her Majesty's Government having taken the active steps which
1354
they have taken in this instance. They might have taken steps less active, which could not be pronounced measures of interference. Friendly communications on our part might have been made showing what the leading countries of Europe thought of the government of Poland and the conduct towards her of Russia. If you had so acted, you would have kept yourselves free from trammels which you can now hardly escape. If you go hand-in-hand with France on this question, you will find that your interests are not identical—that they are at variance with those of France—and that the war in which you engage will end as other wars have ended within the last five or six years, by giving to France a material advantage at its close.
EARL GRANVILLE: My Lords, I do not think it is desirable that the Government, following the invitation given them in the singularly able speech made by the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Ellenborough), should enter more fully into this question at a moment when the gravest consideration ought to be given as to the course which we should adopt. I rise, therefore, simply to make a few remarks on the extraordinary speech which we have just heard. I can perfectly well understand that the noble Earl who made it should have felt himself called upon to disapprove of the terms of approbation in which the noble Earl near him has spoken of the policy pursued by the Government; but what is incomprehensible to me is that he, while insisting, very much in the same way as a noble Earl not now in his place (Earl Grey), that this country should not in the slightest degree interfere—even to the extent of entering into diplomatic negotiations—in the struggle going on in Poland, and while talking of our "looking down from the tower of our strength with dignity, and without any loss of prestige," doing nothing while troubles were accumulating all over Europe—what, I repeat, is utterly incomprehensible to me is, that the noble Earl should then proceed to say we might have entered into diplomatic negotiations of a peculiar character which he described, and that we might even go so far as to withdraw our Ambassador from the Russian Court—a step ten times stronger than any which the Government have yet taken. For my part, I deny that there has been, in the course which we adopted, any departure from the principle of non-intervention. We have simply, in conjunction with the great Powers of Europe,

1355
employed our moral influence, based on treaty rights and international law, to point out the course which, in our opinion, Russia ought to take at the present moment. To do less would not, I maintain, be consistent with that dignity and prestige to which the noble Earl alluded; but I am quite sure that to have done more, and to break off, as he suggests, all diplomatic relations with Russia, would have been to interfere in a much graver way than we have done, and to take a step which would much more surely lead to those disastrous results which I trust may yet he averted by the course pursued by my noble Friend (Earl Russell).
THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDEsaid, that after what had fallen from the noble Earl the Secretary for Foreign Affairs, he should not press his Motion.
Motion (by leave of the House) withdrawn.

VOLUNTEERS.

  ADDRESS FOR A PAPER.
  THE EARL OF MALMESBURY THE EARL OF MALMESBURY moved,
  "That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty for, Copy of the Letter written by the Secretary of State for the War Department to the Lord-Lieutenants of Counties on the Subject of attaching independent Corps of Volunteers to administrative Battalions."
  The object of the circular was, he had no doubt, a good one, inasmuch as by attaching independent corps in the manner proposed they would have the advantage of the instruction of an adjutant, and also the benefit of a certain amount of pay under the new Act of Parliament. There were, however, some cases in which it would be extremely inconvenient that independent corps should be so attached, inasmuch as in many rural districts the men would not find it easy to go a long distance to headquarters to be battalionized. As he understood the letter, which be had only seen in the newspapers, it was of a permissive character, the lord-lieutenants being simply instructed to give those corps the option of joining a battalion or not; but there were instances in which lord-lieutenants had not taken that view of the matter, and the corps were attached without having the opportunity afforded them of deciding for themselves. He should like, therefore, to ascertain from his noble Friend what was the real meaning of the circular letter which he had issued on the subject.
  EARL DE GREY AND RIPONsaid, the view taken by the Government in forming
  1356
  administrative battalions had always been that no corps whose services had been accepted as separate corps should be forced to join an administrative battalion. The object of the letter for which his noble Friend moved, and which he had no objection to produce, was to secure for such corps their share of the money voted by Parliament as a capitation grant, to enable them to avail themselves of the services of an adjutant, and also to furnish the Government with the necessary guarantee of the practical efficiency of their members. Accompanying the letter was a scheme, by which it appeared to the War Office that the object in view might best be carried into effect; and it was specially requested that lord-lieutenants should give their opinions with respect to the scheme, they being at the same time informed that the best consideration would be given to any alterations in it which they might deem advisable. It was, he might add, very desirable that local corps should attach themselves as far as possible to administrative battalions, but in cases in which real and substantial local difficulties stood in the way it was expedient that lord lieutenants, in the exercise of their authority, should propose such arrangements as the various corps might deem acceptable.
  Motion agreed to.
  (Parl. Paper No. 256.)
  House adjourned at a quarter before Eight o'clock, till To-morrow, Twelve o'clock.