Sitting of 8 June 1863

MINUTES.
SUPPLY—considered in Committee—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Public Works (Manufacturing Districts)* [Bill 154].

PUBLIC WORKS (MANUFACTURING DISTRICTS) BILL.
Bill to facilitate the execution of Public Works In certain Manufacturing Districts; to authorize for that purpose, advances of Public Money, to a limited amount, upon security of Local Rates; and to shorten the period for the adoption of the Local Government Act, 1858, in certain cases, presented, and read 1o. [Bill 154.]
SEA FISHERIES.

  HER MAJESTY'S ANSWER TO ADDRESS.
  SIR GEORGE GREYappeared at the Bar, and informed the House that he bad brought up Her Majesty's reply to an Address, praying for the appointment of a Commission to inquire into the subject of Sea Fisheries.
  Answer to Address [2nd June] reported, as follows:—
  I have received your Address, praying that a Royal Commission of Inquiry into our Sea Fisheries may be issued, with the view of increasing the supply of a favourite and nutritious article of Food for the benefit of the Public.
  And I have given directions that a Commission shall issue for the purpose which you hate requested.

IRELAND—POLICE IN TIPPERARY.

  QUESTION.
  MR. BAGWELLsaid, he wished to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland, What steps the Government of Ireland mean to take in regard to the extra Police force at present quartered in the townlands of Boyton-rath and others, in the county of Tipperary?
  SIR ROBERT PEEL, in reply, said, before the hon. Gentleman had given notice of his question, the subject had been under the consideration of the Government, and the matter had been referred to the resident magistrate of the district named, who had put himself in communication in reference to it with the Lord Lieutenant of the county. Unfortunately, the occurrence of another agrarian murder within the last day or two, in the county, seemed to show that such a step as the withdrawal of the extra police was not advisable.
  MR. BAGWELLsaid, he wished to know, whether the right hon. Baronet has received any detailed account of the melancholy event to which he has alluded?
  SIR ROBERT PEEL: We have received a telegram, from which it appears pretty
  516
  clear that the murder of Mr. Jackson was one of an agrarian character. He left his residence, it seemed, about nine o'clock in the morning, was shortly afterwards shot, and died immediately. I have also received a telegram, stating that three persons have seen arrested on suspicion of having committed the murder, but whether they are the actual perpetrators or not, I do not know.
  MR. SCULLY: Is it not the fact that the scene of the murder is thirty or fourty miles distant from the districts in which the extra police force is stationed?

ASSAULT ON CONSUL GENERAL FON-BLANQUE AT BELGRADE.

  QUESTION.
  MR. DARBY GRIFFITHsaid, he wished to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether, considering the statements that have lately been made of the inoffensive conduct of the Garrison of Belgrade in former years, the Government will continue to refuse the production of the Papers and Correspondence relating to the serious attack made upon the late Mr. Fonblanque, our Consul General in Servia, by a soldier of the Turkish Garrison, in the year 1858?
  MR. LAYARDin reply, said, that the attack to which the hon. Member referred, was not the act of the Turkish Garrison, but of a single soldier; and as that soldier had been punished for it, and every redress offered, he saw no advantage in giving the Papers in question.

INDIAN TELEGRAPH DEPARTMENT.

  QUESTION.
  MR. WHITEsaid, he would, in the absence of the Secretary of State for India, ask the Under Secretary for that Department, If the re-organization of the Indian Telegraph Department, mentioned by him on the 13th March 1862, has been carried out; and, if so, why Mr. Galbraith, formerly the tutor of Sir William O'Shaughnessy's sons, has been promoted over the heads of officers of long standing in that Department; and if he is aware that the present system of Telegraphic communication in India is much complained of by the mercantile community and others, and if it would not be desirable to decentralize this Department by placing the Telegraph lines under the control of the chief authorities of the respective Presi-

  517
  dencies, as has been locally recommended?
  MR. T. G. BARINGwas understood to say that the re-organization of the Telegraph Department had been completed in consequence of the representations made by the mercantile community. With regard to the suggestion of the hon. Gentle man that the Telegraph Department in India should be decentralized, and placed under the local authorities, he had received no such suggestion from India, and he should say, that if there was one thing which required uniform management more than another, it was the Telegraphic Department. With respect to Mr. Galbraith, he might observe that he obtained his appointment in India in 1857; that he at first received, he believed, £300 a year, which had gradually been increased to £600, and that the last two appointments in his case had been made since Sir William O'Shaughnessy had left India. It was impossible, therefore, that they could be the result of his connection with that gentleman, nor was there any ground for the assumption conveyed in the hon. Gentleman's question with respect to Mr. Galbraith.

THE DOVER, OSTEND, AND CALAIS PACKET SERVICE.—QUESTION.
SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEsaid, he wished to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, When the Packet Estimate will be brought forward; whether any Contracts have yet been made for the Dover and Ostend and Dover and Calais Services, or whether those services are still open to tender; and what arrangements have been made for carrying on the Services after the 20th of June?
MR. PEELsaid, in reply, that he did not propose to bring on the Packet Estimate until after the Civil Service Estimates should have been disposed of. With regard to the Service between Dover and Ostend, the Treasury received some time ago a tender from the Belgian Government to perform that Service from the 20th of June. That offer was accepted conditionally on no funds being provided by Parliament for Mr. Churchward's contract beyond that date; and upon the passing of the recent Vote the Treasury informed the Belgian Government that they accepted the tender unconditionally. With regard to the Dover and Calais Service, they had the other day received from the South Eastern and the London, Dover, and Chatham Railway
518
Companies an offer to perform that Service from the 20th of June next, for £6,000 a year; and they had accepted that offer.
SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: What is to be the duration of that contract?
MR. PEEL: It is to last for seven years.

CHANCERY FUND COMMISSIONERS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. MURRAYsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, When the Chancery Fund Commissioners (appointed in February 1861) will be prepared to make their Report?
  SIR GEORGE GREY, in reply, said, he had not been able to attend the late meetings of the Commissioners, but he had been informed that certain Resolutions had been agreed to by them, and that their Report was now being prepared. The Commission would expire on the 1st of August.

REGISTRIES OF DEEDS (IRELAND).

  QUESTION.
  MR. BUTTsaid, he wished to ask Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, Whether it is his intention to bring in a Bill, during this Session, to validate the Registries of any Deeds in Ireland which may be invalid from technical defects, in accordance with the provisions contained in the Registration Bill which has been withdrawn?
  MR. O'HAGANsaid, the provisions to which the hon. and learned Gentleman referred constituted only a portion of a larger measure which was meant to go beyond the correction of the errors of the past. He did not think it would be judicious to introduce a Bill to validate the Registries of Deeds, as suggested, save in connection with that larger scheme, especially as he hoped to be able to deal with the question next Session.

SCHOOL OF NAVAL ARCHITECTURE.

  QUESTION.
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, he wished to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty, Whether the report that the Chief Constructor of the Navy has examined Apprentices and Factory Boys in Woolwich Dockyard, with a view to the establishment of a Government School of Naval Architecture, is correct; and, if so, whether the Admiralty contemplate the revival of a School of Naval Architecture for the Royal Navy, in

  519
  preference to the combined action of the Admiralty and the private trade, which has been proposed?
  LORD CLARENCE PAGETsaid, in reply, that Mr. Reed, the gentleman to whom the right hon. Baronet referred, had not received the title of Chief Constructor to the Navy, although he was intrusted with most important duties connected with ship-building. He had been sent to the dockyards with a view of preparing designs for ships of various classes, and not with a view of making inquiries as to a future School of Naval Architecture. But he (Lord Clarence Paget) might add that the Admiralty were making inquiries with a view to a future supply of Architects, not only for the Royal Navy, but also for the private trade of this country; and all their inquiries tended to the establishment of a mixed system of education rather than of one confined exclusively to the Royal Navy.

DISMISSAL OF VOLUNTEERS.

  QUESTION.
  SIR ROBERT CLIFTONsaid, he wished to ask the Under Secretary of State for War, If Commanding Officers have power, after the dismissal of Volunteers by them, to advertise such dismissal in the newspapers, and cause placards to be printed and circulated; and if he is aware whether any such case of advertising and placarding has lately taken place in the Metropolis?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, in reply, that Commanding Officers ought, according to usual military practice, to insert in the regimental orders any sentence of dismissal and the causes for which it had been pronounced, and such regimental orders ought to be made known to all the members of the corps. He was aware that it was the practice of some metropolitan corps to publish their regimental orders in the newspapers as advertisements, and to place them in the shop windows as placards. Without entering into the question of the expediency of adopting such a mode of publication, it appeared to be certain that a Commmanding Officer was justified in giving the ordinary, and no more than the ordinary, amount of circulation to orders which contained sentences of dismissal, accompanied by a statement of the causes thereof.
  MR. DARBY GRIFFITHsaid, he would beg to ask the noble Marquess, whether, as the Volunteers Bill passed
  520
  through Committee on the Ascot Cup Day, when many hon. Members were absent from the House, it would not be desirable to postpone the Report until some day next week?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, that the Report was fixed for to-morrow evening; and as it was important that the passing of the measure should not be delayed, he should, if possible, proceed with it on that day.

RULES OF DEBATE—PUBLIC WORKS (MANUFACTURING DISTRICTS) BILL.
MR. HENNESSYsaid, he rose to call the attention of the House to an occurrence which took place at the close of the last sitting—that was about half past two o'clock on Saturday morning. At that time there were only thirteen or fourteen Members in the House. Leave to introduce an important Bill—a very important Bill—was then moved for by a Member of the Government. He found in the "Votes and Proceedings" of the House the following entry—
"Public Works (Manufacturing Districts),—Bill to facilitate the execution of Public Works in certain Manufacturing Districts; and to authorize for that purpose advances of Public Money, to a limited amount, upon the security of Local Rates; and to shorten the period for the adoption of the Local Government Act, 1848, in certain cases."
He also found recorded that this Bill was "ordered to be brought in by Mr. Villiers and Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer." When the Motion was made for leave to bring in the Bill, he (Mr. Hennessy) addressed some questions to the Government with reference to the necessity of advancing public money for public works in Ireland. No Member of the Government answered his questions—but that he passed by without comment. Leave having been given, the next Motion which was put to the House was "That Mr. Villiers and Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer do prepare and bring in the Bill." He rose to make observations upon that Motion, but he was stopped by Mr. Speaker, who said that he would not be in order in addressing the House on that occasion; and bowing to the decision of the right hon. Gentleman, he resumed his seat. He might mention to the House, as some excuse for the course he was taking, that not only the people of Ireland generally, but his own constituents in particular, took a very lively interest in

521
this subject. Within the last few weeks reports had been sent to the Treasury, recommending an outlay of £280,000 upon public works in Ireland. It so happened that the recommendation was that that money should be spent in the King's County, and he had received from his constituents day after day urgent letters asking him to make inquiries as to these works, and to ascertain what course the Government intended to take upon the subject generally. He humbly submitted that when the Motion was made that the Bill should be brought in by Mr. Villiers and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, it was perfectly competent to him to move either, for instance, that another name should be added to these, or that instructions should be given to these Gentlemen to do something not in the original Motion. He need not refer to the authorities which he held in his hand; it was enough to say, that as far as these two Motions went, the Orders of the House were perfectly explicit and distinct. Further than that, there were precedents going this length, that that Motion had actually been made for the purpose of raising a debate, and he had seen in Hansard a record of a debate on such a Motion, in which no less an authority than Earl Russell, as well as other Members of the House, took part. He would confine himself to this simple statement; but it was a matter of the utmost importance to Ireland that a decision should not be come to upon this Bill without her claims being considered. He now raised no point upon the fact that this was a Bill to authorize the advance of money upon local rates, and that it was the first time that such a Bill had been introduced without a Re solution of a Committee of the Whole House:—he confined himself to respectfully asking the Speaker, whether he was not, under the circumstances, at liberty to make observations upon the Motion to which he had referred?
MR. SPEAKER: In answer to the Question which has been put to me by the hon Member, I must, in the first place, assure the House that my desire is to conduct the business of the House with perfect regularity, even to the last moments of its sitting—which, at a late hour of a morning, after sittings of ten or eleven hours, it is not quite so easy to do a it is earlier in the evening. On the occasion to which the hon. Gentleman ha referred the hon. Gentleman has mentioned
522
that at half-past two o'clock on Saturday morning the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Poor Law Board rose to ask leave to bring in a Bill, a description of which he has given. It was then so late that the right hon. Gentleman said he would not attempt to enter into any description of the Bill. However, questions were asked, and especially the hon. Member for Devonport (Mr. Ferrand) asked for certain information. I was so far from desiring to restrain discussion that I was rather out of order in allowing the hon. Member for Devonport to address the house, I think, three times in enforcing his request upon the Government. After the last explanation the hon. and learned Member stated that he was perfectly satisfied. The hon. and learned Member for the King's County (Mr. Hennessy) also raised a question, and it appeared to me that, so far as discussion went, the matter was closed. The Question was put "That leave be given to bring in the Bill," which was agreed to without any observation. Then the President of the Poor Law Board having passed almost down the House, I called to him for the names of the Gentlemen who were to bring in the Bill. The names were given; and on that occasion the hon. Member for King's County rose and proposed to address observations, as it appeared to me, on the general subject-matter of the Bill. Now certainly, during the years that I have had the honour of occupying the chair, no such question has ever been raised upon the names of the Gentlemen who are to bring in a Bill. The hon. Member has been so good as to place in my hands, just as I was going to the House of Lords to be present at a Commission, a case which he considers to be a precedent. This is a case which occurred in the year 1852 upon the Militia Bill, when Lord John Russell having brought in the Bill, and the noble Lord now the Prime Minister having moved and carried an Amendment upon it, the noble Lord who introduced the Bill declined to proceed further with it; upon which a discussion arose as to who should bring in the Bill. No doubt, upon that occasion a discussion arose, the original introducer of the Bill having declined to proceed further with it; but that case certainly would not in any way apply to the occurrence of the other morning. At the same time, I should state that in earlier days questions have arisen upon this Motion. Those questions have generally

523
been as to the addition or substitution of a name; but, as far as my present information goes—I do not pretend to speak with positive accuracy, having had no opportunity, except since I came to the House, of examining into the question—my opinion is that, with regard to all recent practice, any discussion arising upon the names of the persons who should bring in the Bill should be confined to the question who those persons should be, and should not involve a general discussion upon the nature of the Bill. At the same time, I beg to assure the hon. Member that there was no desire on my part to restrict any legitimate opportunity for discussion, and I think the House had evidence of this in the fact to which I have already mentioned—that on the occasion adverted to I allowed an hon. Member to address three speeches to the House.
COLONEL FRENCHsaid, he wished to know how the matter was to be decided for the future. According to the Rules of the House, no debate could arise upon reading a Bill for the first time, or on the Motion that it be printed; but it seemed still doubtful, from the answer given from the Chair, whether a debate may not be raised on the appointment of the Members to whom the Bill wag to be given in charge.

ADMISSION OF CASUAL POOR TO WORKHOUSES.—QUESTION.
VISCOUNT RAYNHAMsaid, he wished to put a Question to the President of the Poor Law Board; and in order to enable himself to make a short statement, he would move the Adjournment of the House. A few years ago he had had the honour to move for a Select Committee to consider the mismanagement of the London workhouses. Yesterday afternoon, as he was passing through Oxford Street, he saw a poor woman and four children apparently in a state of utter destitution. He told her that St. Marylebone workhouse was the nearest place of shelter, and that he would follow her there in half an hour. Accordingly he went, and on arriving at the workhouse found the woman and her family standing outside in a drenching rain at the door. He knocked, and asked why they were refused? He was received in a most insolent manner, and he was told by the master, that if he did not leave, he would be turned out forthwith. He did leave; but returned, and on passing his card through the grille, he was admit-
524
ted, and treated rather more civilly; but the master refused to take in the woman and her children. Under these circumstances, he wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman, Whether the authorities of any workhouse whatever had a right to deny admittance to any destitute person so long as the casual ward was not absolutely incapable of containing any more persons? At the same time, he wished to say that the casual wards were places in which no gentleman would like to place his dog. He begged also to give notice that he would to-morrow move for leave to bring in a Bill to improve the condition of the casual poor in the workhouses of the metropolis.
SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBY, in seconding the Motion, observed that the introduction of the Bill by the President of the Poor Law Board on Friday night involved a most important question, and that was whether such a measure ought not to have been introduced in a Committee of the Whole House. He did not think it right that important Bills of that description should be introduced at two o'clock in the morning, when only thirteen or fourteen Members were present. He wished also to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether a Bill involving a grant of public money on the security of the local rates ought not to be introduced in a Committee of the Whole House?
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, his right hon. Friend the President of the Poor Law Board had made the usages of the House a subject of particular inquiry before introducing the Bill, and the answer obtained, from competent authority, was that the proceeding he contemplated was perfectly regular. His right hon. Friend consulted him as to the expediency of that course, and he certainly was of opinion that, on the whole, it was the course most expedient, if it were allowable. Had the plan of proceeding upon a preliminary Resolution been adopted, the House of Commons must have been asked in the first instance to bind itself to a particular sum which could not be exceeded (which in that instance he was not prepared to do), or else the circuituous measure would be adopted of moving for a fresh Committee to enlarge that sum after the Bill had been introduced. It was not easy for the Government to say beforehand what sum would be required; but they expected

525
to derive valuable information upon this point from the discussions upon the measure which must take place both in and out of Parliament. Instead, therefore, of laying down rigidly the precise amount of public money required, it was thought more judicious to obtain from hon. Members and local representatives information as to the amount that would probably be required.
MR. FERRANDasked, for what day the President of the Poor Law Board intended to fix the second reading of the Bill?
MR. C. P. VILLIERSsaid, that he had already stated that he proposed to take it on that day week. It was not necessary to submit the question to a preliminary Committee, because the Bill did not impose any fresh charge upon the Exchequer; it only authorized the Exchequer Loan Commissioners to advance monies which were already in their possession. With regard to the question of the noble Viscount (Viscount Raynham), he could only say, that as the noble Lord had given him no notice of it, he could give him no information as to the case. He submitted to the noble Lord, however, that the proper quarter to apply to in the first instance was the Poor Law Board. If he could not obtain redress there, it might be very proper afterwards to call the attention of the House to the matter.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

SUPPLY.
Order for Committee read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."

EDINBURGH BOTANICAL GARDENS—OPENING ON SUNDAYS.

  RESOLUTION.
  MR. GREGORYrose to move a Resolution—
  "That, in the opinion of this House, the Royal Botanical Gardens of Edinburgh should be open to the Public after the hours of Divine Service on Sundays, as is the case of other Botanical Gardens supported by Parliamentary Grants."
  It might be asked why this subject had not been brought forward by one of the representatives of Scotland? His answer was, that if the Question could be decided by a vote by ballot of the Scotch Members, he felt certain, from information he had received, that it would be carried by a large minority. It was
  526
  not pleasant, however, for any hon. Member connected with a Scotch constituency to offend a section of his supporters, even though it might not be a large one. If the question were one of primary importance, he had that confidence in the public spirit of hon. Gentlemen from Scotland, that he felt sure they would not hesitate to take the course which seemed to them to be right; but they could not be expected to run counter to the wishes of a considerable section of their constituents in a matter of such comparatively small consequence. The reason why he brought the subject forward was, because two year ago he had been successful in a similar Motion with respect to the Gardens at Glasnevin, near Dublin, and he had therefore been requested by many of the in habitants of Edinburgh to take up their case. He had no reason to complain of any attack made upon him by the Scotch laity in consequence of the notice he bad given; but some of the Scotch clergy had used rather strong language respecting his Motion, which deserved a place amongst the amenities of theological literature. The Rev. Dr. Begg, in a recent speech, for instance, had stated that it was a very painful thing to have the Scotch Sabbath interfered with by the representative of an Irish Popish con stituency—by a representative of "one of the most degraded Popish communities in the world." He could only say in reply that he hoped that Dr. Begg would learn to display a little less of the zeal of a theologian, and a little more of the graces and the gentleness of a Christian. In 1861 a demand was made by the working classes of Dublin for the opening of the Glasnevin Botanical Gardens on Sundays. It was violently opposed. The predictions were sinister indeed. It was asserted that large numbers of persons would rush over the grounds in a state pf drunkenness, and destroy everything. At the same time he was told—for the opposition, as the sailors said, blew from all points of the compass at once—he was told that no one would go to the Gardens at all on Sundays. With regard to the first allegation, he was glad to say, that so far from any damage having been done, the working classes, as they would always do when they were trusted, bad constituted themselves the guardians of the public property; and not a single shrub or plant had been injured. He had seen letters from Mr. Moore, the curator, and Captain

  527
  Lindsay, the resident magistrate of the neighbourhood, stating that the step of opening the Gardens had fulfilled their most sanguine expectations; that the conduct of the people had been most orderly; and that it was likely to be of material service to the cause of morality and religion. With regard to the second allegation, that the working men would not go to the Gardens, he would only quote one or two figures. In 1861, the year before the Gardens were opened on Sunday, the whole number of visitors was only 39,800. In the first ten months after the opening on Sunday the number had increased to 226,763. Strange to say, the number visiting the Gardens on week days had also increased, for they amounted in the same ten months to 43,220. The fact was, that until this Sunday afternoon opening the gardens were virtually unknown; but the people who went there told their friends, a taste for flowers sprang up, and the gardens bad in consequence become a great attraction to the poorer citizens of Dublin. With respect to the Edinburgh Gardens, the working people of that city, having seen the advantage of opening the Glasnevin Gardens, had presented a Petition signed by 14,000 of their body, praying that their Gardens also might be made accessible to them after the hours of Divine Service. They stated they were chiefly working men, whose labour and domestic duties left them no opportunity to visit the Gardens on week-days. They quote the decision of the Select Committee of the House of Commons in 1854—
  "That it was expedient that places of rational recreation and instruction, then closed, should be open to the public on Sunday after two o'clock."
  And they added—
  "No kind of recreation or instruction can be more rational than that derivable by working men And their families from visits to such places: not only will they thus be led to take wholesome exercise in the open air, but their tastes will be elevated, their knowledge of the works of nature increased, and their devotional feelings nourished and stimulated."
  To this a counter Petition against the Bill had been got up by a Society calling itself "The Sabbath Alliance." It stated that to open the Gardens would involve a violation of the Divine law, which forbade men from doing their pleasure on the Sabbath Day; that it would be the beginning of a series of alterations ending in the opening of the theatres on Sundays; and that as the Gardens were already opened on Saturday
  528
  evenings, the working classes had no occasion to go to them on Sunday, Exactly the same objections had been urged by the opposition in Dublin, and they had a much better case, for the Glasnevin Gardens were largely supported by private funds, whereas those at Edinburgh were wholly kept up by the public money. He had no intention to go into the theological question; but if it be a violation of divine law to have rational amusement on the seventh day, he would only say that the principle had been repeatedly sanctioned by the Legislature. Successive Ministries and Votes of the House of Commons had permitted the opening on Sundays of Kew Gardens, Hampton Court, and other places. The future King of England did not entertain those opinions; as only a few Sundays previously he and the Princess visited the Zoological Gardens, and no doubt he took his pleasure in that most interesting collection of natural history. And with regard to the objection, that if the Gardens were opened, theatres too would come to be open on Sundays, it would be sufficient to say that not a single Petition had ever been presented to the House in favour of such a proposition; and when such a request was made, it would be time enough to deal with it. He wished to ask the gentlemen of the Sabbath Alliance why it was that every single Park frequented by the higher classes in Edinburgh was open on Sunday, whilst these Gardens were closed? The Gardens of Edinburgh might be divided into three classes: those belonging to local proprietors or associations; those belonging to the City itself, represented by its corporation; and those belonging to the Crown. Of the first class of these Gardens—such as West Prince's Gardens, Regent Terrace, Royal Terrace, and others—no less than six were open to the higher classes who could pay, while on religious grounds the Botanic Gardens were closed to the lower classes who could not. As a very ably-written Scotch paper, The Scotsman, remarked, this is much worse than compounding for sins we are inclined to, by damning those we have no mind to; for this is compromising for the recreations we perpetrate by forcibly disabling others from doing likewise. Now, there had been presented to the House Petitions in favour of opening the Gardens, signed by working men to the number of 35,800, and the petitioners declared that they were ready to have the

  529
  Petition analysed and signatures tested, for they were perfectly bonâ fide. On the other hand, a Petition was presented, signed by 63,000 of the people of Edinburgh. But he (Mr. Gregory) had been credibly informed that this Petition was signed by women, by children, by whole schools of young people, and that the pressure put upon these children was such that they were compelled to sign, without knowing, in the slightest degree, what it was they were signing. [The hon. Gentleman then read letters which he had taken pains to authenticate, and which gave instances of girls of fourteen, ten, and eleven years of age being asked to sign, and upon their refusal, being turned out of the school and told never to come their again.] In one instance the writer's stepdaughter was called upon by the lady teacher to sign the Petition, and, upon refusing, was ordered to leave the school and not to return. Two other girls were turned away from the same school for not signing. Another correspondent said that on the 26th of April his youngest sister, ten years old, went to the Sunday School. Immediately after school was over the teacher produced a Petition against opening the Gardens on Sunday, and requesting the girls of the class to put down their names, which was done by some of them. A working man wrote to say that his daughter, a girl of between ten and eleven, was attending the Sunday School as usual; and when school was over, the lady teacher produced a sheet, and asked the girls to sign. The writer's daughter refusing, she was turned out of doors, and ordered never to come back. He believed that a very large proportion of the signatures were those of women and children, whereas the whole of the 35,800 petitioners who signed in favour of the opening might be tested. One of the arguments used against the opening of these Gardens was that it would lead to drunkenness. Now, with regard to drunkenness, he had witnessed the scenes which took place in the streets of Edinburgh. It was a most painful sight, and such as he believed could be seen in no other cities in the world, except, perhaps, Glasgow. Two things were clear. It was very certain that Scotch asceticism in the observance of the Sabbath produced no effect in diminishing the prevalence of drunkenness. Another thing was also clear, that where recreation had been placed within reach of the working classes, their amendment in this respect had been very conspicuous.
  530
  Since the opening of Kew Gardens the amount of drunkenness in the neighbourhood had diminished; and Sir Joseph Paxton, in giving evidence before a Committee in 1854, stated that some 500 or 800 persons frequently came on Sundays from Sheffield to go over the house and grounds at Chatsworth. They used to go to the public-houses to put up their horses, but they never sat there sotting and drinking. About ten years ago the Duke of Devonshire closed the gardens at Chatsworth on Sunday. Nearly the same number of people used to come from Sheffield; but not having the gardens to resort to, they were driven to frequent the public-houses, and great disturbances arose. Representations were made to the Duke, who re-opened the gardens on Sunday; the disorders ceased, and now it was found necessary to employ no more than two persons to look after the grounds on Sundays. This was a question of something more than a mere opening of gardens; the question was, would the House of Commons sanction the principle that a number of men—granted a majority—should impose what he would call pains and penalties upon a minority? No man was more ready than he was to make every allowance for conscientious feeling; but there were people in the world, possessed of ideas peculiar to themselves, who were desirous of gratifying the indulgence of those ideas by doing certain acts, or by imposing certain restrictions upon others, which involved the infliction of pains and penalties. He hoped there was nothing in the nature of Scotchmen which unfitted them for the recreation which was to be derived from surveying the works of nature to a greater extent than their brethren in England and Ireland. He now begged to move the Resolution of which he had given notice.
  SIR JOHN SHELLEYseconded the Motion.
  Amendment proposed,
  To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "in the opinion of this House, the Royal Botanical Gardens of Edinburgh should be open to the Public after the hours of Divine Service on Sundays, as is the case of other Botanical Gardens supported by Parliamentary Grants,"—(Mr. Gregory,)
  —instead thereof
  THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, he did not blame the hon. Gentleman for bringing the subject forward; but it was a significant fact, that both the Members for Edinburgh and the other Scotch Members

  531
  had abstained from doing so. He was quite certain the votes of those Members would riot be recorded in favour of the Motion. If it were the fact, as the hon. Member supposed, that the feeling of their constituents was so strong that they would vote one way because the division would be known, and would vote a different way if a ballot were employed, then the Government had acted very wisely in deferring to a public feeling which was so powerful in Scotland, He (the Lord Advocate), however, thought that both his hon. Colleague (Mr. Black) and himself had given sufficient proof of their independence, because it was not so long since they had voted in the majority upon the division on May-nooth—a question upon which there was a very strong feeling in Scotland. He was prepared to say, for all the Scotch Members, that they were not men to be driven or dragooned into voting on any question in a way they did not approve, even though their constituents might have a strong view upon the matter. A parallel had been drawn between the case of the Gardens at Dublin and those at Edinburgh. But the case of Edinburgh was the converse of Dublin in every respect; and the course adopted by the Government in this case was the same in principle as that pursued in the Glasnevin case, though it led to a different result. The Gardens in Dublin belonged to a society, and were open to the 1,500 members of that society, not merely on the week days, but on Sundays also. A Petition was presented to the Department of Science and Art, or to. Parliament, praying that the Gardens might be open on the Sundays, not only to the members, but to the public generally; and it seemed, according to the statement made by the hon. Gentleman, that a minority of 6,000 inhabitants of Dublin petitioned against the opening of the Gardens in Dublin on Sundays, though they were quite willing that they should continue open to the 1,500 members of the society. Therefore, in that case, a large majority were on one side, and a minority on the other. Beyond this, the hon. Gentleman stated that the inhabitants of Dublin had no other place for recreation or for the enjoyment of the fresh air on a Sunday. The case with regard to Edinburgh was the converse in almost every respect; and while regretting that without sufficient cause there should be raised in that House questions with respect to which great diversity of opinion in a religious
  532
  point of view prevailed, he felt quite certain that there never was more slender ground for a Motion like the present than that which existed in the case of the Edinburgh Botanical Gardens. Those Gardens were attached to the Professorship of Botany in the University, and were strictly botanical. They were never intended for public promenade; they were laid out in a scientific manner; they amounted to eighteen acres in all, and were situated a couple of miles beyond the residence of the greater part of the working classes of Edinburgh. He appealed to his hon. Friend and Colleague, to the Member for Bute, and to hon. Members acquainted with Edinburgh, to say whether there was any ground for believing that opening these Gardens at four o'clock or half past four on the Sunday would be of any appreciable advantage to the working classes of Edinburgh. He admitted, that if this question arose with regard to a crowded community, where the artisans worked from week to week without the opportunity of breathing the fresh air or seeing the green fields, it would then arise under circumstances different from the present; but in Edinburgh there was no lack of fresh air for the working classes, who had immediate access to the country from all parts of the city. Instead of going a couple of miles to the eighteen acres of Botanical Gardens, the working classes of Edinburgh could, in five minutes, get into a solitude as wild as any in the heart of the Highlands, and into the midst of scenery not to be surpassed in any part of the United Kingdom. They had at their command spots for recreation beyond the inhabitants of any other city with which he was acquainted; and in the time they would take to get to the low level of the Botanical Gardens they might roam over Arthur's Seat, and ascend to the top of high hills, and see the view described in Marmion. Therefore there was no ground, so far as public necessity was concerned, for the Motion of the hon. Gentleman. He would not go into the general question as to the observance of the Sunday, further than to say that it was notorious that in Scotland, as in England, diversity of opinion prevailed in respect to it; and it was exceedingly undesirable to raise discussions in the House of Commons leading to the irritation which generally accompanied controversies on such points. However, public opinion in Scotland was clear in regard to this particular case, that there was no

  533
  ground for giving offence to the many who maintained strict views on the observance of the Sabbath. He was not going to enter upon matters connected with the Petitions which had been presented, though a good many letters had been addressed to him with regard to the Petition to which the hon. Member alluded as proceeding from the working men of Edinburgh. These accusations were often made by both sides. The general ground on which he thought the Government justified in not entertaining the proposition to throw the Gardens open on Sundays was simply that by so doing they would give offence to a large portion of the community, and he thought that there existed no public advantage in raising the question. The hon. Gentleman said that the principle should be maintained that the majority should not coerce the minority; but it was also to be observed, that when a large body of people held a thing to be matter of principle and conscience, and another body held it to be a matter of indifference, it was reasonable that those who held it to be indifferent should give way. He would not discuss whether the Scotch or the English way of spending Sundays most tended to sobriety and morality; but it would be difficult to show that there was any connection between drunkenness in Scotland and the mode of keeping the Sabbath there. On the contrary, he thought that those who spent the Sunday in the way in which the majority of the Scotch people thought right were not those who drank the most or figured chiefly in the police reports. On the part of his constituents, and of the working men of Edinburgh, he expressed a hope that the House would support the Government, and not allow this question of controversy and irritation to be opened.
  MR. STIRLINGhoped that the Government would not oppose this very reasonable proposition. He should like to hear some better reason given why that which was right at Glasnevin and Kew must be wrong at Edinburgh. He begged to tender his thanks to the hon. Member for Galway for having brought forward this question. The right hon. Gentleman (the Lord Advocate) opposed the Motion by asserting, broadly and simply, that public opinion was opposed to the proposal; but he wisely declined entering into a criticism respecting the Petition. But the House should bear in mind that the Petition from Edinburgh, for opening the Gardens on Sundays, was signed by upwards of 35,000
  534
  adult males, while the contrary Petition, with 63,000 names, bore the signatures of many women and children; and of all the instances of scandalous Petitions he had heard of in that House he had never known one more scandalous. It was all very well for the right hon. Gentleman to say that he had his pocket full of letters against the Petition for opening the Gardens on Sundays; he (Mr. Stirling) had also received numerous letters, and as a stimulus to induce the right hon. Gentleman to produce his, he would trouble the House with one or two on the other side, the value of which he taken means to test. One writer said—
  "When the person intrusted with the Petition against the opening of the Gardens called and requested my signature, I replied that I had already signed one of the Petitions, without stating which. He, believing that I had signed a Petition against the opening, said, 'Oh, never mind, sign again; we want as many signatures as possible;' whereupon I undeceived him by stating that I had signed a Petition in favour of the opening."
  Another writer said, that being out at the time when the Petition was brought to the door, his sister signed; and although she knew that his sentiments were adverse to the tenour of the Petition, she added his signature, saying, "I know my minister is against the opening of the Gardens, and therefore I cannot be wrong in adding my brother's name to the Petition." If the teaching of that minister inculcated such doctrines as that, it must be of a very questionable character; and it would be ludicrous, if it were not painful, to see the means by which people, excellent in their way, sought to bolster up their own interpretation of one of the Divine Commandments by breaches of several of the rest. He would not trouble the House further with stories about the schools. He could use no other terms in reference to the conduct of those who maintained them, than that it was scandalous, and that by inducing little children to support their own peculiar prejudices, they were striking at the root of all which they professed to teach in those schools. The right hon. Gentleman, with the plausibility and pleasantness of manner which always distinguish him, told them that the public opinion of Edinburgh was unquestionably against the Motion of his hon. Friend. He held in his hand a Petition followed by four octavo pages full of names of men of position and men of science, citizens of Edinburgh. The list began with Lord Dunfermline, Sir J. M'Neill, Professor Play fair, and a num-

  535
  ber of professors, and contained also the names of a few of the clergy, and many of the most respectable shopkeepers. The list contained the names of the best people of Edinburgh, and he challenged the right hon. Gentleman to produce a list equal in number and eminence against the Motion, One thing, with regard to public opinion, be must admit, and while he admitted it he greatly regretted it. A large majority of the clergy of all denominations in Scotland were against the Motion, and they were supported by those who took part in the Ecclesiastical Assemblies. But, he ventured to say, with all respect to the clergy, and to those lay persons with ecclesiastical tendencies that they did not represent the intelligent opinion of the laity of Scotland. He could give ah instance in what occurred not many days ago in the Assembly of the Free Church of Scotland. A rev. gentleman, well known in Scotland, brought before the Assembly the fact that Her Majesty had erected on one of the hills near Balmoral a monument to the late Prince Consort. Upon that monument Her Majesty had caused to be inscribed a few touching words taken from the Wisdom of Solomon—words which, no doubt, had some tender association with the illustrious Prince, whom the monument was intended to commemorate. This rev. gentleman, in the course of a long speech, brought those words before his brethren, and maintained the proposition, which he thought would not be entertained with, much respect in that House, that because the words were taken from the Apocrypha, Her Majesty seemed to imply that the Apocryphal book was of equal authority with the Holy Scriptures. He did not wish to misrepresent the rev. gentleman, and as there might be some doubt of his accuracy, he would like to read the very words. The words occured at the close of the rev. gentleman's speech. He had already spoken of the inscription as a Popish inscription, and he said, "Scotland cannot but regard these words as an offence to the Bible which Scotland loves, and to the religion which Scotland has inherited." He was sorry to see, by the report of the speech, that this rev. and frantic divine was interrupted by several marks of applause, and, as far as he saw, he certainly departed from the Assembly without receiving the rebuke which his language and logic deserved. His hon. Friend the Member for Greenock (Mr. Dunlop), whom he saw in his place,
  536
  rose immediately after the rev. gentleman, and did not endorse the sentiment; but there was no one present who made any reply. Were they to understand that reasoning such as that was to be held to be a fair specimen of the opinion of the laity of the Free Church of Scotland? Unquestionably not. Until he was informed by his hon. Friend the Member for Greenock, or some one of equal authority, that the laity of the Free Church held such opinions, he should not believe it. The truth was, that in Scotland, as in other countries, the clergy were obliged to do a good deal of the public speaking; and the consequence was, that they spoke their full share of nonsense. But even were it not so, he was happy to think that upon this particular subject, even in these ecclesiastical assemblies, a better spirit was rising. In the Free Church Assembly, of which he had spoken, a highly-esteemed Gentleman, the late Member for Edinburgh, in a very sensible and excellent speech, opposed the Petition against the Resolution of his hon. Friend, and said he was not of those who saw any outrage upon the feelings of Scotland in opening a garden to walk in after church. In the Assembly of the Established Church one of the most able of the younger ministers of the Church supported a Motion in favour of this Resolution. He hoped, therefore, that public opinion upon this subject would gradually change, and that what appeared to be a minority would very soon be a majority. The only other argument which he saw much mentioned by those who opposed this Motion, was that it would entail labour upon the men employed in the Gardens. The staff of labourers was about twenty-five, and those who contracted not to labour on Sundays would probably not be asked to do police duty in the Gardens when the public were admitted. But he believed that three or four men were at present employed on Sundays in the Gardens, and that they would be quite sufficient for the purpose. Even if a few more should be required, he thought that such a boon as that of opening the Gardens to some 30,000 toil-worn men would justify their employment. At all events, if men, who now worked in the greenhouses and other parts of the Garden on Sundays, should feel their consciences injured by having to see that the public did no damage to the walks and beds, there would be no difficulty in supplying their places with others. The only remaining point which he wished to ask the House to consider was this:—With what

  537
  face could they refuse permission to the working classes to walk in Gardens for which they paid after they had expressed a desire to do so. He had the honour to be acquainted with many persons, both in Scotland and England, who belonged to what was called the religious world, and with many others, who, whether they desired to be ranked in that regiment or not, were sincerely and truly religious. Did he find that in their country houses on Sundays people were taken into a room, with the blinds down, and there compelled to read and meditate entirely upon theological questions? That was not his experience. He would say that on Sunday afternoons, the very period of the day referred to in the Resolution, was exactly the time devoted to lounging and harmless sightseeing—when the conservatories, the stable, the garden, or the kennel were visited by persons whose lives and conversation would be admitted to be models for the rest of their neighbours. How could those who possessed these things by accident and fortune, rather than from any merit of their own, and who enjoyed them on Sundays, say with any face to the poor man claiming his small share of public institutions, "We ore sorry for you; we have received your Petition, and while we enjoy our own gardens on Sunday, our respect for the Sabbath is such that we must refuse your request?" He would only add that he hoped his hon. Friend would persevere with his Motion, and that what had been done at Glasnevin and Kew would also be done at Edinburgh.
  MR. GRANT DUFF: Sir, I wish to say a word or two on this question, especially as I cannot on this occasion conscientiously vote with my right hon. Friend (The Lord Advocate), whose lead upon Scotch matters I am generally proud to follow. It seems to me that we have nothing to do with the motives of those who raised this Botanic Garden controversy. They may be right, they may be wrong; we have only to decide how a dispute should be settled which others have had the responsibility of commencing; and, I confess, I do not see how it can be settled except in the way in which such controversies have been settled in, to the best of my belief, every other capital in Europe These gardens must be opened, if only for the sake of peace and quietness. The party which desires to open them is a great and growing one; it comprises a large portion of the intelligence of the
  538
  country. It increases with every new facility for communication, with every step in the advance of real civilization and the diffusion of knowledge. Who are those who are opposed to the opening? They may be divided into three classes—First, there is a large body of people who do not go very deeply into this particular controversy, but who have a general idea that by opposing the opening of these gardens they are taking the side of religion. I wish to speak of many of these people with the greatest respect. Their ranks include a large number of persons of the type alluded to by one of the greatest of English poets, when be speaks of—
  "Choice word, and measured phrase,
  Such as grave livers do in Scotland use—
  Religious men, who give to God and man their dues."
  We should deal gently even with the prejudices of such men; but even their prejudices will, when a short time has passed, not he offended by seeing their neighbours walk in the Botanic Garden, any more than they are now offended by seeing them walk in those of Princes Street. Secondly, you have, undoubtedly, a certain number of persons who really have violent and bitter opinions upon this Sunday question, but they are not numerous—far less numerous than is generally supposed. It is useless to point out to those men that the high Sabbatarian doctrine which is popular in some circles, north and south of the Tweed, was invented by the very persons whom they most abhor—by the Roman Canonists—and was, perhaps, more the work of the great Spanish Doctor Tostatus than any other man. It is useless to assure them that Luther abhorred it, that Calvin describes it in words fierce and bitter after his fashion, as "crassa carnalisque Sabbati superstitio. It is useless, I say, to argue with them; but it is not a small knot of impracticable men who can be allowed to govern the legislation of the country. But I am afraid that, in addition to these two classes of which I have spoken, there is a third, with whose apparent zeal is mingled a great deal of selfish calculation. There are persons who feel, that if the whole truth on this and other subjects is distinctly to be told to the people, the virtual leadership of the people will pass into other hands than theirs. These men know the susceptibilities of their countrymen, and practise on them, making them the lever of their own ambition. I never yet heard of a country where

  539
  there was too much real religion, and assuredly if there ever was a country where the religious sanction was needed to supplement the efficacy of other sanctions, that country is Scotland. If any one doubts what I say, I commend him to the study of that most interesting, but also most grim and grisly book, Chambers's Domestic Annals. If, therefore, I thought that the proposal of the hon. Member for Galway would have the very slightest effect in diminishing the amount of religion in Scotland, I would certainly oppose it; but as I feel certain it will have an opposite effect, I have no choice but to follow him into the lobby. In doing so, I shall only take the same line which was taken a few days ago in the General Assembly of the Established Church, by some of the most distinguished ecclesiastics connected with the district of country with which I am best acquainted, and which I am well assured will be in my own constituency approved by many, acquiesced in by more, and resented by few or none of those who have hitherto honoured me with their general support and confidence.
  MR. BLACKsaid, it was not a pleasant thing to be called upon to pronounce a decision upon a point involving a difference of opinion between one's constituents, especially when that difference turned upon a small matter. He felt it, however, to be his duty to record his Vote against the opening of the Gardens in question. They occupied but a very limited spot of ground, set apart for the botanical class, and it was only between the hours of Divine Service that it was proposed to leave them open. Now, as Divine Service occupied from eleven till four, and was continued at eight, it was only between four and eight that advantage could be taken of the Gardens; and in winter, when the days were so short, there would be hardly any time to resort to them at all. Under these circumstances, much as he was in favour of giving the working man access to free air. he did not think it would be expedient to go in opposition to the feelings of the people of Edinburgh—whose sentiments were, he could from his own knowledge state, opposed to the proposition of the hon. Member for Galway—more particularly as few cities were better provided with places of recreation than Edinburgh where, if a man stood in need of fresh air he might obtain it more easily by going to some other quarter of the town, than by betaking himself to the Botanical Gardens
  540
  Scotland, he might add, was a Presbyterian country, and all the children, at all events, of religious families there were indoctrinated with a catechism which taught a very strict observance of the Sabbath, so that a large portion of the community would respect it, in accordance with their opinion, whatever course Parliament might take. Whether this was a prejudice or not, the feeling of the Scottish people was opposed to the opening of the Gardens on Sundays, and he should vote against the Resolution.
  MR. KINNAIRDsaid, that although he had the honour of representing a Scotch constituency for many years, he did not recollect that any one of his constituents had ever urged upon him the propriety of opening the question which the hon. Member for Galway had brought before the House; nor had he ever been requested to present a single Petition for opening public places of this description in Scotland on Sunday; whereas he had presented many Petitions against their being opened. In his belief, the fact was, as had been stated by the Lord Advocate in his able speech, a majority of the people of Scotland had a very strong feeling in the opposite direction; and on this, if on no other grounds, he thought they ought to reject this proposition. There could be no doubt, indeed, that whether rightly or wrongly, the opinion prevailed very generally in the country, that if the Motion of the hon. Member for Galway were carried, the decision would be adverse to the views of the great majority of her people. His hon. Friend had alluded to the fact that drunkenness existed to a great extent in Scotland; but he was happy to be able to state, from a Return which he held in his hand of the number of persons who had been found drunk in the streets of Edinburgh between eight o'clock on Sunday and eight o'clock on Monday morning, and been taken to the police office, that while in the six months ending March 31 in the year 1854 the number was 173, it had fallen in 1862 to 39, and in 1863 to 23. He regretted to hear his hon. Friend the Member for Perthshire call Dr. Candlish a "frantic divine," and hoped that on reflection he would withdraw an expression which was in itself offensive, and ought not to be applied to a man who had rendered such eminent service as had the rev. Gentleman referred to.
  MR. MUREtrusted that the House would deal with this question on the broad practical

  541
  ground on which it had been placed by his right hon. Friend the Lord Advocate, with whom he entirely concurred that the great preponderance of the feeling of the thinking people and of the working classes of Scotland was against the opening of these Gardens on Sunday. Many of the Petitions which had been presented to that House had, no doubt, been very irregularly obtained. He had been informed by an Episcopalian clergyman that in one instance he stood by a table on which a Petition in favour of the opening of the gardens lay for signature, and saw the boys from a neighbouring manufactory sign it, some of them two or three times. He did not suppose that this was peculiar to the Petitions in favour of the opening—they all knew what injudicious persons would do in getting up Petitions on any question. As had been abundantly shown, while there was a strong feeling against that measure, there was no great necessity, as far as the working classes were concerned, for opening these Gardens; and, in fact, there was no town in the world that had such facilities for recreation; and on that ground, therefore, he hoped the House would not accede to the Motion. Close to the part of the town in which they generally resided were the Queen's Park and Arthur's Seat; while to reach the Botanic Gardens, which included only eighteen acres of ground, they would have to walk nearly two miles. The opening of these gardens would, he was informed, from the way in which the gardens were laid out, every plant being ticketed, render necessary the attendance of at least twelve persons every Sunday—an amount of Sunday labour which that House ought not lightly to require. The gardens to which the hon. Member for Galway had referred as being open on Sunday were not properly public gardens, but gardens attached to residences the occupants of which alone had the right of admission; and as the working classes had easy access to far more agreeable places of recreation than the Botanic Gardens, he hoped the House would not agree to the Motion for opening them.
  MAJOR HAMILTONsaid, that the feeling of the people of Edinburgh, both high and low, was against the opening of these Gardens on Sunday. The hon. Member for Perthshire (Mr. Stirling) had endeavoured to make out, that if the gardens were open on Sunday, it would not be necessary to increase the number of gardeners
  542
  or police employed in those gardens—but what was the fact? The people of Scotland were so thoroughly well educated that they always required to know, if possible, a little more than they did already. So well known was this characteristic that he would give them an instance in illustration. He and a friend, while at the Exhibition of 1851, saw some patent felt helmets for the army, and in order to ascertain whether they would be of any use to the army they tried them on; but a policeman stepped up, and requested that they would leave the helmets alone. They at once complied, but he was struck by the remark made by A 21 to A 22—"Oh, they are merely a couple of Scotchmen, and must touch everything they see." And if these gardens were opened on the Sunday, the people would not be satisfied with the information which Professor Balfour chose to give, but would touch the plants themselves; and he need not say, that if they did so, those plants would be destroyed. He had not the slightest doubt, therefore, that if the gardens were opened as proposed, a greater number of police would be required. That all these Sunday amusements and recreations increased the labour of the police was proved by an answer which was given to the Lord Provost of Glasgow, when, at the instance of the clergymen who complained that the police were the only persons who wandered about the streets, he asked if it could not be managed that they should be sent to Church with the rest of the community. That answer was a "replica" of a celebrated reply given by a Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland. The Lord Provost was told, that if the police of Glasgow went to church, he would be the only spoon that would be left in his own house. If extra police and gardeners were employed in Edinburgh, there would be an increase of, in his opinion, unnecessary Sunday labour, and therefore he should decidedly oppose the opening of these gardens. He did not concur in the imputation that Galway was an immoral county; and though the hon. Gentleman might not be the man for Edinburgh, he was certainly the man for Galway.
  MR. SCULLYstated, that seven years ago he had advocated the opening of places, like the British Museum and the Crystal Palace on Sunday after Divine Service, for the recreation and instruction of the working classes; and he then received many letters from religious people in Scotland who imagined that such a measure would

  543
  lead to the opening of theatres on Sundays. He did not, however, conceive that there could be any connection between such places and theatres; such places were widely different from theatres. He confessed himself unable to see how the position of the strict Sabbatarians could be maintained. Those gentlemen said in effect that persons should work on six days of the week and rest on the seventh; but they did not act upon their own rule. For the most part they belonged to the idler classes; they did not follow the command of working on six days, and consequently they were not so much inclined for resting on the seventh as they often were for seeking their own pleasure. It was said that throwing open these gardens on Sunday would encourage habits of flirtation. Why, what other day had young people of the working classes for meeting and talking together? ("Divide!") He perceived that hon. Members would rather go to their dinners than discuss an important question, and he would not stand in the way of their inclination.
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: Sir, if I were to vote according to my own opinion on the merits of the question in itself, I should give my support to the Motion of my hon. Friend the Member for Galway; because, in the abstract, I can see no harm, but rather good, in doing that in Edinburgh which has been already done in other capitals—that is to say, opening places, be they small or large, for purposes of recreation. But I think in the present case there is another consideration to which the House ought to attend, and by which they ought to be guided—namely, that a real, sincere, and honest feeling on the part of the people of Scotland exists with regard to this question. I hold, that without some very grave and important reason, you ought not to do violence to public feeling; and that public feeling in Edinburgh and Scotland is against the opening of these Gardens on Sunday evenings is, I think, an indisputable fact. We have been told to-night that there are over 64,000 signatures against the opening, and 30,000 in its favour. Why, last year every morning I used to get Petitions, coming from almost every parish in Scotland, against the opening of these Gardens. It is quite true that these Petitions had a very strong family likeness; but still the striking identity of expression showed such identity of feeling that it really gave weight to these opinions, because it showed that in every part of the country the same opinions prevailed. Whatever might have
  544
  been the origin of those Petitions, they would not have come to me if they did not express the feelings and sentiments of those from whom they proceeded. Now, is there any necessity—any strong and paramount reason—for doing violence to public feeling? It has been already stated by my right hon. Friend the Lord Advocate, that Edinburgh, of all the towns in the world, possesses in its neighbourhood the amplest opportunities for air, exercise, and recreation. Arthur's Seat, the Queen's Park, and all the outlets in every part of the town afford the working classes much greater enjoyment than these small Botanic Gardens can possibly yield; indeed, I think the great desire expressed to enter it must proceed from the same feeling which forbidden fruit excites in the minds of men—because they are not allowed to go there, they imagine it is an Eden into which it must be most delightful to enter. This garden is the smallest thing imaginable; in extent it is only about sixteen acres, and the greater part of it is occupied with beds of plants intended for scientific instruction. I venture to say, that if the 34,000 persons who are so anxious to enter these Gardens were all to agree to go there some afternoon, they would find considerable difficulty in getting in; and if they did all succeed in entering, the air would not be by any means enjoyable. I think there is no necessity for acceding to the Motion of my hon. Friend. The hon. Gentleman says the feeling of Scotland is changing in this matter, and that in the course of no distant time the opinion of the majority will be in favour of opening these Gardens. Well, I say, let us wait till that change takes place. I am of opinion that this—I will not call it prejudice, for it is not prejudice, but strong religious feeling—is honourable, and ought to be respected. I am inclined to think that, owing to change of circumstances, the same importance is not attached in Scotland to those strict observances which some time since was attached to them; and in the course of a few years we shall probably find that in the general opinion of Edinburgh and of Scotland there will be no harm in opening these Gardens on Sunday. Wait till that happens; act in accordance with public opinion and in a spirit of deference to it; and do not, by hasty adoption of a principle to which Parliament in the abstract might be disposed to lend its sanction, offer violence to ancient and honourable feelings conscientiously entertained.
  Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  The House divided:—Ayes 123; Noes 107: Majority 16.

WAR OFFICE CIRCULAR.

  QUESTION.
  MR. PEACOCKEsaid, he asked a Question a few evenings ago of the noble Lord the Under Secretay for War, relative to the supply by the Government of the articles and implements necessary to enable Volunteer Engineer corps to obtain a knowledge of their duties. The noble Marquess stated that the War Office had issued a circular to commanding officers of Engineers, giving a list of thirty-five articles which were supplied to Engineer corps. He was at first rather nettled at having asked a Question to which so complete an answer could be returned, as it implied a degree of ignorance on his part, and on the part of those who had asked him to put the Question. The officer at whose instance he had put the Question, and who was one of his constituents, had himself raised an Engineer Corps at his own expense, which was as efficient as any in the service, and he felt the utmost confidence in his knowledge on the subject. He had since received a letter from this officer stating that he had never received a copy of the circular which the Under Secretary for War stated had been sent to every commanding officer of Engineers. The noble Lord would now perceive that the Question had been asked, not from ignorance of the Member who put it, or of his constituent who had desired it to be put, but from the laches of his own office, with which the blame of not forwarding the circular entirely rested.
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, that the hon. and learned Member had only given him notice that evening of his intention to advert to the subject, and it was, therefore, impossible for him to explain under what circumstances the officer of Engineers had not received the War Office circular. He had by no means, imputed ignorance to the hon. Member, but had simply replied that the War Office had issued a list of all the articles which the Government were prepared to supply. He would make inquiry into the matter.
  Main Question put, and agreed to.

SUPPLY.—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES.
SUPPLY considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
The following two Votes were agreed to:—

(1.) £8,000, to complete the sum for New Record Buildings, Dublin.

(2.) £800, Franklin Monument.

(3.) £6,000, Nelson Column.

MR. THOMSON HANKEYsaid, for the last six years successively this Vote of £6,000 had been taken for the Nelson lions to be sculptured by Sir Edwin Land-seer. He thought it discreditable to the House, to the Board of Works, and in some degree to the name of the great artist who had undertaken the task, that so long a delay should have occurred. Sir Edwin Land-seer was a painter, not a sculptor; but by whatever Government the contract was originally made, it was made, he had no doubt, in the belief that Sir Edwin Land-seer would take the work in hand at once. Was it reasonable to have to wait for six years for the completion of a work which had been so often brought under the notice of Parliament? The proper way would have been not to have asked this Vote, and to have made an arrangement with another artist to undertake the work. He was told no other artist would undertake it; but he was sure there were several in London who would. He would have been as well pleased to intrust the work to Baron Ma-rochetti; it would have been as well done, and they would have had it long ago. He hoped the Committee would not sanction this Vote, unless there were good grounds for supposing that the work would be speedily completed.
SIR JOHN SHELLEYasked, whether this sum of £6,000 would be sufficient for completing the lions?
SIR MATTHEW RIDLEYsaid, the hon. Gentleman forgot to ask how far the work of the lions had progressed, or whether it had proceeded at all. When the inquiry was last made, the answer was that Sir Edwin Landseer was studying the lions in the Zoological Gardens. Sir Edwin Landseer was a great animal painter; but it was no derogation from his ability as a painter to say that he was not a sculptor. The truth was, that the work had been confided to the wrong person. They should have given sculptor's work to a sculptor, not to a painter. The fact was, that the artist who was to execute the lions

547
was originally appointed by the subscribers, who formed a committee, and the work was assigned to a sculptor. The change which was afterwards made, was made not by the right hon. Gentleman, but by some one who preceded him in office. He was prepared to prove that it would be possible to have modelled, cast, and placed the four lions in their positions in a year and a half, or two years at the very outside. Originally the work was given to the artist who had given the very best design for the monument, except that it was not for a column. The column was given to one artist, the bas-reliefs to another, and the lions to the artist of whom he had spoken, and who might thus be said to have had the lion's share of the work. He wished to know how much money had been paid on account of this work; how much of the work had been done; and whether the lions were to be repetitions of one another, or to be different in attitude and character.
MR. COWPERsaid, this was a re-Vote of £6,000 which had been voted in 1858. Sir Edwin Landseer had as yet received no remuneration for the labour which he had devoted to the work. In 1848, the noble Lord (Viscount Morpeth) who was then at the head of the Office of Works found very considerable difficulty in satisfying himself as to the sculptor to whom to intrust a work of such importance. It was necessary that the artist should have great skill in the representation of animal life, and it was thought best to intrust the Commission to Sir Edwin Landseer, who, if not a sculptor, was the greatest painter of animals that this, or any other country, had produced. Sir Edwin Landseer, finding it was the wish of the Government that his genius should be turned in that new direction, consented to undertake the work. There had, however, been a very deplorable delay—a delay which Sir Edwin Landseer regretted, and which nobody regretted more than he (Mr. Cowper). But Sir Edwin Landseer had not lately been in the same state of good health he had previously enjoyed, and part of the delay was owing to that circumstance. Part of the delay was also owing to this, that the painter had been called upon to exercise his talents in a manner novel to himself, and which required more thought, consideration, and pains than would otherwise have been necessary. But Sir Edwin had studied the matter very deeply, and he (Mr. Cowper) trusted they would be compensated for the delay by the production of
548
something pre-eminently good—something superior to what would have been done had the work been executed rapidly and without preliminary study. He was assured that Sir Edwin Landseer had completed his design, that he was on the point of making the clay model for the casting, that the preliminary delays had at last reached their end, and that there only now remained the time which would be necessary for the mere work of execution. Sir Edwin Landseer had made a good many different sketches, and had frequently changed his views; but he (Mr. Cowper) now understood that he had satisfied him-self as to the design and composition. He had been asked whether the money that had been voted in 1858 would be sufficient. It certainly would not. It was quite clear that an increase of Vote would have to be proposed for the completion of the lions. It was quite impossible that colossal statues of a size proportionate to the column could be executed for £6,000. The mere casting of the metal would cost more than that sum; but as it was quite clear that a larger sum could not be spent this year, he thought the best course was simply to re-vote the money which the House had already voted. When Sir Edwin Landseer had completed his clay model, then would be the time to ascertain accurately the sum for which the model could be executed in bronze. He was not prepared at present to state what would be the cost. He did not understand that the four lions' would be exactly the same, but he believed that there would be two models, which with alterations would produce the four figures. He was now prepared to say that within a month or two the clay models would be completed. He had done what he could to represent to Sir Edwin Landseer that the work should be completed without delay, and he could bear witness that Sir Edwin Landseer had not certainly of late failed to devote and concentrate his attention on the models of these lions; but in the earlier years after undertaking the commission, having in hand some pictures to the execution of which he was pledged, he did not then feel at liberty to give his whole and undivided attention to this particular work.
MR. STIRLINGcould say, from having met Sir Edwin Landseer on several occasions after returning from working on the models, that that artist bore all the appearance of having been hard worked. He could not agree that it was any matter for regret that the commission had been

549
intrusted to Sir Edwin; for considering how distinguished that gentleman was for his representation of animals, it could not have been in better hands. In fact, he believed that his lions would redeem the monumental mistakes which had unfortunately been committed all over London; and he did not think that the Nelson column could afford to dispense with the embellishment that they would afford to it. With regard to the hon. Gentleman's observation that painters were not fitted to produce fine sculptures, he had only to say that the experience of the best ages of art was opposed to such a view. He might add, as a corroboration of the right hon. Gentleman's statement that Sir Edwin Landseer was now busily engaged on these statues, that he had not sent a picture to the Academy this year. At the same time, it might be true, that like the animals he represented, he would be none the worse for a little stirring up.
MR. THOMSON HANKEYremarked, that this was the first time that the House had heard that the lions would cost more than £6,000. There was either a contract with respect to the matter or there was not. If there was a contract, he wanted to know what sum was to be paid under it. To pass a Vote of this kind without knowing the amount really to be paid, was a very unsatisfactory proceeding; and he should divide the Committee against the Vote.
SIR JOHN SHELLEYconceived that in a matter of this kind there could be no immense margin, and the right hon. Gentleman ought to be in a position to give the Committee some idea what this larger sum was to be.
MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, it was a disgrace to the country that the monument to a great man like Nelson should have remained so long incomplete; and, whatever might be the cost, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would get it finished. The sum required could not be materially more than £6,000.
MR. MITFORDinquired, whether the bronze for the lions would be provided by the Government?
SIR MATTHEW RIDLEYwished to know what was to be the size of the lions, as that was a material matter in the calculation of the cost.
MR. COWPERreplied, that the lions would be twenty feet in length. As far as he was able to make a calculation of the sum required for the complete execution of
550
the statues in bronze twenty feet in length, be should say, assuming that the metal must be purchased and was not given by the Government, that the whole might be done for double the sum which was now proposed—namely, for £12,000. It did not appear that in 1848 there was any con-tract or careful examination made with regard to the particular sum that would be required, and he found that Sir Edwin Landseer did not consider, on his part, that be had undertaken to complete the lions in bronze. In this case, when the clay models were completed, it would be necessary to make a contract with a metal founder to cast these lions under Sir Edwin Land-seer's direction and guidance. In that way the country would have in this matter the full benefit of Sir Edwin Landseer's genius. He quite felt, with the hon. Member for Lambeth, that there ought not to be any further unnecessary delay in the completion of the Nelson Monument, and it was necessary for the dignity of the country that the column should be completed in a proper manner. It was said that it was not customary for painters to devote themselves to sculpture; but in the great days of Italian art Michael-Angelo and other artists were great in both the departments of painting and sculpture. He believed that the Government had done best by placing the management of this work in the hands of a man of such undoubted genius as Sir Edwin Landseer. Care would be taken that the casting in bronze should not be commenced until a definite contract was made, in order to prevent unnecessary expense.
SIR JOHN SHELLEYwas informed that the bronze for Baron Marochetti's statue of Coeur de Lion outside the House of Lords cost £3,000, and he imagined that the bronze for four lions would cost more than £12,000.
SIR MATTHEW RIDLEYasked, whether Sir Edwin Landseer had himself prepared the models?
MR. COWPERsaid, that everything done in the models had been done by Sir Edwin Landseer's own hand, and for the models Sir Edwin Landseer would be exclusively responsible.
ADMIRAL WALCOTTasked, when the lions would be completed?
MR. COWPERsaid, the design was completed, and the models would be completed in a month or two.
Vote agreed to.
Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That a sum, not exceeding £28,914, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1864, for erecting and maintaining certain Light-houses Abroad."
MR. CHILDERSsaid, he wished to draw attention to the extraordinary absence of a business-like mode of dealing with the item in this Vote of £8,000 for a floating light on the Little Basses Rocks, Ceylon. These rocks were in the direct line of the steamers between Point de Galle and Madras, and as early as 1826 it was represented to the Government that they ought to be lighted. In 1848 the Government made up their minds to do something, and wrote to Ceylon for advice how light-houses could be erected. Six years afterwards, in 1854, they got reports, showing that floating lights were impracticable, and strongly recommending the building light-houses on both the Basses Rocks, for the estimated Bum of £4,500. In 1855 Parliament voted £3000; in 1856, £17,000, and £6,000 for a steamer to carry the materials; in 1857, £8,000; in 1858, £10,000; and in 1859, £10,000, making a total of £54,000, for which there was never any other estimate than the one of £4,500. Even now the light-houses were not put up, and he saw them on the wharf at Point de Galle. In 1860 they were told that they could not put up a light-house, and that they must have a floating light, which was in the first instance condemned. Accordingly, in 1861, the House voted £8,000, and in 1862, £2,000 more for a floating light. The money was not expended, and now they were asked to vote £8,000. There ought to be some limit to the credulity of the House, and he should move to strike out the £8,000, leaving the Government to bring some evidence next year whether a fixed or a floating light was the best, and what money would really be required. He begged to move the reduction of the Vote by £8,000.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Item of £8,000, for the Little Basses Rocks Light Ship (re-Vote), be omitted from the proposed Vote."
MR. AUGUSTUS SMITHcomplained of the Vote altogether. It seemed to him that the rich colony of Ceylon ought to maintain its own lights. He therefore cordially supported the Motion of the hon. Gentleman who just sat down.
MR. MILNER GIBSONsaid, it was quite true that a great many errors had in former years been committed with respect to the erection of light-houses on the Basses Rock. The engineers were deceived as to what was to be done, and a great deal of money had been thrown away. It had been considered by the most competent judges that the best mode of lighting the rock would be by means of a floating lightship. Such a ship had been ordered to be built; but whether she would prove satisfactory for the accomplishment of the object in view must be determined by experience. It would at all events be necessary to pay the expenses of mooring the ship, and keeping up the necessary staff of attendants. Now, he did think it would be unreasonable to charge Ceylon for the light-ship, inasmuch as she was constructed rather for the protection of the general trade of this country than because of any special interests Ceylon had in the matter. Such lights as these and the Bahamas, and others similar, were proper subjects for a public Vote. It was, he thought, a duty which England owed to the world, and to her own commerce, to place lights on those barren islands in her possession, where necessary, for the purpose of preventing wrecks.
SIR JOHN SHELLEYconcurred with the right hon. Gentleman in thinking it right that we should maintain light-houses where required in our own possessions for the protection of ships and trade. He must, however, say that be believed the numerous mistakes which bad occurred with reference to the erection of those buildings were to be attributed mainly to the fact that they were provided under the sanction of the Board of Trade, and not of a properly constituted Board of Works.
MR. PEELreminded the Committee that the sum of £8,000 was Voted last year for the construction of the light-ship in question. She had not been finished at the close of the financial year, and the money was not available for her construction. The present therefore was simply a re-Vote.
MR. CHILDERSsaid, the Vote was taken not last year, but the year before.
Notice taken that 40 Members were not present; Committee counted, and 40 Members being found present,
MR. CHILDERSproceeded: He wished, he said, to know what was the amount agreed to be paid under the contract in question, and who was the engineer consulted.
Notice taken that 40 Members were not present; Committee counted, and 40 Members not being present,
Mr. SPEAKER resumed the Chair.
House counted; and 40 Members not being present,
House adjourned at a quarter after Eight o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Suitors Conciliation * (No. 120).
Second Reading—Prison Ministers (No. 109); Thames Embankment (North Side) * (No. 107); Salmon Fisheries (Scotland) Act Continuance * (No. 112).
Committee—Bakehouses Regulation* (Nos. 85 and 122).
Royal Assent—Customs and Inland Revenue [26 & 27 Vict., c. 22];
Hares (Ireland) [26 & 27 Vict., c. 19];
Elections during Recess [26 & 27 Vict., c. 20];
Illegitimate Children (Ireland) [26 & 27 Vict., c. 21];
Drainage of Land (Ireland) [26 & 27 Vict., c. 26];
Marriages, &c. (Ireland) [26 & 27 Vict., c. 27];
New Zealand Boundaries [26 & 27 Vict., c. 23];
Corrupt Practices at Elections [26 & 27 Vict., c. 29];
Savings Banks Monies [26 & 27 Vict., c. 25];
Vice Admiralty Courts [26 & 27 Vict., c. 24];
Stock Certificates to Bearer [26 & 27 Vict., c. 28].

POLAND.—QUESTION.
THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGH: My Lords, I rise to ask the noble Earl the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether there has been such progress in the negotiations as to afford a reasonable hope of a satisfactory settlement of the affairs of Poland? I do not think the question can be considered premature. The insurrection in Poland, which the Emperor ordered the authorities of the country to to put down in ten days, has existed for four months and a half; and, according to the last accounts, it was rapidly extending itself to various distant points in the ancient provinces that belonged to Poland before 1772. While diplomatists are writing and consulting, plunder, massacre, and incendiarism are extending through the whole country. My Lords, this is not an ordinary case of diplomacy. Generally, diplomacy originates with the Governments which conduct it; but, in this instance, I think it may be considered to have originated with the nations which those Governments represent; for in all parts of the world, except perhaps in Prussia, deep sympathy has been expressed for Poland. When, some years ago, the diplomatic intervention which preceded the Crimean war was undertaken, that diplomacy proceeded from statesmen who had in view not a distant but a coming danger, and endeavoured to avert that danger by diplomatic arrangement; but the evil with which diplomacy now deals is a present, existing evil, which has existed for more than thirty years, and has been increasing in intensity until it has arrived at a degree of enormity which has compelled the people of Poland to rise in arms, and makes it impossible for the people of Europe to view their condition with indifference. This is a question of humanity. From one end of the Kingdom of Poland to the other, war is carried on with a degree of atrocity unknown in ordinary warfare. It is a question of justice—because the Poles have never had the constitution which was promised to them. It is more than that, it is a question of policy affecting not only Russia, but affecting every state in Europe. It is impossible that insurrection can continue in Poland without exciting an insurrectionary feeling among the turbulent spirits of every State in Europe. For now 160 years Russia has been endeavouring to establish her power in Europe—to secure to herself an entrance into Europe. That entrance into Europe is,
480
at this moment, denied to her. While Po-land remains as she is, or even as she has been for several years, it will be impossible for Russia to move an army into Europe. She would require more than 100,000 men to protect her communications, and the longer this state of things remains in Po-land, the greater will become the difficulties of Russia. Depend upon it, that wherever any part of the Russian Empire presents a weakness, it will be discovered by those who are anxious to take advantage of any opportunity that may be afforded for acting against her. Circassia will be responsive to Poland, and everywhere there will be a material alteration in that position of strength which I confess, for my part, I am desirous that Russia should maintain. When the Powers assembled at the Congress of Vienna, they participated in the general feeling of distrust and apprehension of Russia. Things were then somewhat different from what they are now. In France, the ancient monarchy had been restored; France had suffered great losses; her frontiers had been thrown back to their ancient limits; she was deemed to be in a state of abeyance, and no injury or encroachment was apprehended from that quarter. In Belgium, and on the Rhine, and in Italy, what were then deemed securities had been taken against France. The great danger seemed to be on the side of Russia. Russia had performed great services for Europe, but she stood in her strength, and certainly evinced a disposition to use that strength in a manner that threatened the independence and security of other States. With those feelings, this country desired, in connection with Austria and Prussia, to establish in Poland a state of things which, unfortunately, they did not succeed in bringing about. They desired to establish in Poland an independent kingdom. Russia insisted on uniting the Kingdom of Poland to herself. I confess, that even at the present time, if I could see the map of Europe arranged as I should most desire, I should rejoice to see the re-establishment of the Kingdom of Poland in all its integrity, and within the ancient limits, but under a better Government and with an hereditary monarchy; but I know how visionary is my hope of seeing that great act of moral retribution accomplished. I cannot be insensible to the changes that have taken place in Europe. We have seen a change of dynasty in France; we have seen her great increase of strength,

481
and we have seen that strength used with great effect in Europe. We have seen other material changes in the distribution of power and of territory as established in 1815. Having regard to those events, I do not think it would be expedient to take any measures which would permanently deprive Russia of her power of interfering, and I hope usefully interfering, for the maintenance of a Conservative policy in Europe. We cannot now preserve the balance of power in Europe without the intervention of Russia. It is upon that account, that, as a friend of Russia as well as a friend of Poland, I do earnestly desire to see an end put to the state of things which now exists. When the Congress of Vienna imposed on Russia the duty of giving a representative national constitution to Poland, she imposed on her a condition which, in the political position of Russia, it was impossible for her to perform. I say impossible; because I hold it to be impossible to give a really good Government, of a constitutional form, to a country of which the sovereign is a foreign despot of enormous power, educated in the practice of despotism, and ready on all occasions to exercise his despotic authority, and throw the sword of Brennus into the scale to turn it in his favour. There was and still is that difficulty, which it is impossible to overcome, and which must at all times make it impossible to establish a really good Government in Poland under a despotic foreign Sovereign, capable of using on all occasions his arbitrary power. My Lords, a constitutional Government can only exist with benefit to the people where there is mutual confidence between the Sovereign and the people, and where there are mutual interests, where there is a mutual desire to support the constitution, and where, above all, the Sovereign is attached to his people, and depends on them for his position. All these circumstances are wanting in the case of Russia. Even were she so disposed, the difficulties which she has to encounter it would be impossible for her to overcome. But, my Lords, there never has been any attempt to overcome those difficulties. We are told in the papers which have been laid on the table of the House, that up to 1831 no attempt had been made to give that constitution to Poland which she had a right to, in accordance with the Treaty of Vienna. We know what has taken place since. We know that there has been no security either for property or for per-
482
son. Nothing could be more cruel and exhaustive than the conscription. Every man must have felt that his family, his life, and his property, depended on the will of a despot; and it was utterly impossible for the country to prosper or to be contented. That was the case before the last instance of violent despotism—which the noble Earl the Foreign Secretary properly called a "proscription"—was perpetrated by Russia. That proscription came on the people of Poland as one of the plagues of Egypt, destroying in one night the firstborn in every family. It created a deep chasm between the people and the Sovereign, which it was impossible ever to pass. It destroyed all confidence, all possibility of ever trusting the word of the Sovereign, who had violated his obligations. If the Emperor puts forth his hand, and offers it to the people of Poland, how can they take it? There is blood upon that hand. It is the blood of the people of Poland, of the families of those to whom he offers it—blood shed in the perpetration of an iniquity which has no parallel in Europe. My Lords, I can come to no other conclusion than this:—That to attempt to give good Government to the people of Poland while the Emperor of Russia directly exercises authority in that country is a thing impossible, and that there are no guarantees—of which the noble Earl spoke some time ago—which could secure it. It is a thing impossible, and therefore it is a thing which no prudent person would endeavour to obtain. But it is most desirable that Russia should endeavour to accomplish two objects—that she should give good Government to Poland, and, at the same time, preserve her own power of entering Europe by the Vistula. I know but one course of proceeding by which that double object can be accomplished. The wise course for Russia to pursue would be to propose to dissever the connection which was established at Vienna between the Russian Empire and Poland, then declared inseparable, and to place Poland, with such arrangements as to the political relations between her and Russia as might be deemed expedient, as an independent country with respect to internal Government, under the sovereignty of a Prince of her own family. I do trust that Her Majesty's Government and the other Powers of Europe which were parties to the Treaty of Vienna would willingly accept this compromise, and consider it as a sufficient performance of the

483
obligations which were imposed upon Russia at the Congress of Vienna. Further, I do hope that the Poles themselves would have the good sense to accept it, and that no visionary ideas of future grandeur, however gratifying they might be to their pride as a nation—great as their pride justly is—would induce them to decline to accept that which, for the present at least, would give security for the government of Poland and the permanent peace of that country. My Lords, I know not what value is to be attached to the statement I have seen in the foreign rather than the English papers; but I see it there stated that it has been suggested by the Government of this country, and has been at last acquiesced in by foreign Powers, that an armistice should be proposed to the Emperor of Russia and to the insurgents in Poland. I believe that measure to be utterly impracticable. There are wanting on the side of the Poles three things essential as it has always been supposed, to the making of an armistice—an ostensible, acknowledged Government With which to Contract it; an army for Which to contract; nor is there any possibility of making that demarcation of limits which is essential in all cases of armistice. The only force possessed by the Poles is one which is here and everywhere, which is here to-day and gone to-morrow; The Polish insurgents collect only to strike. They disappear when they have struck their blow. They have no regular, no acknowledged limits within which they act. In an armistice the two sides keep their arms. But what is required here is that one side should lay down its arms. There is no other mode by which the Poles can perform their part of the arrangement. And what is it to lay down their arms? You may maintain, and you may extend an insurrection, but you cannot renew it when you have once thrown down your arms. And what is to be the position of the insurgents in the interval during the time in which the diplomatists—who are proverbially not the most rapid in their movements—attempt to bring about a permanent arrangement? From the penalties of treason the Poles might be relieved, but they would be still subject to the criminal law. Russian officers now rule in every parish throughout Poland. They have at their beck what are called peasant guards. Every man who has property, who is supposed to have patriotic feelings, is denounced, and there is a general sequestration of the property of such persons.
484
Even in Lithuania, which is not a part of the Kingdom of Poland, no peasant is now permitted to pay rent to his landlord. He pays it to the State; and the State here-after, if satisfied of the good conduct of the proprietor, will give him the balance which is due to him. This is a state of things which we know not as having existed at any time in any part of the world, and all this machinery would remain to affict Poland during the long period of negotiation which must ensue if an armistice were agreed upon. Does the noble Earl, or does Her Majesty's Government, suppose that in diplomacy by itself there is any strength at all? Its strength is in the force by which it is supported—in the force behind. The strength of the Poles in diplomacy is the strength of the insurrection. It is no other. And, depend upon it, great as the sufferings of the Poles have been, they might have suffered for years longer, but if they had suffered in tranquillity and in silence, never would the sympathy of Europe have been extended to them. They have now the sympathy of Europe because they have had the courage and the spirit to rise against their oppressors. It is because they show themselves worthy of liberty that all Europe feels they ought to possess it. All I can say to the Poles is—"Persevere! Keep your arms! Strike down your enemies wherever you can reach them! You have embarked in a career of honour, of patriotism, and of glory. You may fall in the field; but it is better to fall there than to die in the ranks of your enemies. Persevere! And depend upon it, having adopted this course—adopted, perhaps, by despair, but sanctioned by reason and by justice—you will have the respect of all men, and, I trust, that Providence will bless your efforts."
EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, the noble Earl commenced by asking me what is the state of the negotiations in regard to Poland, and then expressed, with his usual eloquence, the views which he entertains with regard to the contest now going on in Poland. I will answer in a few words the questions he has put to me, but I shall try at the present moment to avoid entering into a discussion of the opinions which the noble Earl has expressed. As a Member of the Government I cannot think that it would be my duty to enter upon such a discussion at this moment. The present state of affairs in regard to diplomacy is this:—The Russian Government, as your Lordships are aware, have given separate

485
answers to the three Powers—Austria, France, and Great Britain. To Great Britain they gave a longer and more detailed answer than to France, and a much more detailed answer than that which was given to Austria. But the result of what Russia stated to the three Powers was, that on the basis of the Treaties of 1815 they were willing and desirous of exchanging ideas, as it was termed, with these Governments. Now, to have said at once, in reply to the Russian Ambassador, that the three Governments had no proposition to make would have been to place ourselves in a very disadvantageous position as regarded Russia. I think it might fairly then have been said by Russia, "As the three Powers have no suggestion whatever to make, the Emperor of Russia is quite free to use his power as he pleases, and to make such arrangements as he thinks best fitted for his own interests in Poland." My Lords, the three Powers, thinking that such would be a disadvantageous position, entered into communications with regard to any proposition which should be made tending to the future welfare of Poland, and to that permanent peace which they all declared was the object of their individual endeavours. These confidential communications which have been going on between the three Powers have not hitherto resulted in any communication to Russia; but France and Great Britain are agreed upon certain propositions which they think would be properly made to Russia, which would be becoming their own character, and which, if adopted at once by the Emperor of Russia, would conduce to the welfare and the permanent peace of Poland. These propositions have been sent to Vienna. With the Court of Vienna we had had previous communications, but the terms upon which France and Great Britain have agreed have not hitherto been approved by Austria. Those communications only reached Vienna on Saturday last. Count Rechberg, the Austrian Minister of Foreign Affairs, made various observations upon them, but he said he must take the pleasure of the Emperor, and he could not take the pleasure of the Emperor until Tuesday—that is, until tomorrow. We are therefore expecting the communication which the Austrian Government will make to the Governments of Great Britain and France. And in this state of affairs, having to consider—as we ought to consider—deliberately and carefully such communications as Austria shall make. I venture to say that it is not expedient
486
that your Lordships should now enter into a discussion upon this subject. With regard to the opinions which the noble Earl has expressed, I have already said I do not think it advisable to discuss them at present; but I will make a remark or two as to what he said both as to the Congress of Vienna, and as to the present state of things. When Lord Castlereagh arrived at the Congress of Vienna, the Emperor of Russia stated to him his views with regard to Poland—views which are well known, because they were afterwards adopted in the Treaty of Vienna. Lord Castleragh said at once, and I think with great sagacity, that in his opinion there would be considerable danger in adopting the propositions of the Emperor of Russia—dangers more especially affecting Austria and Prussia, who had shared in the partition of Poland. Lord Castlereagh said, that if a kingdom of Poland was erected which was to belong to the Emperor of Russia, who was to grant to it institutions of a liberal character, it was not to be expected that the Poles would consent, for the sake of that union, to renounce views which they had cherished since 1772—the restoration of Polish Nationality and the re-establishment of an independent kingdom: but, he said, such a kingdom would give rise to wishes on the part of the Polish subjects of Austria and Prussia for the enjoyment of similar privileges; and thus the Russian plan of establishing a kingdom of Poland would only nurture a spirit of discontent and disaffection among the Polish subjects of Austria and Prussia. Lord Castlereagh proposed, with the consent of Austria and Prussia, that there should be an independent kingdom of Poland; that it should be either an independent kingdom, comprising all the provinces of ancient Poland, or that it should be a kingdom confined to the Duchy of Warsaw, which at that time the Emperor claimed to be under his own jurisdiction. It became clear, in the course of the correspondence, and Lord Castlereagh admitted it to the Emperor of Russia, that although the earnest desire of Great Britain was to establish an independent kingdom of Poland, and however willing Austria and Prussia were to contribute to the reconstruction of such a kingdom, those two Powers were most averse to press anything upon the Emperor of Russia which might possibly lead to hostilities. Therefore, as that object of an independent kingdom could not be obtained, it was proposed that the provinces, instead of forming a king-

487
dom of Poland, should be divided in such a manner as to maintain the balance of power. Such were the general views of Lord Castlereagh at the Congress of Vienna. But the views of Austria and Prussia were affected by subsequent negotiations, and more especially were affected and disturbed by the return of Napoleon from Elba; and therefore a different arrangement was finally agreed upon by the Congress. Now, as to what the noble Earl has said about a suspension of arms, I do not deny that the objections which he has made to what he considers to have been proposed by the Government are of great force. I admit that it may be found totally impracticable to provide for any temporary suspension of arms. But, at the same time, both humanity and policy seem to demand some such measure; because, as the noble Earl has truly said, nothing can be more horrible than the present state of Poland—nothing can be more horrible than the conduct of the Russian soldiery, on one side, destroying villages, taking the lives of those who fall into their hands, killing their prisoners on the field of battle; and the conduct of the insurgents on the other hand, who, when they find the peasantry are opposed to them, hold secret courts, which end by hanging those against whom sentence of death is passed. More than that, we hear of orders of assassination going forth from a secret tribunal, with a declaration that no one opposed to them should be allowed to live. Surely humanity suggests that any step would be desirable that would put an end to such a state of things. We would consent to propose one plan after another—one scheme after another—if we had any hope that such a state of things might have even a temporary pause. But if diplomacy is to have any effect, only consider how difficult it would be—nay, how futile it would be—to be exchanging diplomatic notes or holding conferences, while events are taking place in Poland from day to day which may, on one side, embitter those whom we expect to accept terms, and may drive them into such a state of fury that they will accept no terms whatever; or, on the other hand, if the insurrection is suppressed, may place the Powers which had taken part in the negotiations in a position to be told, "You have been framing schemes of conciliation and devising plans for the future welfare of Poland, but in the mean time the armies of the Emperor of Russia have suppressed the outbreak, and now it depends upon his
488
good will and pleasure alone what terms he will grant to Poland." Therefore, the question whether it is possible to have an armistice or not is surrounded by immense difficulties. It is surrounded by such immense difficulties as makes me hesitate to give any assurance to the noble Earl that we can come to any satisfactory termination of these discussions. Our position, as I conceive, under the Treaties of 1815, is this—that being parties to the Treaties of 1815, and those Treaties not having been annulled, we are still bound by them. That being so, we have to propose terms which we think will be consistent with those treaties, and which we think will also tend to the welfare of Poland and lead to the establishment of durable peace in that portion of the world. Such is our task. It is not our task to propose the construction of a great kingdom of Poland, comprising all the ancient provinces of Poland, nor to propose such a plan to the acceptance of the different Powers who were parties to the Treaties of Vienna. It must always be our endeavour to conduct our communications with the different Powers of Europe in such a manner as to preserve the general peace. For my part I can see no advantage that could arise from armed intervention on behalf of Poland. I can see nothing but confusion and calamity likely to arise from an interruption of the peace of Europe. I cannot see what clear or definite object which a British Government could propose to itself, would justify them on entering into such hostilities, and I must enter my protest against engaging in any such contest. I ask with humility—because I feel how incapable I am of conducting an affair of such great difficulty; but as holding a grave and responsible office in the Government, and being responsible to the Crown and to Parliament for the conduct of these negotiations—I do venture to ask your Lordships to pause at this time, and to await the result of further communications. When these communications have been made, Her Majesty's Government will fearlessly produce to Parliament the results at which they have arrived whatever those results may be—whether, as I hope, these results will be such as shall be beneficial to the Poles, or that we are obliged to say that after all our efforts we have failed in obtaining those concessions to which the Poles look for freedom. Whatever course we may pursue, I shall be ready to state that course to the House

489
and to abide your Lordships' judgment upon it.
THE DUKE OF RUTLANDsaid, he regretted that the noble Earl the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, had not made his appeal before the subject was introduced; because now the address of his noble Friend (the Earl of Ellenborough) would go forth to this country and to the world unanswered. That speech was couched in eloquent, but, as he considered, hasty language. The noble Earl said, that the sympathy of the people of this country was with Poland. No doubt, sympathy for poland had been shown by both sides of their Lordships' House, and that sympathy was also very general throughout the country. But they must take care, that in expressing that sympathy and giving vent to their natural feelings, they did not do a great injustice to a great and friendly Power. The noble Earl bad alluded to the dreadful conscription of the 14th of January, which every one must deplore. He was not going to apologize for that cruel and impolitic act. He thought it unworthy of the Emperor of Russia and of the people of that great country; but they should remember that the object of the Emperor was one of humanity. The Emperor, in giving a most reluctant consent to the carrying out of that conscription, did so in order to grant that constitution to Poland which had been referred to by both the noble Earls who had addressed the House; and when the noble Earl said that there was no parallel in the history of Europe to that act of cruelty and violence, he must be allowed to say that other nations, claiming to be even in the van of civilization, had, on occasions of emergency and danger, carried out measures quite as severe and unjustifiable and in a much more cruel manner, causing oceans of blood to be shed. He said again that the Emperor of Russia, in getting rid of the disaffected spirits in Warsaw, was desirous of giving liberal institutions and a better constitution to those who remained, who were the peaceful inhabitants. Their Lordships had listened to the eloquent language employed to depict the horrors of this war and the lamentable state of Poland—to his belief, no words could express the horror they must feel at what was taking place in Poland; but, he ventured to say, the best way of stopping the effusion of blood would be, not by lending their support to those who were engaged in insurrection and waging a war that could
490
ultimately be of no benefit to themselves, but, rather, to give their moral support to the cause of order and good Government; and then, when the insurrection was put down, it would be for the Governments of France, Austria, and England to step forward and recommend the granting of such a constitution and those institutions which might lead to the happiness of the Polish nation. It was not only the combatants but the non-combatants who were suffering most severely in Poland. He could not do better than read to their Lordships an extract from the correspondence of The Times upon this point—
"A Polish proprietor in the kingdom was summoned not long since before a Russian General, charged with having rendered assistance to the insurgents, and solemnly cautioned against doing so again. The proprietor explained his position. 'If,' he said, 'the insurgents come to my place and ask for horses, carts, and corn, I must give them what they want or they will hang me. If, on the other hand, I let them have anything more than I am actually forced to give, you will hang me. However, if they hang me, my son will never find a wife in Poland, or my daughter a husband, and fifty years after my death people will turn their backs upon my children; whereas, if you hang me, I shall have monuments erected to my memory. On the whole, then, as a mere matter of calculation, I cannot refuse assistance to the insurgents.' I believe that in this particular in-stance the General was satisfied with the explanation given by the proprietor, who, perhaps, might have added that before long all his class will be drawn into active co-operation with the national movement. Hitherto they, the actual owners of the estates, have left their sons to represent them in the field, though they have supported the insurrection indirectly in a variety of ways, and directly by means of money contributions."
He believed that to be really a faithful picture of the horrible state of Poland at the present moment. The patriotism of the Polish ladies was well known. Dressed in the deepest mourning, they would tell you, if you asked the cause, that they were mourning for their country; but how many of them were now in mourning, not only for their country, but for some father, or husband, or brother, or son? He implored their Lordships, not by a morbid sentimentality and a feeble feeling towards the Poles, or by an uncertain and unmeaning diplomacy, to rivet those fetters which they all desired to see broken from the Poles, and by not countenancing with their support this dreadful insurrection, to give the opportunity to the Emperor of Russia of carrying out those reforms which he (the Duke of Rutland) believed in his heart he was anxious to do, and of granting a constitution to Poland that would enable

491
the Polish people to live happily and in peace.
LORD BROUGHAMagreed, that as to the conduct of the Emperor of Russia, they ought not to indulge unnecessarily in acrimonious invective. That sovereign had many great and good personal qualities. When he was in this country, every one who was brought into communication with him was impressed with his amiable and just disposition. But unhappily he succeeded to that which most short-sighted men thought the greatest blessing, but which was in reality the greatest curse both to others and to themselves—namely, to absolute despotic power. And, no doubt, they had seen him in his great and exalted vocation employ that great power most beneficially and most honestly to a great operation—the emancipation of 20,000,000 of his peasantry. But, unhappily, despotism had not only a corrupting tendency on those who exercised it, but it had this misfortune, that it communicated the caprices of despotism to all employed in carrying out its orders. He did not believe that the Emperor of Russia himself instigated these proceedings which had goaded the Poles to this insurrection; but he could not go along with his noble Friend (the Duke of Rutland), in thinking that the object of the conscription, which had most justly been called a proscription, and of all the cruelties exercised under it, was to enable the Emperor to give a constitution to Poland. He could not go so far as that: but this he would say, that it was the persons employed by the Emperor who were to blame for that proscription, and for the fraud and cruelty under which it was carried into effect—its real object being, under the pretext of a conscription, to get rid of a body of the people of the most important and worthy character. That was done by those who were employed by the Emperor; and no doubt he was bound, as soon as the fact was communicated to him, to put an end to it. Having, however, given his sanction to it, he must now bear the shame of that proceeding. He entirely agreed with the noble Earl (the Earl of Ellenborough) in the advice he had given to the Poles. He also agreed in considering that an armistice, from the nature of the case, was out of the question. He was grieved to hear the statement of his noble Friend the Foreign Secretary, that he could not at present explain the progress of the negotiations—he hoped and trusted that in a few days he would find himself at
492
liberty to give a satisfactory account. He agreed with the noble Earl (the Earl of Ellenborough) that it was most important if, by good fortune—by the wisdom of Russia, and by the prudence of Prussia—for Prussia was deeply interested—it was possible to give a constitution to Poland—not at all the constitution which they claimed, and which had been taken from them for so many years, but a constitution forming a separate country of Poland; and though that country might be under a Russian sovereign, yet one independent of Russia, and having a Government of its own; he hoped and trusted the people would listen to the advice of his noble Friend the noble Earl (the Earl of Ellenborough) and accept it. It was now half a century since he espoused the cause of the Poles, in concert with his lamented friend Prince Czartoryski, who was then in this country. He had not at that time, from accidental circumstances, a seat in Parliament, and could not therefore address the House of Commons in their behalf; but he addressed to the public what was called an "Appeal for Poland;" and that appeal was, he believed, not wholly without effect in their favour. He trusted, therefore, they would receive from their ancient ally the advice which he now gave, in common with his noble Friend on the bench behind him—to be satisfied with any such arrangement as that to which he had referred—namely, the establishment of an independent Kingdom of Poland, although under a Russian and not under a Polish Sovereign. That would be true wisdom on the part of the Poles; and he hoped—he perhaps rather wished than expected—that such a result might be attained.
LORD STRATFORD DE REDCLIFFEsaid, that having been absent unavoidably during the early part of the Session, he hoped to be excused if he took that opportunity of offering a few words on the important subject which the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Ellenborough) had brought under the notice of the House with his usual felicity and effect. If any gentleman from Poland had been present at that discussion, it would doubtless have afforded him the greatest pleasure to observe that every one of their Lordships who had taken part in it, though differing on some points of opinion, had expressed a cordial sympathy with the unhappy condition of the Poles, and a desire to rescue them from the cruel treatment which they had so long expe-

493
rienced at the hands of Russia. More than one noble Lord had placed no small degree of reliance on the personal character of the reigning Emperor; and, in truth, there was reason to believe that his sentiments were those of humanity and his intentions benevolent. But he would ask if those sentiments were attended with any practical effect in favour of his Polish subjects—if those intentions were carried out to any degree commensurate with the wants of Poland and its just claims to redress? If, on the contrary, as they had heard that night, and not unfrequently before, the Emperor's humanity was counteracted by those who surrounded him, and that even his irresponsible position and absolute power did not secure him from the evil influences of those who substituted their own prejudices for his benevolent views, what was the value of such idle unproductive virtues, and how could the Poles be expected to fix their trust on such unstable foundations? They naturally looked elsewhere for guarantees—they could not lose sight of the bitter experience which they had found in so many years of illusion, disappointment and suffering—they gave way to feelings of despair—they appealed to the sympathies of Europe, and found no solace except in the idea of national independence and emancipation from an intolerable yoke. These hopes, however difficult to realize, seemed to be justified, not only by the necessities of the case, but more especially by the principles which were more or less adopted by the leading Powers at Vienna nearly half a century ago, and which were distinctly pressed on the consideration of Russia by the representative of the British Government. He purposely abstained from repeating arguments which had been so eloquently urged by the noble and learned Lord who had preceded him in that discussion. It was probable that the Session would not close without offering other opportunities of debating this momentous question, and the state of the pending negotiations, as described by the noble Earl at the head of the Foreign Department, whatever might be the amount of hope which it held out, seem ed, he confessed, to recommend the suspension of any further discussion on the subject in their Lordships' House until a stronger light could be thrown by Her Majesty's Government on the prospects of a diplomatic result. The present cir-
494
cumstances of Europe, and indeed of the world at large, called loudly for the earliest practicable settlement of a question so vast in its range, so dangerous in its consequences. It would be difficult to find a period when so many elements of confusion had been let loose. On the Continent, as in this country, there was a prevailing anxiety as to what is to be the issue of such an extraordinary and menacing state of things. It was impossible to converse with any man of political observation without finding an echo to the anxious and painful thoughts engendered by so many causes of dispute and chances of collision. But a few days ago in Paris one of the ablest statesmen in France demanded of him whether he had ever known a more confused and disjointed state of things? It really looked as if we had lost sight of our old principles in matters of international concern, without supplying their place by others worthy of reliance. The sources of this confusion might be supposed to lie beyond the reach of individual policy, and it was far from his meaning to throw blame on any one invested with responsible power under such critical circumstances; but what he wished to inculate was the importance of not unnecessarily delaying any assistance that might be given to the settlement of the Polish question, and not leaving Europe exposed to the additional danger which could not but spring out of the prolonged continuance of a war so barbarous in its character as that which was now spreading slaughter and devastation over so extensive a theatre.
LORD DENMANwould not have addressed their Lordships if the noble Viscount (once an ambassador) had not spoken; but as the noble Duke on the bench above him had remarked that diplomacy was unavailing, and as a relative of his own had attended a meeting in the City of London in which it was resolved that all diplomatic intercourse with Russia should cease, he could not refrain from saying that he hoped that diplomacy and a congress might Yet lead to useful results. That it had hitherto been powerless, had been caused by the part taken in 1836 by the noble Lord now First Lord of the Treasury, and the noble Earl now Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. It was on a subject which he would not name, as it had ended well for Poland; but the course taken by the late hon. Baronet, Sir Robert Inglis, was far better. That hon. Baronet, who so care-

495
fully guarded the constitution of this country, said, if you remonstrate, do not deprecate war in the first instance, but come down for a Vote of ten or twenty millions, for which he would vote to be ready to support diplomacy; and he (Lord Denman) really thought that the noble Earl the Secretary for Foreign Affairs, should respect and not unsettle the constitution of this country, and not dictate a constitution to Poland. His (Lord Denman's) noble and lamented Father had, on one occasion, described the Potentates of Europe as "miscreants," but then he believed that armed, unjustifiable aggression was intended in aid of tyranny at Naples; but now almost all the crowned heads of Europe were anxious for the happiness of all their subjects, and Englishment ought to re-establish confidence between them and their peoples.
"Superest componere fluctus."
He was not addressing their Lordships for the sake of being reported in The Times, but wished to make an impression on their Lordships' minds, and he hoped that people abroad would not place implicit reliance on the reports of newspapers, nor on the opinions of those who made reconciliation almost impossible. He was sorry to observe that subscriptions were being raised to put arms into the hands of insurgents, instead of money being found for the relief of the wounded. He knew of certain foreign gentlemen who might be in the House of Lords to hear this debate, and he hoped that they would carry away the impression that there was a large party in the country who were anxious that strife should cease, and order and happiness prevail.
EARL GREYsaid, that although he could not but concur in the general feeling of the House that this was a subject which they could not now discuss with advantage, still, after what had fallen from noble Lords who had preceded him, and particularly from the noble Viscount (Viscount Stratford de Redcliffe), he could not allow the debate to close without saying a few words. He must own that he had heard with some alarm that negotiations were still going on. The more they considered the lamentable condition of Poland—the more they heard of the dreadful contest there raging, the more doubtful it appeared to him that any diplomatic interference would be beneficial. His noble Friend the Foreign Secretary had told them—and he entirely agreed in that opinion.—that he thought this country ought not to take up arms on behalf of Poland. If, then, our
496
policy was to abstain from taking any part in the contest there raging, it seemed to him that diplomatic interference, however well meant, was far more likely to aggravate than to lessen all the evils which we deplored. He was sure that in the present state of both parties, and looking at the violence of feeling and action which prevailed on both sides, an accommodation between them was hardly to be anticipated; and he feared that the only effect of interference might be to postpone the time when one party or the other might think that the struggle had been carried far enough. The noble Duke (the Duke of Rutland) had spoken of what he called mischievous and unmeaning diplomacy. He confessed that he shared in the noble Duke's fears in regard to unmeaning diplomacy. He believed it was true, as their Lordships had been told, that Europe was now in a state of unexampled confusion, and he attributed that unfortunate condition of things to too much unmeaning diplomacy. We were too apt to interfere and give advice which could lead to nothing. But he would not further pursue the subject, and all he had to add was the expression of his strong opinion, that as we do not contemplate interference by arms, the less we interfered with advice the better we should stand with both parties.

PRISON MINISTERS BILL—(No. 109.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  THE DUKE OF SOMERSET, in moving the second reading of the Bill, said, that although questions connected with religion usually excited feelings of jealousy, he hoped this measure would be discussed with calmness and moderation. The object of the Bill was to amend the law relating to prisons in England and Scotland with respect to the religious instruction of the prisoners therein. The law, as it at present stood, was settled by the Act of Geo. IV., c. 64, which required justices in quarter sessions to appoint chaplains—priests of the Established Church—to the prisons within their jurisdiction, and to pay them certain stipends out of the poor rates. The justices were also empowered to allow ministers of other denominations to attend upon prisoners, if a request were made for that purpose; but unless prisoners made such request, ministers other than those of

  497
  the Established Church could not visit them, except in cases where they were under sentence of condemnation. The direct object of the Bill, therefore, was to provide for the religious instruction of prisoners not belonging to the Established Church; and although it applied to persons of all denominations, it was in fact chiefly required for Roman Catholics. There were a great number of Roman Catholics belonging to the labouring classes of the people; and it appeared from the Returns, there were in the county and borough gaols of this country a large number of Roman Catholic prisoners—in some years as many as 3,000 or 4,000. Their Lordships would feel that these unfortunate persons, many of them brought up in ignorance and vice, ought to have an opportunity afforded to them of obtaining religious instruction; but this, as the law at present stood, they could not do without making a special application to the justices; and this was well-nigh hopeless, because it was obvious that those who most needed religious instruction were the least likely to make a request to see a minister of religion. It might be observed that by the Act of George IV., which regulated the prisons of Ireland, and provided that grand juries should appoint chaplains, they were enabled to appoint Roman Catholic clergymen if they should think fit, and such chaplains were almost universally appointed in that country, in addition to Protestant chaplains. Yet it appeared by the Returns that in Ireland the Protestant prisoners were very few. For example, in the gaol of Galway there were five prisoners belonging to the Established Church and seventy who were Roman Catholics; and in Cork gaol there were eight prisoners belonging to the Established Church and above a hundred Roman Catholics. Yet in every gaol in Ireland ample provision was made for the religious instruction of the Protestants, and chaplains were appointed to visit them at the same rate of remuneration as was paid to the Roman Catholic chaplains. From that statement their Lordships would feel it would he only reasonable that in this country, where many Roman Catholic prisoners were undergoing punishment, some means of affording religious instruction should be found for them; and accordingly this Bill sought to provide those means. The measure, their Lordships would probably be of opinion, did not go beyond the necessity of the case, and that to a practical grievance it applied a practical remedy The Bill provided, that
  498
  where the number of prisoners confined in any prison belonging to any religious denomination other than the Church of England in England, and the Church of Scotland in Scotland, was so great as in the opinion of the justices or other persons having the appointment of chaplain to require the ministrations of a minister of their own persuasion, the justices may appoint such minister to attend upon the prisoners of his own persuasion, and might award to him a reasonable sum for his services, to be paid out of the fund legally applicable to the expenses of the prison. This minister was to hold his appointment at the pleasure of the authority by whom he was appointed, and was bound to conform in all respects to the prison regulations. The clause further provided, that where no such minister was specially appointed, the visiting justices might, without any special request from a prisoner, permit a minister of the particular denomination to which a prisoner belonged to visit such prisoner at seasonable hours. Practically, this Bill would apply to only a few prisons in England and Wales—he believed to not more than sixteen in the whole, and amongst them would be those of Liverpool, Manchester, Glasgow, and Birmingham. In some of those prisons the number of Roman Catholics was so large that the magistrates would be justified in appointing regular chaplains to visit them. The objections which had been raised to the Bill did not appear to him to be of great weight. First, it was said that there would be an addition to the poor rates; but he thought their Lordships would set aside such a ground, and say that while the whole of the people of Ireland were rated for the religious instruction of Protestant prisoners, they ought not to grudge the small provision which would be necessary for Roman Catholic prisoners in England. It was next said that the Bill would create dissensions amongst the visiting justices; but he did not think those gentlemen would act so unreasonably as to seek to withhold from the most wretched class of their Roman Catholic fellow-subjects the means of religious instruction. He thought the Bill had been well arranged for the purpose of meeting a practical grievance, and it would in addition relieve Protestant chaplains from the necessity of visiting those who never liked to see them. In truth, the Bill was not of a religious character at all—it was a measure of prison discipline. He had stated generally the grounds why this Bill should be read a second time, and he felt

  499
  confident that their Lordships would agree with him that they ought not to withhold from any portion of the people that religious instruction which, if afforded, might make them better citizens.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.
  LORD BERNERSsaid, he rose to move that the Bill be read a second time that day six months. He did so on three grounds:—1st. That he considered it wrong to pay for the propagation of error. 2nd. That it was unnecessary. 3rd. That the results would be mischievous and injurious to the interests of the Established Church. The Protestant religion was established by law, and the Protestant Church was connected with the State in this country, and therefore they were bound not only to maintain them, but to refrain from encouraging any other creed that was hostile to them; and he believed that to subsidize the ministers of other denominations was an act of hostility to the Church of England. He loved religious liberty, and considered that the true principle of toleration was to allow every man to worship God in the way in which he might think fit; but he did not think it required him to give legislative sanction to the interference of ministers of other denominations, or to set up antagonists to the ministers of the Gospel appointed to give religious consolation to prisoners by the justices of the peace. That the Bill was not necessary was clear from the fact that the justices already possessed a permissive power, where there was a large number of prisoners not of the Established Church, to allow ministers of their own denomination to visit them. That power, so far as Roman Catholics were concerned, had worked well. But in many cases Roman Catholic prisoners attended the ministrations of the Protestant chaplains; and if this Bill passed, that privilege would be denied to them. By Returns to Parliament it appeared, that in eleven prisons, of 1,515 Roman Catholic prisoners only 317 had availed themselves of the permission to be visited by priests of their own faith. One of the greatest objections to this Bill was, that it would give a status to Roman Catholic priests which at present they did not possess, and they would be put upon an equality with clergymen of the Established Church. Further, if it was conceded that Roman Catholic or Dissenting chaplains might be appointed to gaols, he did not see how they could withhold them from union work-
  500
  houses and other public institutions. He objected to the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church, and their doctrine that some sins were venial and some mortal: such doctrines could only have a tendency to create a confusion between right and wrong in the minds of the prisoners, and could not lead to improvement. Their Lordships should also remember, that as Roman Catholic priests were above the law, and held authority of those who were superior to the law, the justices would have no power over them. The case of the Rev. Mr. Fox and the guardians of the South Dublin Union was a case in point; and after reading the correspondence in that case, and quoting the Returns of the Inspectors of Prisons, proving the proportion of criminals to population, those of the Romish Church was double that of the Protestant, and arguing that the teaching, the doctrine, and discipline of Romish priests were not such as to promote the reclamation or improvement of criminals, he said, he felt it to be his duty to move that this Bill be read a second time that day six months.
  Amendment moved, to leave out ("now") and insert ("this Day Six Months").
  THE EARL OF DERBY: My Lords, it is with the most sincere regret that I feel it my painful duty to express opinions opposed to those entertained by my noble Friend who has just spoken; and, I fear, to those of other noble Friends in this House. My Lords, so great is my respect for the religious scruples of my noble Friend, and for every statement he has made, and so firmly am I convinced of the honesty of his objections, and so highly do I value the unity of action, that if this were a matter of minor importance, or if it were a question upon which I myself had a shadow of doubt or hesitation, I should infinitely prefer to waive my own opinions and yield to objections the force of which I do not feel, and obey scruples which I do not myself entertain. But I do not look upon this as a matter of minor importance. My opinion of the policy and justice of this measure is so clear and so decided, that painful as it is for me to differ from my noble Friend, and from others, I cannot refrain from giving that vote in support of this measure which I believe I am called to give by justice. My noble Friend objects to this Bill, that it lowers the status of the Church of England, and puts other denominations of Christians upon the same

  501
  footing as the Church of England. I think I may appeal with tolerable confidence to a public life of more than forty years to obtain for me the credit of refusing to consent to any measure which, in my judgment, would be injurious to the interests or derogatory to the position of the Church of England in this country. It is nearly forty years since, in one of my first addresses to Parliament, I opposed a measure brought forward by the late Mr. Hume, calculated as I believed to injure the interests of the Established Church in Ireland. Ten years later, rather than consent to a measure which I conceived was likely to injure that branch of our Established Church, I seceded from a Government presided over by a man to whose memory I can never look back but with the utmost respect, regard, and affection, and from a Cabinet with which I had no other cause of difference, and with many of the Members of which I have always continued on the terms of intimate friendship. I appeal to the recollections of your Lordships, whether from that time down to the present moment, when any measure was brought forward threatening, as I thought, the independence and integrity of the Church of England, I have not been one of the foremost to oppose it; and whether, when any measure was brought forward calculated, in my opinion, to secure the position and to augment the influence of that Church, my voice has not been raised, and raised energetically, in its favour. I say this in answer by anticipation to those who might he disposed to say that in this matter I had allowed myself to be overruled by the opinions of others to consent to a measure which I deemed to be unfavourable to the position of the Established Church.
  My Lords, in discussing this measure I shall deal with it as one which specially affects the Roman Catholics, because, although it applies to other denominations, it is practically, as the noble Duke said, for the relief of the Roman Catholics. My noble Friend (Lord Berners) says that the Bill places the Roman Catholic Church upon a footing of equality with the Church of England; but I think my noble Friend must have considered the provisions of the Bill very imperfectly when he makes that assertion. I have seen it stated over and over again that this is a Bill for the endowment of the Roman Catholic Church; but those persons who use that language misconceive entirely the essential character of
  502
  an endowment. I hold it to be essential to an endowment that the possession of it should be permanent and certain; that it should not depend on the voluntary action or caprice of any party; that it should not only be the property of the individual possessor, but that it should be capable of being secured to his successors, and that it should be maintainable at law as a positive and substantial right, and should only be withdrawn by the omnipotence of Parliament. But is that the case with the concession which the present measure will extend to the Roman Catholics in this country? What does this Bill do? It provides, that in any case in which it is the opinion of the justices that the number of prisoners differing from the Church of England in any prison is so great as in their judgment to require the ministrations of a clergyman of any other religious persuasion, the said justices may appoint a minister of such religious persuasion to attend the said prisoners, and may award him such reasonable recompense as they may think fit. It goes on to say that the said minister shall hold his appointment at the pleasure of the justices, and shall be subject to all the rules and regulations of the prisons they may attend. Now, I appeal to your Lordships whether every one of the essentials of an endowment are not only studiously omitted here, but absolutely contradicted. It is left entirely to the justices to appoint if they think fit; they may refuse to pay the minister; they may pay him just what sum they think fit, and they may discharge him when they please. This certainly does not look very much like placing the Roman Catholic Church on a footing with the Church of England. My noble Friend says that the existing law is perfectly sufficient for all the purposes of the spiritual instruction of Roman Catholic prisoners. I regret to have to state that I differ from my noble Friend upon that point altogether. I do not think that the provisions of the law as it stands are satisfactory, or that they are founded in justice. The law is, indeed, so manifestly unjust that in all the principal prisons, I believe, the magistrates depart from its strict letter. The law is that every prisoner shall, without any distinction, be visited by the chaplain of the gaol, who, of course, must be a clergyman of the Church of England. Now, I know well the honesty and the love of fair play of my noble Friend, and I ask him to reverse this position. I ask him whether, if this were a

  503
  Roman Catholic country containing a considerable number of Protestant prisoners, and if they were compelled to receive, whether they would or, not, the visits of Roman Catholic priests, so that the whole period of their confinement was not only a penal sentence, not an attempt, at reformation alone, but one continued system of proselytism, would he consider the provisions of such a law satisfactory? My noble Friend Bays that this restriction does not apply to the case of prisoners who desire to see a minister of their own persuasion. But the law makes no such provision. The law says that the chaplain shall be a clergyman of the Church of England; it is the good sense of the magistrates which says to the prisoners, "If you desire to see a minister of your own persuasion, we will take upon ourselves to supersede the law and allow you to see him." But is it reasonable to argue from the supposition that men of the character and the past lives of the majority of our prisoners will readily come forward and ask for the services of a minister of their own persuasion? It is to be said—and to be said to the great credit of the Roman Catholic prisoners—that a very considerable number of them do request to receive the ministrations of one of their own clergymen; and it was also greatly to the credit of the clergy of the Roman Catholic persuasion that in no case do they neglect the call so made upon them. With regard to Protestant Dissenters there have been no such demands, and for very sufficient reasons. There are no such broad distinctions between the different sects of Protestant Dissenters as to prevent the members of one receiving religious consolation and instruction from the ministers of the other; and Dissenting ministers do not object to prisoners of their persuasion receiving the ministrations of the Church of England chaplain. The case of Roman Catholics, however, is widely different. They have been instructed that even to listen to the teachings of a minister not of their own persuasion is a heinous sin. A prisoner of no particular strength of religious feeling would not object to listen to the chaplain of the Church of England, because he does not consider his teaching to be of any authority whatever; but he will most earnestly deprecate being visited by a priest of his own faith, who has more power over his mind, and to whom he will attribute a great deal more authority and responsibility than he would to the minister of any other persuasion.
  504
  My noble Friend says he does not desire that Roman Catholic prisoners should be deprived of the offices of their religion. But was it right that they should only receive them in those cases in which they have made an express request for that purpose? We have been led to believe that reformation is the great object of punishment. I am afraid it does not follow as frequently as philanthropists would wish; but undoubtedly it is one of the objects of punishment, and one of the agencies which we must use in bringing it about is that of religious instruction and consolation. It must not be forgotten that we have here to deal with a very considerable class. I do not know whether my noble Friend has seen a Return moved for in the House of Commons by Lord Edward Howard. From this Return it appears that there is a very large number of Roman Catholics in the various gaols of England. In the eleven convict prisons of the country there are 1,388 Roman Catholics, being an average of 126 to each prison. In fourteen of the other prisons the average number is 133, the number in each of the fourteen exceeding 50. Now, I am as sincerely opposed as any one can be to the doctrines and practices of the Roman Catholic Church. I believe it has encumbered the simplicity of public worship with a vast amount of unnecessary forms and ceremonies, in which the spiritual character of religion is overloaded with that which is merely external and apparent to the senses. I think that many of its doctrines are not only not supported by, but are absolutely repugnant to the written Word of God. I think that some points to which it attaches the greatest importance are points in which it derogates from the worship to be paid to the Almighty alone, and from the merits of the only Mediator in whom Protestants are taught to place their only trust. But whatever I may think of the mode in which the Roman Catholic Church overloads the foundations of scriptural truth, yet I cannot shut my eyes to the fact that those foundations are at least the same with its members as with us—that we both acknowledge the same God and the same Saviour, that we look to the same Mediator for the remission of sins, and that we derive our religious and moral teachings from that same source to which alone Christians can look for the foundation of their religious belief and moral practice. Therefore, although the doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church may he mingled with much of

  505
  error, I cannot assent to the position of my noble Friend, and deny that the influence of the priests of that Church must have a most powerful tendency to guide the minds of prisoners of their own persuasion, and to awaken those prisoners to a sense of their former evil life. Prisoners are persons who stand peculiarly in need of religious instruction. Either it is desirable that Roman Catholic prisoners should have the teaching of their own Church, or it is not. If it is desirable, we are hound to give it to them, in order to accomplish the main object of punishment—namely, the reformation of offenders. They will not accept your teaching; they are not desirous of it; and it is not your duty to force it on them. But it is your duty to let them have religious instruction which they will attend to. My noble Friend does not dispute that in some cases this instruction is now given, and rightly given. The only point in dispute is whether it should be given gratuitously, or should he paid for. My noble Friend does not dispute the propriety of allowing Roman Catholic clergymen to give instruction in prisons; but he contends that they should do so on their own responsibility, and at their own expense. It is quite true that there are prisons in which there are very few Roman Catholic prisoners; and in these it is never impossible, and seldom difficult, to procure the attendance of a Roman Catholic clergyman; but there are many prisons in which it would be unjust and impossible to call on the Roman Catholic clergyman to give his services without any remuneration, if it be desirable that the prisoners of his religious persuasion should have the advantage of these services. I belong to a county in the gaols of which there is the greatest number of Roman Catholic prisoners, while my noble Friend belongs to one in the gaol of which there is perhaps the smallest number; and this circumstance may, perhaps, have influenced us in forming the opposite conclusions at which we have arrived. I find that in the borough gaol of Liver pool there are about 350 or 360 prisoners who are members of the Church of England. The Protestant chaplain of that prison receives a sum of £400 a year for his services. In the same gaol there are 460 Roman Catholic prisoners. The Ro man Catholic priest attends twice a week, and the remuneration for his services to about a hundred more prisoners than are
  506
  attended by the Protestant chaplain is just nil, as against the £400 paid to the latter gentleman. My Lords, it is impossible to look at those Returns, and to argue in the face of the facts which they disclose that you are dealing justly and equitably as between the ministers of the two Churches. My noble Friend objects to any payment being made to a Roman Catholic priest. Why does not my noble Friend object to the payment of Roman Catholic Chaplains in Ireland? [Lord BERNERS: I think it wrong in Ireland.] In Ireland the system is compulsory. The law compels the appointment of Roman Catholic chaplains in the gaols of that country, and provides for their payment out of the county rates. If it would be a mortal sin to do this in England, we are sinning deeply in Ireland, because there the law not only gives you the opportunity, but compels you to do it. Certainly, among my noble Friends coming from the north of Ireland, who are most strongly opposed to the Roman Catholic religion, I have never heard any objection raised to the payment out of the county rates of the Roman Catholic chaplains in the gaols there. It may be said that there is a much larger number of Roman Catholics in Ireland than in this country. But this Bill merely provides that the magistrates shall have the power of appointing Roman Catholic chaplains in those prisons in which the number of Roman Catholics is so great as to render it desirable, in their opinion, that such a course should be adopted. I think it a matter of great importance that the magistrates are to have the power of dismissing the Roman Catholic chaplain, so that he should feel that he is under their jurisdiction, and is responsible to them for the manner in which he discharges his duties. My noble Friend apprehends that this provision may be overridden, and that, while nominally in the hands of the magistrates, the appointment of the priest may in reality be in the hands of the Roman Catholic bishop; and my noble Friend referred to a case in which he says Archbishop Cullen insisted on a particular appointment, and in which the Irish Poor Law Commissioners—as I think very unwisely—yielded; but I feel persuaded that there is not much fear of magistrates in this country allowing themselves to be brow-beaten or unduly influenced by an imprudent Roman Catholic bishop. I am sure they would maintain their authority if any attempt were made

  507
  to set it at defiance. No doubt, there are imprudent and ill-judging bishops in the Roman Catholic Church, as I am afraid there are in all other Churches; but, though the doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church may be that the Church and bishops are superior to the law, that happily is not a doctrine which prevails in this country, and magistrates would take care to let their authority be felt, and to show that no man was superior to the law. It is true that the Roman Catholic bishop might prohibit the clergyman from acting; but in that case the deprivation of religious instruction would lie not at the magistrate's, but at the bishop's door. I think that consideration will weigh with Roman Catholic bishops in this country, and I am not apprehensive that any result of this kind will ensue. It appears to me that the Bill is one which meets the justice and the equity of the case, and does not go beyond it. It does not place the Roman Catholic Church in a position different from that of other denominations. Still less does it place it on a footing in the slightest degree of equality with the Established Church. I should regret very much if the Bill had that effect; but it has not. What it provides is, that where duties are to be performed—laborious, painful, and responsible duties—you shall not, if they are services to the State, insist on their performance without remuneration; that you shall make a fair return for services which you may deem valuable in carrying out the great work of prison reformation.
  My Lords, I am well aware not only that in the course I feel called upon to take I differ from several of my noble Friends around me, but that this measure has met with much misapprehension and prejudice—honest prejudice, no doubt—and that it is not likely to be popular in the country. But where I have clearly seen my way with regard to the justice and policy of a measure, I hope that I never have shrunk, and that I never shall shrink, from incurring the risk of unpopularity; and I think I make a much greater sacrifice than in taking a course which may subject me to unpopularity out of doors, when I find myself differing on this question from so many of my noble Friends around me, with whom, on most occasions, it has long been my happiness to act. All considerations of this sort, however, must give way to considerations of policy and justice; and believing the measure to be founded not only upon policy and justice, but upon the higher
  508
  principle of Christian charity and religion, I deem it my duty to give a conscientious and a cordial vote in favour of the second reading.
  THE EARL OF HARROWBYsaid, that no declaration on the part of his noble Friend who had just sat down was required to free him from the slightest suspicion of doing anything which, in his opinion, could tend to injure the Established Church. Nevertheless, while he gave his noble Friend the fullest credit for being actuated by the most perfect sincerity of feeling, he could not but think he had arrived at a most erroneous conclusion; though the question was certainly not without its difficulties. His noble Friend had taken much pains to show that the Bill proposed no endowment in the case of the Roman Catholics. No doubt, it was not an endowment in the strict sense; but Roman Catholic priests were to be paid for their services out of the rates, and the difference between that and endowment was rather one of words than of substance. Hitherto, the duty of attending to the spiritual wants of the Roman Catholic or Dissenting prisoners had been left to be performed by voluntary effort, and he did not see why these denominations should be assisted in this duty any more than in the duty of attending to their sick, or of carrying on other works of charity, to which they were found fully equal. Great inconvenience would be occasioned when a Roman Catholic priest was introduced into our prisons as a kind of rival chaplain to the chaplain of the Established Church, and dissensions would arise which could not but be mischievous. The new principle which it was now sought to introduce was not called for by toleration or by necessity; for by the existing law prisoners could be visited alike by the Romish priest and the Dissenting minister. The Dissenters were not asking for such a measure; they did not call upon the State to endow their ministers, and decidedly objected to an endowment of Roman Catholic priests. Moreover, the Bill would introduce a new subject of discord all over England without any adequate advantage. Questions of a most invidious character would arise; the church rate question had created nothing comparable to the discord which would be occasioned by such a measure. On all these grounds, he felt bound to oppose the second reading.
  THE EARL OF CHICHESTERthought it his duty to vote for the second reading, but at the same time he felt strong object-

  509
  tions to some of the provisions of the Bill. With its professed principle he agreed—namely, that of enabling a better provision to be made for the religious instruction of the Roman Catholic prisoners. It was quite necessary that the present state of the law should be amended. As the House had been reminded, Roman Catholic chaplains were regularly appointed and paid in Irish gaols; and in the great convict establishments in this country the same system existed. His principal objection to the Bill was, that the appointment of Roman Catholic chaplains was loft discretionary with the Courts of Quarter Sessions. He thought Parliament ought to define the class of prisons to which Roman Catholic chaplains should he appointed, and also ought to lay down the limits of the salaries to be paid to them. From his experience, he could not believe that in his part of England any Roman Catholic chap lain was at all likely to be appointed. Under the existing law, Roman Catholic prisoners were entitled to the ministrations of priests of their own faith, if they chose to ask for them; but under this Bill those ministrations might be forced upon them, and this appeared to him very objection able. He should support the second reading, but only in the hope that Amendments would be introduced in Committee.
  THE BISHOP OF LONDONsaid, that after the appeal that had been made to their Lordships in support of the Bill upon the ground of justice, he would have been unwilling to vote against it, had not a careful consideration of the subject, and an attentive hearing of the speeches that had been delivered, led him to believe that no injustice would be done by rejecting the measure. The noble Earl who spoke last (the Earl of Chichester) had told them that there was little probability that in his part of the country any bench of magistrates would be found to consider a Roman Catholic chaplain a necessary officer in their prisons. If that were likely to be practically the result of this Bill, the question of the justice of the claim was scarcely involved in their decision; and an important principle was involved—namely, whether it was right or not that in this country now for the first time steps should be token to appoint Roman Catholic chaplains to great public institutions. One main difficulty which had been forced upon him in considering this question was, that he could find nothing to point out definitively where
  510
  that principle was to stop. The noble Lord who moved the Amendment alluded to the union workhouses, and no doubt, if this measure were adopted, great difficulties would arise with regard to workhouses. Poverty was no crime; many were forced into the workhouses from sheer destitution, and it was well known that in the poorer districts a large proportion of the inmates of the workhouses were Roman Catholics. No doubt some persons might say that it was desirable to have Roman Catholic chaplains appointed for these workhouses; but he was not persuaded that the country was prepared for such a step. He thought it was right that every Roman Catholic prisoner should have free access to his spiritual advisers, as he thought the instruction they would receive, however imperfect it might be, was likely to do good; but he did not see that it was therefore necessary that in every prison there should be a Roman Catholic priest invested with the status of a prison chaplain. He was told that there was no difficulty—all honour to our Roman Catholic brethren for it—in obtaining religious instruction to Roman Catholic prisoners by voluntary exertions. It might be hard to accept those services without payment; but he was not there-fore prepared to sacrifice a principle, and to go out of the way to pass a measure which must lead to great difficulties hereafter, He was almost of opinion, that after all, if, as was stated, this measure was not likely to lead to the appointment of Roman Catholic chaplains, it was quite possible there might be a party in the country whom it was thought desirable, for various political reasons, to conciliate, without any great regard to sacred principles; and this Bill might have been introduced to conciliate these persons rather than from any desire to do justice and secure instruction to Roman Catholic prisoners. Under any circumstances, he could not think that the country was prepared to see Roman Catholic priests occupying the same status in our prisons and workhouses as the clergy of the Church of England. If the measure were practicable, if there should be no difficulty with regard to the appointments at the quarter sessions, he was afraid, that when the principle was extended to workhouses, such dissensions would arise as would make us very sorry we had ever touched the question. The noble Earl opposite had stated that the Roman Catholic bishops might be restrained from interference in the appoint-

  511
  ment of these chaplains; but every one was aware of the great difficulties which had arisen all over Europe from a collision with Roman Catholic bishops. For some reason or other Roman Catholic bishops were a difficult set of persons to deal with; and his advice to their Lordships would be not to step out of their way to give these bishops a stronger position than they now occupy.
  THE EARL OF CORKregretted the speech of the right rev. Prelate, which contained at least two fallacies. This was no innovation, because there were already Roman Catholic chaplains bearing the Queen's commission; and surely there could be no greater danger in allowing their ministration to prisoners in gaols than to soldiers dying on the field of battle. There was also a necessity for the Bill, because Returns showed that there were hundreds of Roman Catholic prisoners who did not obtain religious instruction. Under the existing law, although a prisoner might ask for the services of a priest of his own Church, yet he was forced to receive the visits of the Protestant chaplain, who frequently presented him with tracts questioning the validity of the religious instruction afforded by his own priest. In Scotland recently it appeared that a Scripture reader visited the Roman Catholics confined in a gaol; and when appeal was made to the Secretary of State, an order was given that the instruction should be confined to secular subjects; but, notwithstanding that instruction, the Scripture reader was allowed to continue his visits. He only regretted that the Bill was not made compulsory. It was said this Bill would lead to unpleasantness at quarter sessions; but the whole of his experience convinced him that the good sense of the majority of magistrates would never allow them to act otherwise than as their sense of justice dictated. He could not agree that the adoption of the Bill would be a source of danger to the Established Church. He should be sorry to think that the foundations of that Church were so weak as to be endangered by so simple a measure as this. For these reasons, he should support the second reading of this Bill.
  LORD ARUNDELL OF WARDOUR, who was imperfectly heard, supported the Bill. He considered that Roman Catholic prisoners were entitled, on the principles of religious toleration, to receive instruction from the ministers of their own persuasion;
  512
  and the Roman Catholic community, paying the same taxes with members of the Established Church, were entitled, as a matter of justice, to see that their fellow religionists shared the advantages secured to other prisoners. He contended that no status was conceded by this Bill to Roman Catholic priests to which they were not fairly entitled. He thanked Her Majesty's Government for having brought forward this measure, and he did so the more readily that he agreed with them on so few other questions; and he also desired to express his thanks to the noble Earl below him (the Earl of Derby) and the leader of the Conservative party in the other House of Parliament for their manly advocacy of this measure.
  THE EARL OF DONOUGHMOREregretted that the speech of the right rev. Prelate (the Bishop of London) should have contained an insinuation, and a very offensive insinuation. His language implied that those on that (the Opposition) side of the House who advocated this Bill did so, not on the ground of the inherent justice of the claim on which it was based, but for the sake of gaining political support.
  THE BISHOP OF LONDONexplained: Referring to the observation of a noble Earl, that the measure would lead to no practical result, because no Roman Catholic prison chaplains would be appointed under it, he had said that the argument founded on justice was not very strong, and that it might be supposed there was some other motive for the support given to the Bill.
  THE EARL OF DONOUGHMOREsaid, he thought the present imputation of the right rev. Prelate was equally unjustifiable. He totally repudiated any other motive for supporting the measure except a belief in its justice. In all the prisons of Ireland they had Roman Catholic chaplains, their appointment not being a matter left in the discretion of the magistrates, but being made compulsory, and their right to enter the prisons was one that he had never heard questioned by any political party. He maintained that the opponents of this Bill, if they were consistent men, were bound to move the repeal of the present law in Ireland. There was no difference of status between a Roman Catholic prisoner in England and a Roman Catholic prisoner in Ireland. In each case the man was a British subject under temporary restraint, and there was no reason on earth why he should be treated differently in this matter

  513
  in different parts of the United Kingdom. He wished there were a simple clause in this measure enacting, that whenever the number of Roman Catholics in a prison exceeded a certain minimum, then the governing body of the prison should be required to appoint and pay a Roman Catholic chaplain. It was said, that if this Bill were passed, Scottish magistrates would refuse to act upon it; but such a clause as he suggested would prevent their deliberately setting themselves up against the law. It was a question of policy whether they ought or ought not to have Roman Catholic prison chaplains. He thought that they ought, and the right rev. Prelate thought they ought not; but having once decided that there should be such chaplains, Parliament ought to take measures to insure that they should be appointed in a given case, and not leave it in the discretion of the various governing bodies of prisons to appoint or not appoint them as they thought fit. To leave the matter optional would create great religious excitement all over the country, and in Scotland might cause the intention of the Legislature to be wholly defeated.
  VISCOUNT MELVILLEsaid, he did not think the Bill as it stood would lead to the appointment of any Roman Catholic chaplains in Scotland; while he believed, on the other hand, it would engender contests between members of the Established Church and the Free Kirk for the nomination of a minister of their own denomination. The provisions of the measure ought to be more definite and explicit.
  THE BISHOP OF CASHELsaid, he regarded this as a question of principle, which was not to be disposed of by merely appealing to the practice existing in the prisons of Ireland or elsewhere. He would give the most thorough toleration to all religious persuasions, but he held it to be a very erroneous principle to encourage and pay people to teach that which we believe to be false.
  On Question, That ("now") stand part of the Motion? their Lordships divided:—Contents, 65; Not-Contents, 30: Majority 35.
  Resolved in the Affirmative: Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Monday next.

  CONTENTS.

  Westbury, L. (L. Chancellor.)

  Devonshire, D.

  Newcastle, D.

  Grafton, D.

  514

  Somerset, D.

  Bolton, L.

  Bristol, M.

  Boyle, L. (E Cork and Orrery.)

  Normanby, M.

  Camoys, L.

  Abingdon, E.

  Carew, L.

  Airlie, E.

  Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

  Belmore, E.

  Colville of Culross, L.

  Camperdown, E.

  Cranworth, L.

  Carnarvon, E.

  Dartrey, L. (L. Cre-morne.)

  Chichester, E.

  Dormer, L.

  Cowper, E.

  Ebury, L.

  De Grey, E.

  Foley, L. [Teller.]

  Derby, E.

  Granard, L. (E. Granard.)

  Ducie, E.

  Heytesbury, L.

  Granville, E.

  Kenmare, L. (E. Kenmare.)

  Grey. E.

  Leigh, L.

  Hardwicke, E.

  Lovat, L.

  Powis, E.

  Lyttelton, L.

  Saint Germans, E.

  Lyveden, L.

  Sommers, E.

  Manners, L.

  Wicklow, E.

  Mostyn, L.

  Yarborough, E.

  Overstone, L.

  Eversley, V.

  Petre, L.

  Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.)

  Ponsonby, L. (E. Bess-borough.) [Teller.]

  Sydney, V.

  Portman, L.

  Bath and Wells, Bp.

  Rivers, L.

  Worcester, Bp.

  Saltoun, L.

  Abercromby, L.

  Stafford, L.

  Arundell of Wardour, L.

  Stanley of Alderley, L.

  Belper, L.

  Stourton, L.

  Blantyre, L.

  Vaux of Harrowden, L.

  Wodehouse, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Marlborough, D.

  London, Bp.

  Cholmondeley, M.

  Ripon, Bp.

  Westmeath, M.

  Salisbury, Bp.

  Amherst, E.

  Berners, L. [Teller.]

  Bandon, E.

  Calthorpe, L.

  Desart, E. [Teller.]

  Castlemaine, L.

  Harrowby, E.

  Congleton, L.

  Mayo, E.

  Denman, L.

  Tankerville, E.

  Dunmore, L. (E. Dunmore.)

  Melville, V.

  Egerton, L.

  Carlisle, Bp.

  Feversham, L.

  Cashel, &c. Bp.

  Polwarth, L.

  Chichester, Bp.

  Rayleigh, L.

  Lichfield, Bp.

  Redesdale, L.

  Llandaff, Bp.

  Stewart of Garlies, L. (E. Galloway.)

  House adjourned at a quarter before Nine o'clock, till To-morrow Twelve o'clock.