Sitting of 22 June 1863

MINUTES.
NEW WHIT ISSUED—For Berwick-on-Tweed, v. Charles William Gordon, esquire, deceased.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Prisons (Ireland)* [Bill 178]; Nuisances Removal Act (1855) Amendment* [Bill 179]; Midwifery*[Bill 180]; Poisoning* [Bill 181]; Duchy of Cornwall Management (1863) (Lords)* [Bill 182].
Second Reading—Costs Security* [Bill 126], deferred.
Committee—London, &c. Dioceses (Lords)* [Bill 143]; Passengers Act Amendment [Bill 133]; Thames Embankment (South Side), on re-committal; Sir Robert Hitcham's Charity*[Bill 160]; Ruthin Charities* [Bill 161]; Inclosure (No. 2)* [Bill 167]; Poor Removal (No. 2) [Mr. Herbert] [Bill 96]—R.P.
Report—London, &c. Dioceses*; Passengers Act Amendment; Thames Embankment (South Side); Sir Robert Hitcham's Charity*; Ruthin Charities*; Inclosure (No. 2)*.
Considered as amended—Pier and Harbour Orders Confirmation [Bill 148]; Land Drainage (Provisional Orders* [Bill 173].
Third Reading—Mutiny (East India) Act Repeal* [Bill 166]; Local Government Supplemental (No. 2)* [Bill 165].

LONDON (CITY) TRAFFIC REGULATION BILL [Lords]—SELECT COMMITTEE.
SIR JOHN SHELLEYmoved—
"That in the case of the London (City) Traffic Regulation Bill Standing Order 185 be suspended, and that the said Bill be committed to a Select Committee of Fifteen Members, of whom Ten shall be nominated by the House and Five by the Committee of Selection."
The hon. Member said that the Corporation at present enjoyed substantially the same powers which were found sufficient for the regulation of traffic at the West End, and he believed that great inconvenience would result from assenting to the Bill in its premature shape. Except by passing under that absurdity, Temple Bar, it was impossible now to know when a man entered and when he left the City limits. A waggon laden with scaffold poles would be at liberty to pass down
1248
three-fourths of Chancery Lane; but when it touched the City bounds, it would be stopped—it could not be turned round without breaking all the windows; so there it would have to remain till such hour as the Lord Mayor and Corporation thought fit to let it proceed. He maintained that the Bill affected the public traffic of the metropolis quite as much as it did the private traffic of the City, and ought therefore to be referred to a tribunal before which the interests of the metropolis generally could be represented. He hoped his Motion would meet with no opposition; but in case there should be any hon. Member who was a stickler for Standing Orders, he begged to state that there was a direct precedent for his Motion in the year 1839, when Sir Robert Peel, at the instance of Mr. Hawes, then Member for Lambeth, consented to refer the City Police Bill, after it had been read a second time, to a Committee of fifteen.
MR. ALDERMAN SALOMONSseconded the Motion, and hoped that there would be ample discussion before the Bill passed into law.
MR. CRAWFORDsaid, that the Corporation wished to leave this matter entirely in the hands of the House. They had no desire to enter into a course of legislation on this subject, and would be perfectly satisfied if they were permitted the free exercise of the powers they already possessed. As the evil which the Bill was intended to remedy was increasing every day, he trusted that the result of sending the Bill upstairs would not be to postpone it until next Session.
COLONEL WILSON PATTENdid not think that his hon. Friend (Sir John Shelley) had shown any cause for taking this Bill out of the category of private Bills. He did not think that any reasons had been stated why the regular rule of the House should be deviated from. It was very inconvenient for a Committee, constituted of fifteen, to deal with any question; five was a much better number.
SIR JOHN SHELLEYwould object to a Committee of five.
SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, that the Bill affected the traffic of the whole of the metropolis; and as it was a measure of a special character, a departure from the usual practice would be desirable. He should therefore vote for the Motion.
Motion made, and Question put,
"That, in the case of the London (City) Traffic Regulation Bill, Standing Order 185 be suspended,

1249
and that the Bill be committed to a Select Committee of Fifteen Members, of whom Ten shall he nominated by the House and Five by the Committee of Selection.—(Sir John Shelley.)
The House divided:—Ayes 95; Noes 100: Majority 5.

THE NEW HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT.
CONTRACT WITH MR. SZERELMEY.
THE NEW HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT.

  QUESTION.
  SIR MORTON PETOsaid, he wished to ask the First Commissioner of Works, Whether any Contract has been entered into with Mr. Szerelmey to arrest the decay of the stone of the New Palace of Westminster; and, if so, under what advice the First Commissioner acted in entering into such further Contract with Mr. Szerelmey pending the Report of the Commission, which recommended that nothing further be done in the use of the process of Mr. Szerelmey?
  MR. COWPERsaid, in reply, that there was no Contract now pending. There was a Contract entered into in 1860, but no works were executed under it since 1860.
  SIR MORTON PETO: Is it now in force?
  MR. COWPER: No, it is not in force.
  SIR JOHN SHELLEYsaid, he wished to ask, whether there has been any examination made of that portion of the stone to which the solution has been applied, and whether the effect is satisfactory?
  MR. COWPERsaid, the time that had elapsed since the application of the process referred to was not sufficient to enable them to come to any decision upon the point. He was, however, inclined to think that the Report would be favourable. It was, however, too soon to give any opinion upon the matter.

RELIGIOUS ENDOWMENTS (INDIA)

  QUESTION.
  MR. KINNAIRDsaid, he wished to ask the Under Secretary of State for India, What measures have been taken by the Government of India for giving effect to the Act passed by the Council of the Governor General of India, "to enable the Government to divest itself of the management of Religious Endowments"?
  MR. T. G. BARING, in reply, said, the Act, which had been very recently passed, and which would be laid on the table, gave the local Governments full powers to act, and did not require any further measures
  1250
  on the part of the Government of India. It was possible, however, that the latter might think it advisable to issue instructions on the subject.

PILOTAGE AUTHORITIES OF SHIELDS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. INGHAMsaid, he would beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade, Whether a Provisional Order is in preparation to transfer the jurisdiction as to Pilotage now exercised in the port of Shields by the Trinity House of Newcastle, to a new Pilotage authority, in compliance with the several applications made to the Board of Trade by persons interested in the Pilotage of the district?
  MR. MILNER GIBSONsaid, in reply, that various suggestions had been made by persons interested in the Pilotage of the Tyne for effecting a new Pilotage jurisdiction. Those suggestions were under consideration, but at present no Provisional Order was made; and, from the present advanced period, he thought there was little chance of the matter being settled in time for any confirming Act to pass in the present Session.
  MR. R. HODGSONsaid, he wished to know, whether there will be any objection to place the Correspondence relating to the Pilotago of the Tyne before the House.
  MR. MILNER GIBSONsaid, there would be no objection to place the Correspondence on the table, but many of the suggestions were made verbally.

THE ST. HELENA REGIMENT.

  QUESTION.
  COLONEL VANDELEURsaid, he would beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War, Whether there is any intention of breaking up the St. Helena Regiment; and, in that case, how the officers and men are to be disposed of?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONreplied that it was not intended that the St. Helena Regiment should be immediately disbanded. But it was intended to be absorbed by the gradual draught of the men into other regiments. A considerable number of the Officers had been already transferred to a West India Regiment.

THE MHOW COURT MARTIAL—COLONEL CRAWLEY.—QUESTION.
MR. CONINGHAMsaid, he rose to ask the Under Secretary of State for War,

1251
Whether the Court Martial about to be held upon Colonel Crawley, of the 6th Dragoons, and the consequent inquiry into the Court Martial at Mhow upon Paymaster Smales, will take place in this country? He also wished to know whether there is any objection to lay upon the table the Report of the Judge Advocate upon the case?
THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON, in reply, said, it had been decided that Colonel Crawley should be recalled to this country for the purpose of being tried by court martial. He regretted he could not produce the Report of the Judge Advocate, as it was contrary to practice to lay upon the table the legal opinion of the Law Advisers of the Crown.
MR. CONINGHAMsaid, he had another question to ask with reference to the parents of Serjeant Major Lilley. On coming into the House, he had received a note requesting him to ask when the pension which has been promised to the father and mother of Serjeant Major Lilley will be given, as they are now very old, have been deprived of their son's assistance for more than a year, and if the pension is not granted soon, it will be useless.
THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, he regretted there had been any delay; but he hoped Serjeant Major Lilley's relatives would receive a communication within two or three days.
MR. BENTINCKsaid, he wished to know whether there is any precedent for holding a court martial in this country for an offence which had occurred in India?
THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, he could not tell whether there was any precedent, but he could inform the hon. Gentleman that the Judge Advocate had been consulted as to the law of the case, and he entirely concurred in the course which it was determined to take.

UNITED STATES—RECRUITING FOR THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.

  QUESTION.
  MR. FERRANDsaid, he rose to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he has received from the magistrates or police of Leeds a Report stating that agents of the Federal Government of America were recruiting in that town, and that the men were sent to the American Consul at Liverpool; if so, whether he will place it and his reply upon the table of the House?
  SIR GEORGE GREYreplied, that he received not long ago a letter from one of the magistrates of Leeds, enclosing a communication made to him by the chief constable of that town with reference to persons said to be engaged in recruiting there for the Federal Government. That letter was submitted to the Solicitor of the Treasury, with directions that papers should be aid before the Law Officers of the Crown, in order that they might advise whether the evidence was sufficient to require the institution of any proceedings with regard to it. The papers were still under consideration, and it would be highly improper to make any further statement as yet to the House upon the subject.

INDIA RAILWAY SCHEMES—QUESTION.
MR. SMOLLETTsaid, he wished to ask the Under Secretary of State for India, If application has been made, more particularly in reference to the Eastern of Bengal and Southern of Madras Railway schemes, for extension of those projects; if so, whether the applications have been complied with, and further guarantees of interest granted, payable from the Revenues of British India?
MR. T. G. BARINGsaid, in reply, that the Secretary of State for India in Council had offered to guarantee £650,000, at 4¾ per cent, for the completion of a certain part of the original project of the Eastern of Bengal Railway. The Great Southern of India Company had been also permitted to complete their original project by connecting their line with the Madras Railway at a cost of £500,000—£350,000 to be raised in shares at 4¾ per cent, and the remainder on debentures at 4½ per cent.

ITALY—COMMERCIAL TREATY.

  QUESTION.
  MR. BAINESsaid, he wished to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether it is true that the gentleman who was engaged in negotiating on the part of England a Commercial Treaty with Italy has returned from Turin without having succeeded in his object?
  MR. LAYARDsaid, in reply, that the treaty was not signed; and Mr. Mallet, of the Board of Trade, who was sent to Turin, had returned to this country, in consequence of certain difficulties arising, for the purpose of consulting the President of the Board of Trade; but he trusted that those difficulties were not of a nature to affect the completion of the treaty.

THE KNOUT IN POLAND.
  EXPLANATION.
  MR. LAYARDsaid, he wished to make a statement with respect to a Question put to him the other night by the hon. Member for the county of Cork (Mr. Scully), who asked whether Government had received any information with respect to a Proclamation said to have been issued by General Mouravieff, that Polish women were to be subjected to the knout for wearing mourning. He stated that no such information had been received by Her Majesty's Government, and regretted that he was not able to give a denial to the report which appeared in the public papers. Since then a telegraphic message had been received from St. Petersburg, and the Russian Government requested Her Majesty's Government to state publicly that no such order had been issued. At the same time, he was bound to say that the reports which Her Majesty's Government received from Poland and Russia tended to confirm in many respects the fact that numerous cruelties were practised.
THE AMERICAN BLOCKADE.

  QUESTION.
  LORD ROBERT CECILsaid, he rose to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether any statement, official or non-official, has been received at the Foreign Office on a grave subject mentioned in the news from America? It was stated to be decided by the Prize Courts, that if American cruisers captured a vessel going from one neutral port to another, and if subsequently there were grounds for believing that it was going to run the blockade, that vessel might be seized.
  MR. LAYARDreplied, that no such news as reported in the public press had been, to his knowledge, received by Her Majesty's Government.

POLAND.

  POSTPONEMENT OF THE ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Orders of the Day be postponed till after the Notice of Motion on the affairs of Poland."—(Viscount Palmerston.)
  MR. SOMERSET BEAUMONTappealed to the hon. Member for the King's County (Mr. Hennessy), to consider whether it was a prudent or reasonable opporunity, in the present extraordinary con-
  1254
  dition of the diplomatic negotiations, to bring on a debate about Poland. Notes had been sent to the Russian Government from all the Powers, and the answers returned by Russia were of a conciliatory nature, which induced further communications to be made on the part of the Western Powers. On Friday night, the noble Lord the Secretary for Foreign Affairs stated in his place in Parliament, that on last Wednesday despatches nearly identical in character had been sent to the Russian Government by three great Powers, and that as soon as an answer should be obtained, the noble Lord would lay it before Parliament; and so anxious was the Foreign Minister to comply with the natural impatience of the House, that he further stated that if an early answer did not arrive from the Russian Government, a copy of the note sent from the English Government would be presented to Parliament without further delay. He therefore, being as solicitous as the hon. Member for the King's County for the interests of the country whose cause the hon. Member had so frequently and ably advocated, asked whether the present occasion was not premature for the discussion. They knew nothing of the six points mentioned in the foreign journals, and described as sufficient, when developed, to place Poland in a position of lasting peace; and while those transactions were lending, discussions in that House might prevent further negotiations of that character. He therefore appealed to the hon. Member to postpone, until a later period, the bringing on of his Motion.
  MR. KINGLAKErose to support the re-pest of the hon. Member for Northumberland. He thought that the House was not in a position to discuss these transactions, and the mode in which the Government had conducted them, when the House was in absolute ignorance of the last step taken by the Government. Under such circumstances, they could neither criticise nor advise, He knew that the Government was under a sort of obligation to move that the Orders of the Day be postponed until after the Motion on Poland; but the promise of the Government on that point did not in any way bind the House, and he submitted that the present was not the occasion when they ought to discuss the question of Poland. They ought to know what they were discussing. It bad been his lot on other occasions to interpose discussions in the midst of pending negotiations, but he had always done so when he knew what

  1255
  those negotiations were and was well acquainted with the last step of the Government. On the present occasion he must acknowledge his entire ignorance of what were the contents of the document called the "Preliminaries" submitted by the Government to Russia. If there was one feature more conspicuous than another in Earl Russell's administration of Foreign Affairs, it was his great readiness to lay before Parliament all important papers; and the noble Earl had been so forward on the present occasion as to declare not only that he would lay all those papers connected with the affairs of Poland before Parliament the moment an answer arrived from Russia, but he had gone the extraordinary length of stating, that if the Russian Government delayed the answer, then, without waiting for it, all the papers should be presented to Parliament. When they knew that the papers were within forty-eight hours of being before them, why ought they to conduct the discussion in the dark? They ought to wait until the papers were produced, and they could then apply their criticisms to the real facts of the case, instead of to hypothetical notions concerning them. It was possible that the interest of one of the high Powers would lead her to take a step in the direction desired by England, and that before the papers were ready they might hear of a forward movement on the Galician frontier. That would afford them a subject which they could usefully discuss; but, at the present, he was at a loss to see how the proposed discussion could be of any value. Mere declamation in favour of Poland they had had already, and, in his opinion, they had produced a very ill effect on the cause of that country. Animated by that zeal which they all felt for a people suffering such injuries as the Poles, they had pressed the Government to speak out as to their intentions, and to say whether they intended to act or not; and the result was that Lord Russell had elsewhere been driven to say that England, for the sake of Poland, would not go to war. From that moment the power of the Government on behalf of Poland was limited. The debate now pressed on the House of Commons would have the same effect, and, so far from strengthening, would weaken, as the phrase was, the hands of the Government, as the result of the discussion in the House of Lords had weakened them. It was an unpleasant thing, no doubt, to look forward dubiously and tremulously, as it were, into the
  1256
  future, and to go without light; but to go without light, when they knew that the Government were ready to supply them with the light they wanted within a few hours, would be wilfully and intentionally to take a step in the dark, and was quite inconsistent with the accustomed wisdom of the House of Commons.
  VISCOUNT ENFIELDsaid, he could not refrain from saying how cordially he endorsed every word that had fallen from the lips of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Bridgwater. The question of Poland was one of immense magnitude and importance, whether with regard to the present or to the future; but during the ten years that he had been a Member of the House he remembered how careful the House had ever been, when negotiations were pending or in progress, to refrain from uttering any expression that could fetter the hands of the Executive. When, however, the negotiations had been completed, the House had always been ready to pronounce a fearless opinion. He could not help thinking that a delay of some weeks in regard to the proposed discussion would not be unfavourable to the cause of Poland. He could not help saying, with all respect and deference to the hon. Gentleman opposite, that it would reflect credit on the House if, at a moment like the present, of great difficulty and danger and delicacy, it refrained from uttering what he must call a premature opinion.
  Question put, "That the Orders of the Day be postponed till after the Notice of Motion on the Affairs of Poland;" and Mr. SPEAKER declared that "The Noes have it."
  Whereon several hon. Members (among whom the hon. Member for the King's County was emphatically audible) cried "The Ayes have it." Mr. SPEAKER again put the Question, and declared that in his judgment "The Noes have it;" but many hon. Members crying "The Ayes have it," and demanding a division:—The House divided:—Ayes 110; Noes 165: Majority 55.
  MR. HORSMAN: What has just taken place is something so new, so unusual, and so irregular in our Parliamentary proceedings, that I really think, for the character of the House, it ought not to pass without notice. To put myself right as a question of Order, it is my intention to conclude with a Motion. The hon. Member for the King's County gives a notice on the question

  1257
  Poland. On Monday last he has the power of bringing it on; but he is requested by the Government to postpone it, and the Government in the face of the House makes a compact with him—in the name of the House, with the assent of the House, without a single dissentient voice—that if he gives up that right, he shall have the opportunity of bringing forward the question to-day. In consequence of that compact, he foregoes his opportunity; and to-day, when the noble Lord at the head of the Government, who is the best judge whether a discussion will embarrass the Government, comes forward to fulfil his pro raise, hon. Gentlemen get up without notice, take the House by surprise, and propose that that understanding with the House shall be violated. I say that is a surprise upon the House—it is a breach of faith with the House—it is a violation of the com pact with the hon. Member for the King's County. There is no notice that any such objection will be taken. But the objection itself rests upon an ignorance of Parliamentary law and usage which surprises one in the very youngest Member of the House. We all know that when there are delicate negotiations going on, and when the Government tell us that a Parliamentary debate would he injurious to the public interests, nothing is so unwise, nothing so mischievous, as to raise a desultory discussion involving no issue. But the usage of Parliament is very different when the Government themselves lay papers on the table and invite discussion. Are we not to read those papers? If we read them, are we not to form an opinion on them? If we form an opinion on them, are we not to express it? Is it not a fact that the diplomatic power of the Government is multiplied a hundred-fold by its being known that there is a unanimous and earnest public opinion at their back? On the present occasion the Government have with unusual promptitude laid papers on the table; and, so far from deprecating discussion, the noble Lord at the head of the Government takes a course which I think is as politic as it is manly—he even facilitates discussion by offering the hon. Member for the King's County a day. What do the Gentlemen behind him now say? They exclaim, We will not accept the noble Lord's invitation to discuss—we will not criticise—we will not commend—we will not counsel—and we will not confirm. We wash our hands of all responsibility, costing it upon the Government. If they fail in what they
  1258
  are doing, then we will censure and punish them. If they succeed, then we will praise them. But, in the mean time, we will suffer them to drift without that Parliamentary helm and compass which would assist them." I say such language is an abnegation of our public duty, as cowardly as it is unpatriotic. It is unfair to the Government, and it is treasonable to the public interests. Even foreign Governments have a right to know what is the public opinion of England on this question. Some Governments have been referred to which, it is said, are rather disposed to go forward too fast. Others are irresolute and hanging back, and there are hon. Gentlemen in this House who wish to screen thorn. But I say Governments abroad as well as Government at home have a right to know how far the public opinion of England goes with their policy. I have a strong opinion that if at the time of the Crimean and Italian wars this House had not abdicated its functions, some of those results we have since deplored might have been avoided. I say that now, when the Government themselves, who are the best judges of what is or is not convenient to discuss, do not deprecate discussion, when they invite discussion and facilitate it, and when in order to facilitate it they make a compact for giving a day, it is not much for the character of the House that that compact should be broken by such a surprise as we have witnessed to-night. I think we should understand exactly what is to be the course taken on this question. I apprehend the hon. Member for the King's County will not indefinitely postpone his Motion. I apprehend the Government themselves will not depart from the understanding upon which they got him to postpone it last week. Although by a surprise the Motion has been postponed for the present, I, for one, protest against any long postponement. I trust the hon. Member will take the first opportunity of bringing it forward. Nay, more; what has just taken place has been such a surprise, without notice, that I think the noble Lord at the head of the Government will probably feel it right to facilitate the discussion by giving another day to the hon. Member for the King's County, when I nope the opinion of the House will be taken more deliberately and after further notice than has been the case to-night. With a view to put myself right as a matter of Order I conclude by moving the adjournment of the House,
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."
  VISCOUNT ENFIELD: I entirely deny the assumption contained in the speech of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Horsman), that any Member of this House is not at liberty to take any course he thinks fit. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that I do not yield even to him in my sincere hope that, through the medium of negotiation, Poland may become free. At the same time, I think that to discuss the subject prematurely would be unwise and impolitic. The right hon. Gentleman says that within his recollection he does not think any interruption of public business such as that of to-night has taken place. Allow me to remind him of two occasions within my own memory on which precisely the same thing happened; with this exception—that on both occasions the appeals made by independent Members were listened to by the hon. Gentleman who proposed to submit Motions to the House on questions connected with foreign policy. In 1855 the right hon. Baronet the Member for Herts (Sir E. Bulwer-Lytton) had a Motion of considerable importance on the subject of the Crimean war and the negotiations then going on. An appeal was made to him on the very day the Motion was to come on, and he at once withdrew it. [Mr. HORSMAN: Lord Russell resigned, did he not?] Again, either last year or the year before, on, I think, two occasions—certainly on one occasion—the hon. Member for Galway (Mr. Gregory) consented to waive an important discussion with regard to the Northern and Southern States of America, in deference to the generally expressed opinion of the House that it would be ill-advised to discuss American affairs at that time. I contend, that when a crisis like this in Poland takes place, it is the duty of every Member who thinks discussion will be ill-advised to adopt the course which the hon. Members for Newcastle and Bridgwater have pursued to-night. The best confirmation of that policy is to be found in the votes of the 165 Members who constituted the majority.
  MR. HORSMAN: I did not say it was not common for hon. Gentlemen to give way when appealed to when negotiations are pending. I said, on the contrary, it was the invariable usage of the House to do so. What I added was this—that there was no instance, when the Government themselves had raised no objection, when
  1260
  they were even willing to facilitate discussion, of private Members taking the question out of the hands of the Government and objecting to a discussion which the Government was prepared to permit.
  LORD ROBERT CECIL: It seems to me that the two cases cited by the noble Lord fail in this—that they take no cognizance of the contract entered into with the hon. Member for the King's County. The noble Lord might as well say that because a man has consented to forego a debt, therefore you are not bound to discharge any debt you have promised to pay. On Monday last the hon. Member for the King's County had a right, of which no one could have deprived him, to bring the question of Poland before the House. He was requested by the leader of the House, speaking in the name of the party behind him, to give up that opportunity. On the faith of the noble Lord's statement that he would give him another night, the hon. Member yielded to the request. The noble Lord is bound in honour, and everybody who supports him is equally bound, to carry out that agreement. Well, if this precedent is to be established, it will be impossible henceforth to place any reliance on a word the noble Lord says with regard to the conduct of public business. I do not, of course, make any imputation upon the noble Lord, who is doubtless anxious to redeem his pledge; but it has always been understood that the leader of the House has the management of business in his hands, and I never heard of any exception being taken to that rule. I do not want to go into the question whether it is desirable to discuss the affairs of Poland or not. That is a small matter, compared to a precedent which will utterly destroy the value of promises made by the leader of the House with respect to the conduct of public business. But I have a suggestion to make to the noble Lord. His honourable pledge is not loosened by the division which has just taken place. He is bound to give every facility in his power to the progress of the Motion of the hon. Member for the King's County to-night. There are several Orders of the Day on the paper; they will be put successively; but I maintain the noble Lord is bound in honour not to go on with one of them. We shall thus soon get to the Motion respecting Poland. Unless the noble Lord takes that course, his pledge is forfeited, and it will be impossible henceforth to have any confidence in his promises to the House.
  MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, that having, on a previous occasion, urged the House not to be betrayed into taking the manage meat of foreign affairs out of the hands of the Government, he rejoiced most sincerely at the decision at which the House had arrived. They had decided against discussing a question, not because it might be inconvenient to hon. Members, but because they would not permit the Government to evade the great responsibility which attached to those whose duty it was to conduct the foreign affairs of the country. It was known to the House that negotiations were in progress, and that the settlement of this question depended not exclusively on Her Majesty's Government, but on the Government of Russia and the other Powers in conjunction with whom the negotiations were conducted. Now, would it be becoming on the part of the House to step in and interrupt those negotiations by any expression of opinion, when they were in total ignorance of the circumstances? He thought the House had only vindicated its high character by refusing to listen to a speech on one side, when it seemed impossible that it should receive a sufficient answer. The House was not a mere debating club. Hon. Members were the representatives of the people; it was their duty to advise the Government, but, above all, not to pronounce an opinion on the performance of those functions which attached to them in their policy with regard to foreign Powers, until informed of the real position of affairs. He thought that the House, so far from having done anything derogatory to its high character, had by its vote pronounced this decision—that it would not be led to interfere in the conduct of that business which was the duty of Her Majesty's Government to perform, and thus invalidate the responsibility which rested upon them.
  MR. CONINGHAMsaid, he did not know the extent of the control the noble Lord the First Minister exercised over his followers; but he (Mr. Coningham) could speak from his experience the other night as to the noble Lord's attempting to suppress free discussion when a serious grievance was brought before the House by an independent Member. The noble Lord attempted to suppress that free discussion which, as an independent Member, he claimed as a right, and thought fit to administer to him (Mr. Coningham) a most severe rebuke, which, he ventured to say,
  1262
  was most uncalled for and most unnecessary. He would remind the House that the Government had been obliged to yield to the demand which he had made. ["Question!"] he was speaking to the Question; and he wanted to know whether it was the function of the Prime Minister to check free discussion, and to crush independent Members of that House? Hid the noble Lord imagine that he was placed there for that purpose by the Liberal party? ["Question!"] When the Question related to a Court job at Kensington, the noble Lord was ready enough to postpone most important business in order to carry on that discussion; but when he (Mr. Coningham) as an independent Member brought forward a subject of vital interest, the conduct of the noble Lord to him had been most unjustifiable and unwarrantable. He thought it was high time that they should know whether the Horse Guards—[Loud cries of Order!]—and the War Office were to be made really responsible to Parliament, and whether their responsibility was to be a reality and not a sham. He thought the hon. Member for the King's County had good cause to complain of the conduct of the Government; because he would not he persuaded that if they had endeavoured strenuously to fulfil their pledge, they would not have been able to secure a majority in favour of going on with the discussion on Poland.
  MR. BENTINCKthought the debate was getting into a rather confused state. He agreed with the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate) in what he had said with respect to the Motion of the hon. Member for the King's County; and had the discussion gone on, he (Mr. Bentinck) should have been prepared to state the grounds on which he thought it would have been better not to bring it forward. But that seemed to have been lost sight of in the much larger question raised by the noble Lord the Member for Stamford (Lord Robert Cecil). He agreed with the noble Lord, that unless some steps were taken by the noble Lord at the head of the Government to relieve the House from the awkward—he might almost say painful—position in which it was placed, it would be hard to say what the effect might be with regard to their future proceedings. If they could not place reliance upon the promises of the distinguished Member who was, for the time, recognised as the leader of the House, there would be an end of all regularity in their proceedings.

  1263
  In what position was the hon. Member for the King's County? Much as he objected to the Motion of the hon. Member, yet having waived it on a former occasion, his right to bring it forward was undisputed; and if the pledge given by the noble Lord was not redeemed, little credit would be reflected on the House, and great inconvenience might be experienced in future. The noble Lord ought in the quickest and readiest way to redeem the pledge which he had given to the hon. Member for the King's County.
  LORD ROBERT MONTAGUcongratulated the noble Lord the Member for Middlesex (Viscount Enfield) on his entire independence of party ties, because he had declared that he was no longer a follower of the noble Lord at the head of the Government. They had heard a good deal about the mischief of governing by a minority. The noble Lord was often head of a small minority, but the Members on his (Lord Robert Montagu's) side of the House had often rendered assistance—as they had done on this occasion—to enable the noble Lord to redeem his pledge. But that evening the noble Lord had shown not only that he was in a small minority, but that he could not even govern his own followers. Unless the noble Lord in some manner redeemed his pledge, he would stand before the country in the very awkward light not only of breaking his promise, but attempting to govern by a very small minority of that House.
  MR. SOMERSET BEAUMONTsaid, that he made his appeal to the hon. Member for the King's County without previous communication with any Member of the Government, and without having made up his own mind to any particular course. He had only spoken to his hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater and one or two others upon the subject before he came down to the House, and he had not in the least made up his mind to divide the House. To his great surprise—though he attributed it to no want of courtesy—when he made his appeal to the hon. Member for the King's County, he received no answer. He had frequently heard appeals of a similar character made to hon. Members, and he bad always heard those to whom they were addressed, if they did not yield to them, give some cogent reason for not doing so. When he came into the House, he did not know what would be the feeling of hon. Members around him; but when he mentioned the subject, he was assured by many of them that he was perfectly
  1264
  warranted in the course which he proposed to take, and that there was ample reason for the adjournment of the discussion. He was not aware, either as a matter of honour or of Parliamentary usage, that Members of that House were bound by arrangements which were made by Members of the Government, and therefore he did not think himself in the least controlled by the engagement into which the noble Lord had entered with the hon. Member for the King's County.
  MR. PEACOCKEhoped that the noble Lord at the head of the Government would not yield to the appeal which had been made to him by his noble Friend the Member for Stamford (Lord Robert Cecil). Did he do so, it would be a great discouragement to those gentlemen who formed the majority. He had himself voted in the majority, because he thought that no compact made between the noble Lord and the hon. Member for the King's County was binding upon that House, and he thought that this was a most inopportune moment for the discussion of this question. He candidly confessed that in giving that vote he intended it to have a further significance. He desired it to be understood as protesting against the intention which many hon. Gentleman seemed to exhibit, to take the conduct of foreign affairs out of the hands of Her Majesty's Government. He wished to ask the noble Lord a question with reference to a statement made by the hon. Member for Southwark (Mr. Layard). That hon. Gentleman had got up, as the French said, à propos des bottes, and stated that Her Majesty's Government had received a contradiction of the statement that the Polish Government had ordered the knout to be applied to Polish ladies who wore black; but he went on to say that the accounts which the Government received of the barbarities committed by the Russians amply warranted the rumours that were in circulation. He wished to know whether this was merely an indiscretion on the part of the hon. Gentleman himself, or whether the statement had received the sanction of Her Majesty's Government?
  MR. DARBY GRIFFITHhoped the House was not going to censure the expression which had been used by the hon. Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs. He did not think it right for the hon. and learned Member for Maldon (Mr. Peacocke) to attempt to muzzle the hon. Under Secretary, and that in giving an answer respecting certain outrages he was restricted from giving information on any other part of the

  1265
  subject. Such a doctrine as that, if carried out, would reduce hon. Members on the Ministerial bench to perfect nonentities. The Russian Government were ready to give official denials; but let it not be sup posed that the denial given was an answer to all the atrocities of the Russian Government. Hon. Members might give what credence they chose to the Russian statement, but he confessed he must reserve his own opinion on the subject, for he knew what Russian denials were.
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: I can assure the House I was taken by surprise both by the Motion made by my hon. Friend and by the decision which the House came to. The only desire of Her Majesty's Government was to show that courtesy to the hon. Member for the King's County which he had shown to us by postponing his Motion; but, of course, it must be obvious to everybody that no Government can answer for the House. All they can do is to engage to give those facilities which, in the conduct of the business of this House, they are able to afford; and I shall be quite ready, as far as I am concerned, to adopt the proposal which the noble Lord (Lord R. Cecil), has made for putting off the Orders of the Day, so as to allow the House to hear the hon. Member for the King's County at a not very late period of the evening. There are, however, several Orders belonging to private Members over which the Government can have no control; and, at the same time, I hardly think such a course would be respectful to the majority which has affirmed by a large preponderance of votes that in the opinion of those hon. Members it is not advisable, tonight at least and in the present circumstances, that a discussion should take place of the affairs of Poland. If I had thought that injury to the public service would arise from that discussion, I should have felt it my duty to state so; and I am convinced, from the manner in which he has performed his duties in this House, that the hon. Member for the King's County would have yielded to any suggestion of that kind. I cannot say that such a discussion would, in my opinion, be injurious to the public service. I think, however, the carrying of any one of the Addresses of which notice has been given would be injurious to the public service, and I should have felt it my duty to-night, and shall feel it my duty when these Motions are made, to oppose them, because I think they would render further negotiation utterly impossible, Although,
  1266
  therefore, the discussion might not have been injurious—I hope it would not—I think the Motion, if carried, would have shut the door against all amicable interference in favour of Poland, As the discussion is not, I presume, to come on tonight, I think it would be satisfactory to the House that they should know shortly the substance of the communication which, on the 17th of the month, was sent to St. Petersburg in relation to the affairs of Poland. I may add that a communication, very nearly identical in its terms, was made by the Government of Franco, and a similar communication also by the Government of Austria, and that all three would probably reach St. Petersburg about the same time. We should be perfectly ready to lay on the table of the House the despatch to which I allude, but obviously it would be more courteous to the Government of Russia to wait till a suitable time has been afforded for them to make their reply. There can, however, be no impropriety in stating to the House the substance of the communication which we, in concert with France and with Austria, submit for the consideration of Russia. These suggestions or recommendations are comprised in six points. The first is a general and complete amnesty. The next is a national representation according to the Constitution granted by Alexander I, in 1815. It is fair to say that the Austrian Government take a somewhat modified view of that proposal; but our opinion is that to comply with the just expectations of the Polish nation the Parliament should be on the footing of the charter granted by Alexander. This is the third point—that Poles alone shall be appointed to public offices, in such a manner as to form a distinct national Administration, such as will command the confidence of the country. The fourth is full and entire liberty of conscience, and repeal of the restrictions imposed on Catholic worship, Fifthly, that the Polish language shall be acknowledged in the kingdom as the official language, and used as such in the administration of the law, and in education. And sixthly, that a regular and legal system of recruiting shall be established, so as to prevent the recurrence of proceedings such as those which immediately heralded the insurrection, In addition to those points, we recommend and strongly urge that there shall be a cessation of hostilities—because, in our opinion, unless the contests between the insurgents on the one hand, and the Rus-

  1267
  sian troops on the other, be put an end to, negotiations cannot rest on any stable or satisfactory basis. The Austrian Government do not actually concur in all these views, but they urge the Emperor somewhat to the same effect. I trust that when we are able to lay the despatch containing these six points on the table of the House, the House will be of opinion that Her Majesty's Government has done everything that is likely to be attended with success. Because in these matters not only must we consider what might be desirable, but what can be obtained. I am asked by an hon. Member (Mr. Peacocke), on what grounds my hon. Friend the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, stated that General Mouravieff had not issued an order that ladies wearing mourning were to subjected to corporeal suffering, and on what grounds he stated that other atrocities had been committed by the Russian troops. The first statement was founded on a telegraphic communication forwarded at the desire of the Russian Government, who, having learnt the imputation, were anxious to have it contradicted. The second statement was made on the authority of a despatch received by Her Majesty's Government, in which, among other things, this transaction is reported—that at a place not far from Wilna, a body of Polish insurgents, consisting, I believe, of about 300, were surrounded by a superior force; that they laid down their arms, and after they had surrendered, by order of the commanding officer, who was referred to to know what should be done, the Russian troops rushed upon them with their bayonets, and killed upon the spot forty of those who so surrendered, and twenty others whom they severely wounded died afterwards in hospital. That is a statement made, I believe, on good authority; and that, among other things, was what my hon. Friend alluded to as instancing the barbarity of the Russian troops. At the same time, truth compels me to say that we also have statements of proceedings on both sides which make humanity shudder, and the prevalence of which is the strong reason which induces us to urge upon the Russian Government that there should be a suspension of hostilities, that these atrocities which are disgraceful to human nature, which desolate the country, lay waste the products of industry, and are attended with immense loss of life on both sides without any apparent result, should cease,
  1268
  and that tranquillity may be restored to that unhappy country. That is the statement which I have to make. I hardly think that it would be of much use, or that it would be very respectful to the majority to press on this Motion, because those who are averse to its coming on before the Orders, might, of course, carry a Motion of Adjournment. I shall, undoubtedly, feel it my duty to give to the hon. Gentleman the Member for the King's County, every facility for bringing on his Motion on another day. I am bound to say, that when appeals were made to me by my hon. Friends, I sat waiting for the hon. Member to rise. I thought, till the division was called for, that he would cither give the reasons why he thought the Motion should come on, or else say he would accede to the postponement. But, of course, I voted in accordance with my pledge, and it is not my fault if the House has decided otherwise.
  MR. DISRAELI: The House is in some embarrassment notwithstanding the observations of the noble Lord. I myself thought that this was hardly a convenient opportunity for discussing the Polish question. But the noble Lord, the leader of the House, and the First Minister, being of a contrary opinion, I could not demur to the arrangement which he had made. And when afterwards the House had to decide whether they thought it was a convenient occasion or not, I left the House feeling that it was duo to the hon. Member for the King's County that I should not vote against the compact. The noble Lord says that he waited with some expectation to hear what the hon. Member For the King's County had to say on the question of adjournment. But surely, if the noble Lord had risen after the three hon. Gentlemen who sit behind him had made their appeals, and said, "The Government feel no inconvenience in having the Polish question discussed tonight," all opposition would have ceased, and the House would not have been placed in the difficult position in which it now is. It is easy for us to make appeals to the noble Lord to give the hon. Member for the King's County another opportunity to bring forward this question; but what security can the hon. Member have that he will enjoy the opportunity, if granted; and what assurance ha3 the noble Lord, if he enters into an engagement of the rind, that he may not be defeated by his own supporters? I think that what has happened to-night will add considerably

  1269
  to the difficulty of leading the business of this House. After this point had arisen, and been discussed, to the surprise of the House, the noble Lord rises in his seat and makes a very important communication. Really I cannot understand, if the noble Lord was prepared to make a communication of that kind, what inconvenience could have occurred if the debate had taken its natural course, and if that communication had been made at the close of the debate. It was impossible to listen to the noble Lord without a thousand considerations occurring to hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House, suggested by that communication—points upon which we naturally wish to have some information. On this, for example:—The noble Lord lays great stress upon the advice which Her Majesty's Government have tendered to the Government of Russia, that they should grant a cessation of hostilities. No doubt a cessation of hostilities is greatly to be desired, not only in order to put an end to those mutual massacres of which we have heard so much, but also because every one feels a cessation of hostilities is the best basis of diplomatic action. But I should like to have information as to the means by which the Russian Government can attain a cessation of hostilities. Is the Government of Russia in communication with the Government established by the insurgents? Where is that Government? If it be, as we have been led to believe, a secret Government, how is the Russian Government to take measures to obtain a cessation of hostilities? I shall be glad to know from the noble Lord what information is in his possession as to the existence of the insurrectionary Government, and the means by which the two Governments in Poland can be placed in communication with each other These are points which naturally arise after the unexpected communication made by the noble Lord. I must refrain from giving any opinion in detail upon the probable results of the propositions of Her Majesty's Government. One thing is quite clear:—if those propositions are accepted, and if they be practicable, they will only bring about a state of things very similar to that which existed before, and which must be considered essentially of a provisional character. They do not, as it seems to me, offer any solution of the difficulty. In my opinion, there are only two solutions—the unity of the Russian empire, or the indepen-
  1270
  dence of Poland. These are two intelligible policies. No doubt, in discussion much may he said on both sides. The propositions of Her Majesty's Government partake entirely of the character of mere diplomatic interference. They can do nothing—they can produce no effect whatever on the circumstances with which Her Majesty's Government have to deal. I cannot say that the policy which Her Majesty's Government has shadowed forth to-night is one which is at all distinguished by prescience, by sagacity, or by the firmness which leads to results. He must be a very sanguine politician who can suppose the propositions of Her Majesty's Government will be accepted by Russia. If adopted, they can only raise a phantom of Polish independence which, in due course, must lead again to a conjuncture such as we have to contend with at present; and no solution of the state of affairs which has periodically disturbed Europe appears to me to be indicated in the policy of Her Majesty's Government.
  MR. MONSELLtrusted that after the division which had taken place the House would not now allow itself to drift into a Polish debate. He would, however, ask the noble Lord to clear up one point. The noble Lord said that Her Majesty's Government, in accord with the Governments of France and Austria, had made certain propositions in regard to Poland. But the noble Lord had not explained to the House what he meant by Poland—whether he meant the Grand Duchy of Warsaw only, or whether he meant to include Lithuania, Volhynia, and Podolia. He believed that the other portions of Poland had too much nobility of spirit to abandon their fellow-countrymen who were now struggling for their independence, for the sake of obtaining any advantage for themselves.
  SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYsaid, that a discussion seemed to him extremely undesirable; and if he wanted a proof of it, he found it in the fact that the House had compelled the noble Lord to make a statement communicating the substance of a despatch to which no answer had been received. Could anything be more unlike true diplomacy, more impracticable, and more likely to defeat its own ends than writing important despatches, and discussing them in the House before they were answered? He believed that these discussions were attended with unhappy results to the independence of Poland, and he, for one, deprecated them.
  MR. HENNESSYsaid, he bowed to the decision to which the House had come. With reference to the proposal of the noble Lord below him (Lord Robert Cecil), he could assure the House that nothing could be further from his wish than to do anything opposed to the feelings of the majority of the House. He believed that both the majority and minority in the recent division were in favour of Poland, and anxious that something should be done for Poland, and he therefore did not regard the division as having anything whatever to do with the merits of the case. With reference to the arrangements made between her Majesty's Government and himself, he could only say that nothing could be fairer than the noble Lord's offer to afford him every facility to bring on the discussion; he cordially accepted the offer; and, instead of venturing to press the debate, he would, with the permission of the noble Lord, fix it for Thursday. He agreed, that until the propositions which the Government had announced that night were officially before them, it would be injudicious to debate them; and he could assure the hon. Member for Bridgwater and the noble Lord the Member for Middlesex, that he had never had any intention to raise a debate upon the proposals of the Government. He should have confined his speech solely to the Correspondence which had been laid upon the table, and upon which therefore Her Majesty's Ministers had invited discussion. The hon. Member (Mr. Kinglake) said that the propositions of the Government would probably in a few hours be made public; and the hon. Member's prediction had certainly proved accurate, for within a few minutes they were announced by the noble Lord. He believed that the question was now ripe for discussion, and he hoped that on Thursday, with the consent of the House, he might be permitted to bring the subject forward.
  MR. SEYMOUR FITZGERALD: In reference to what has fallen from the hon. Member for the King's County, I think he ought to consider what was really the guiding motive of the majority of the House in the division which has taken place. Their object was not to dismiss altogether the discussion of the Polish question. The House was aware that certain propositions had been made by Her Majesty's Government, although they did not know exactly in what form they had been made, and they thought it desirable
  1272
  that discussion should not go on until some kind of answer had been given to those propositions. Now, I am as anxious as any one to have a discussion on this question of Poland; but I put it to my hon. Friend whether, when the majority has expressed its desire that the discussion should not go on until some answer has been received from Russia, it will be possible for him to bring it on so early as Thursday. At the same time, I do hope that at the earliest possible moment of the receipt of the answer of the Russian Government the noble Lord the leader of this House will give the hon. Member for the King's County that to which he is entitled—namely, an opportunity of raising this question. Then I think the House will be in a position to come to such a decision as, I believe, will most materially strengthen the hands of Her Majesty's Government in their negotiations. In reference to what has fallen from the noble Lord (Viscount Palmerston), I should like to ask two questions. It has been known for some time past that the Austrian Government has submitted six propositions to the Government of England and the Government of France—propositions which evidently have been accepted by the English Government with certain modifications. Now, the noble Lord said that the Austrian Government rather adhered to the idea that the future constitution of Poland should be something in the nature of that accorded by themselves to Galicia. I wish to know from the noble Lord whether we are to understand, although that is the opinion of the Austrian Government, yet that they have entirely agreed to the proposition of France and England that there should be a national representation accorded to Poland. There is another difference between the propositions originally made by Austria and those which the noble Lord has announced to us to-night. The Austrian proposition was, that the Poles should be in a large measure employed in the administration of Poland. The noble Lord has told us to-night that the proposition of the English Government is that Poles only should be employed in administering the government of their country. I wish to know whether that modification has been assented to by the Austrian Government; I wish to know, in fact, whether the six propositions which the noble Lord has, in substance, submitted to us, have the support of both the Government of France and the Government of Austria? With refer-

  1273
  ence to the answer that has been given by the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, I presume he will lose no time in laying on the table those communications which are the foundation of the announcement he made this evening.
  MR. SCULLYsaid, he hoped a reply would be given to the question whether the six propositions referred to all Russian Poland, or merely to that portion of it with which the Treaty of Vienna dealt. It would be necessary to know that before the six points came on for discussion. In fact, the whole affair was merely deluding the Poles, who would be the greatest fools in the world to lay down their arms until a treaty was concluded. It was equally absurd to suppose that the Russian Government would agree to place the Poles in the highest situations in the kingdom, If any foreign Power were to ask Her Majesty's Government to place Irishmen in that position in Ireland, they would be told to mind their own affairs. He had had Polish gentlemen coming to him to get him to raise the question of Poland in the House; but he always told them that it would be only deluding them if he were to do so, as they never would get anything from the English House of Commons, but tall talk. He was much obliged to the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs for having communicated to the House the telegram which he had received about that hideous rumour that women were to be flogged; but if that was not to be done, other atrocities almost as bad were perpetrated. He had seen it stated about a month ago that a proclamation had been found in the pockets of the Russian soldiers calling upon them for the love of God and the Czar to butcher every Catholic Pole that might fall into their hands. He had received a letter from a Polish gentleman, which said—
  "The Czar now offers us his forgiveness. My countrymen have done nothing for which they ought to receive pardon. But they have a long score of wrongs against him, for which they will make him go upon his knees."
  The writer added in a postscript, "Two thousand Minié rifles from Ireland would be most acceptable." The gentleman did not know, thought he ought to have known, there were no rifles in Ireland. Ireland was an unarmed nation. It seemed to him that the hon. Member for the King's County was in the position of the hon. Member for Liskeard (Mr. B. Osborne) the other night, when he confessed himself to have been "a miserable dupe;" but he
  1274
  would not lend him the least aid in bringing on the subject of Poland. He was satisfied that it would lead to nothing but mere vapouring, and would do Poland no good. Besides, there was no atrocity which the Russians had perpetrated which could not be matched by the atrocities committed by English soldiers in Ireland.
  MR. WYLDsaid, that as far as they could gather, the basis of the propositions made by the allied Powers was the constitution granted to the Poles in 1815. He wished to know whether the propositions submitted to the Russian Government went to this extent—that the officials who were to have the administration of Poland were to be Poles, and also that that part of the constitution granted by the Emperor Alexander at Vienna—namely, a national army officered by Poles—was to be carried into effect.
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: With regard to the questions of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Limerick (Mr. Monsell). I have to say that "a complete amnesty" must of course apply to all who have been in arms against the Russian Government, whether within the Kingdom of Poland or the other provinces. The other arrangements relate, of course, only to the Kingdom of Poland, as described in the Treaty of Vienna. With regard to the question of the hon. Member opposite (Mr. S. Fitzgerald), I have to state that the six points which we have proposed were prepared by my noble Friend at the head of the Foreign Office, and agreed to by the Government of Franco, and, with some slight modifications, by the Government of Austria. But although it is my duty to state to the House what we have done, I am sure they will see it is not fitting I should enter into detailed explanations as to communications made to us by other Governments, and of which we are officially in possession. I have to state, generally speaking, the communications of France and of Austria are to the same effect as ours. I omit to give the names of other Governments who have made representations to the Government of Russia on the same subject. With regard to the question put by the hon. Member (Mr. Wyld), I think it would be rather a strong proposal to make to Russia, that she should organize a Polish army, to be officered by Poles.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERhoped that the hon. Member for the King's County would not bring on a discussion so early as Thursday; and he did so for the reason

  1275
  that they were in a position different from that they occupied at the commencement of the evening, inasmuch as they had the propositions made to Russia by the Government, but they were not in possession of the reply of Russia. After what had passed, he felt sure that the noble Lord would give the hon. Member a day for the discussion, and that with the assent of the House—first, because of the original compact between the noble Lord and the hon. Member; and secondly, because, if the noble Lord's statement had been made before the division, a long discussion would have taken place that night. The House would be in a very false position if it attempted to enter into a debate on this question previous to Her Majesty's Government receiving an answer to the propositions they had made. He hoped, therefore, that the hon. Gentleman would wait a few days for that answer.
  MR. HENNESSYsaid, he should be most happy to do whatever the House might direct. He believed that it was the opinion of the House, that until the reply of the Russian Government was laid on the table, the debate on Poland should be postponed; and he presumed that at the proper period the Government would give him an opportunity for bringing it on.
  Question, "That this House do now adjourn,"—(Mr. Horsman,)—put, and negatived.

PASSENGERS ACT AMENDMENT BILL.

  [BILL 143.] COMMITTEE.
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 3 (Definition of "Passenger Ship" enlarged).
  MR. CAVEproposed to leave out the words "in all," because the words rendered the meaning doubtful as to whether cabin passengers might not be included.
  MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUEassented.
  Clause 8 (Horses and Cattle may be carried in Passenger Ships under certain Conditions).
  MR. CAVEsaid, he had given notice of an Amendment to the effect that animals might be carried below. He had once been in a steamer in a gale of wind which caused her to strain very much, and the passengers were far more inconvenienced by the washing from the pens through the seams of the deck than they could have
  1276
  been if the animals bad been carried below. His hon. Friend had assented to the principle of his Amendment; but as he preferred his own words, he (Mr. Cave) would not move his Amendment, but leave his hon. Friend to move his.
  MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUEthen moved that Condition 1 run thus—
  "That animals be not carried on any deck below that on which passengers are berthed, nor in any adjoining compartment, except in a ship built of iron, and of which the compartments are divided off by watertight bulkheads extending to the upper deck."
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. CAVEmoved in the 2nd condition, that "ten" be substituted for fifteen. He said that by the Passenger Act a space of five superficial feet on deck was considered enough for each passenger, and it would surely be enough to double this when a few animals were allowed to be carried.
  MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUEsaid, that the Bill was chiefly a relaxation of the law in respect to passenger ships; still the comfort and safety of the passenger ought to be the first consideration. He thought, however, that the space proposed by his hon. Friend would be sufficient, and he therefore assented to the Amendment.
  MR. CAVEthen moved that in Condition 3 "fifteen" should be substituted for ten. By the Passenger Act fifty passengers might be carried to a hundred tons; fifteen, therefore, could not be too many when there were animals.
  Motion agreed to.
  MR. CAVEthen moved that in Condition 4 "ten" be substituted for "six," as the number of cattle which might be carried.
  Motion agreed to.
  MR. CAVEthen moved this addition to Clause 11—
  "Provided that cabin passengers shall not be entitled to recover, under the said section, more than half the money which may have been paid on account of their passage."
  He said that cabin passengers' stores consisted chiefly of live stock and perishable articles, which, if not used, would often be lost or wasted, whereas ordinary passengers' provisions resembled the common ships' stores, which would keep good, and might be used for the crew. In some of the small ports a man might, if he changed his mind about sailing, get a certificate of sickness for a shilling; and if all his pas-

  1277
  sage-money was to be returned, great loss must be inflicted on the shipowner.
  MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUEconcurred in the justice of this view, but would prefer, instead of his hon. Friend's Amendment, these words—"Provided that in the case of cabin passengers so landed, only one half the passage-money be recoverable."
  MR. CAVEcould not object to his hon. Friend's preferring his own words, which were substantially the same as the Amendment he had himself proposed.
  Remaining clauses agreed to.

THAMES EMBANKMENT (SOUTH SIDE) (re-committed) BILL— [BILL 171.]

  COMMITTEE.
  Bill considered in Committee,
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 1 to 24 agreed to.
  Clause 25 (Power to Board to borrow for Purposes of this Act).
  MR COXobjected to the provision enabling the Metropolitan Board of Works to borrow £700,000. He contended that they could only calculate on a surplus of, £481,000, and that if the proposal in the clause were adopted, they should eventually have to levy a rate for payment of £219,000, he proposed to omit from the clause "£700,000," for the purpose of inserting"£481,000."
  MR. TITEsaid, that it did not much matter whether the Amendment was agreed to or not; the money would never be wanted, from the simple fact that the revenue derived from the coal duties would be amply sufficient to carry out all the metropolitan improvements contemplated by the his embankment. This clause merely gave power to anticipate some of those revenues by borrowing on the security of the general rates.
  MR. COWPERsaid, that he had no objection to make to the proposition of the hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. Cox). He thought the figures, as they stood, were inserted by mistake. The amount was proposed without being submitted to him, though he had charge of the Bill. He thought the House should grant the power to borrow £481,000, but it would not be right to give power to borrow more.
  MR. DOULTONsubmitted that notice should have been given of the intention to propose this alteration in the Bill. The Metropolitan Board of Works expected to obtain £481,000 from the coal and wine
  1278
  duties and £425,000 from the re-sale of land. They anticipated, therefore, to have funds amounting to £900,000. There was nothing, therefore, unreasonable in asking permission to borrow £700,000 of that sum. He asked the Committee to consider what would be the position of the question, even supposing the assumption of the hon. Member for Finsbury should prove correct, and that ultimately there should be a charge on account of the expense on the ratepayers of the metropolis. No charge whatever could, by any menus, for twenty years come upon the ratepayers. At the end of that time the deficiency could not exceed ¾d. in the pound; and for the sake of that amount the right hon. Gentleman asked them to disagree with the Report of the Committee upstairs. If they were not allowed to charge the rates for the purpose of improving the metropolis, there was no other fund to charge, and the improvements would not he carried out.
  SIR JOHN SHELLEYreminded the Committee, that when the Thames embankment was proposed, it was distinctly stated that the cost of the work would be defrayed by the wine and coal duties exclusively, He supported the Amendment.
  MR. W. WILLIAMSwished to know upon whose estimate did the right hon. Gentleman rely when he said the embankment on the Surrey side would be carried out for £480,000.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause agreed to, as were also Clause 26 to 28,
  Clause 20 (Board may give their general Fund as collateral Security).
  MR. COXobjected to giving power to the Metropolitan Board to pledge the rates of the metropolis as security, in addition to the coal tax and wine duties. This was contrary to the original proposition. He moved the omission of the clause.
  MR. COWPERthought the clause very reasonable.
  SIR JOHN SHELLEYthought that this power was not in accordance with the understanding that the cost of the embankment should be defrayed out of the coal tax and wine dues.
  MR. DOULTONsaid, that the only object of the clause was to facilitate the borrowing of money, and enable it to be obtained at a lower rate of interest.
  MR. COWPERsaid, he was not responsible for this clause, which was proposed by the Metropolitan Board. He admitted that a clear distinction ought to

  1279
  be drawn between the coal and wine dues and the rates, but it was not intended that any portion of the latter should be applied to defray the cost of the embankment. The clause was intended to enable the Board to borrow money on more favourable terms. It was not intended to raise any portion of the funds to be expended on the embankment from the rates, but these were to be made a security for a temporary loan to be repaid from the other funds at the disposal of the Board. This might be to a slight degree a departure from that principle, but he did not believe it would lead to any practical violation of it.
  MR. TITEsaid, that there was no chance that the rates would be touched under this clause. Its object was simply to put the Metropolitan Board in better credit.
  SIR JOHN SHELLEYrepeated his objection to the clause.
  LORD ROBERT CECILhoped the Government would adhere to the clause as it stood. The question was one between the rich and the poor. It was clear that the proposed works were for the benefit of the wealthier classes chiefly, and therefore he thought that they ought to look to the rates generally for carrying them out, and not exclusively to the coal duties.
  MR. W. WILLIAMSsupported the clause, because its object was, by enabling the Metropolitan Board to borrow at a cheaper rate, to render it more unlikely that the rates would have to contribute anything to this work.
  THE LORD MAYOR (Mr. Alderman ROSE)thought that it was desirable that the two accounts should be kept separate. He opposed the clause.
  Clause agreed to; as were the remaining Clauses.
  House resumed.
  Bill reported; as amended, to be considered To-morrow, at Twelve of the clock.

PIER AND HARBOUR ORDERS CONFIRMATION BILL.

  [BILL 148.] CONSIDERATION.
  Bill, as amended, considered.
  MR. BASS, in moving that the provisional order with respect to the construction of a pier at Rhyl be reinstated in the Bill, said, that he had no interest whatever in the matter, but he had received representations from a source on which he had every reliance that the House had been influenced by mis-statements when this
  1280
  question was last under discussion. A Petition against the Bill had been signed by 160 persons at Rhyl, but many who had signed were neither ratepayers nor owners of property, and one person who called himself "Master of the Rolls," was a baker. On the other hand, the Petition in favour of the Bill was signed by nearly 300 persons, who were amongst the largest owners of property in the place. The pier was opposed by three or four landed proprietors and a powerful railway interest, and no doubt these were conflicting interests. But he called upon the House to support the unanimous decision of the Committee by whom this measure had been considered. It was said that the opponents of the Bill had had no opportunity of appearing; but though it was held that they had no locus standi against the preamble, they were invited to appear against the clause, and refused to do so.
  MR. SPEAKERsaid, the proper course would be for the hon. Gentleman to move the re-committal of the Bill in order to reinsert the provisional order relating to Rhyl.
  MR. BASSaccordingly moved that the Bill be re-committed.
  MR. HUMBERSTONobjected to the Motion. The matter had been discussed a few nights since in a very full House, and no good reason had been assigned for now seeking to reverse the decision then come to. He did not concur in the opinion that the general feeling of the town of Rhyl was in favour of the pier, as the particular site that had been selected was most objectionable.
  MR. PAULLsupported the Motion. He had no personal acquaintance with the town of Rhyl; but having been the author of the Bill, he naturally felt an interest in seeing that its benefits were extended to all localities which desired them. He did not think that the House were taken by surprise the other evening when the provisional order was rejected, but he thought some of the arguments that were then used were of a suspicious character. The promoters of the Bill had complied with all the requirements of the Act, and had given full notice of their intentions. The Board of Trade had been accused of neglecting its functions, but he did not think that charge was justified. Captain Sulivan, to whom the question was referred, had reported that the spot selected for the pier was the best that could be found on the whole estuary.
  LORD RICHMAND GROSVENORsaid, that he had, as Member for Flintshire, been at considerable pains to ascertain how the inhabitants of Rhyl felt with reference to this Bill, and he found they were decidedly and strongly opposed to it. This pier would be of no use to them. Of thirty Commissioners sixteen had signed the Petition against the Bill.
  MR. SERJEANT PIGOTTcould not understand why the House should throw discredit on the Pier and Harbour Act of 1861, and on the finding of the Select Committee which had sat on the merits of this Bill. After hearing the parties the Committee decided that the preamble was proved, and their decision should be final, unless it was intended to impeach their conduct on the ground of irregularity or unfairness.
  COLONEL ROWLEYhoped the House would not consent to reverse the decision to which it came on Monday. The inhabitants of Rhyl were generally adverse to this scheme, the carrying-out of which would be injurious to the place.
  MR. LIDDELLthought the effect of the vote of the other evening was that the House refused to confirm the provisional order in regard to Rhyl, and that therefore the order then and there ceased to exist. He doubted whether, in point of form, the House was in a position now to re-commit the Bill for the purpose contemplated by the hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Bass).
  MR. H. ROBERTSONsaid, there had been no inquiry into the merits of the case by the Committee. The proposed pier interfered with an important part of the estuary of the Voryd, the only navigable harbour on the coast of Carnarvonshire.
  MR. WYLDsaid, that Captain Sulivan, of the Board of Trade, gave evidence before the Committee, that the pier, so far from obstructing, would promote the navigation of the river. The House ought to bear in mind that the Committee came to their decision after hearing evidence on the subject, and it was not usual for the House to reverse the decision of a Committee without very good cause for such a proceeding.
  MR. MILNER GIBSONthought the House was occupied with this subject more than its importance deserved; but he should support the Motion for the re-committal of the Bill. The position of this Provisional Order was that of a pri-
  1282
  vate Bill which had passed through all its stages, and which it was proposed to throw out by a decision of the House. It was of importance to understand that under this Provisional Order nothing could be done which affected the accession to any navigation. They had no compulsory power of taking land; everything was to be done by consent. The only powers conferred was that of taking tolls, in case a pier was erected, from those using it. He thought it better not to have Select Committees at all, if their decisions were to be reversed by the House. It was a case of competition with an existing pier.
  MR BRIGHTsaid, that the opponents of the Provisional Order could come before the House of Lords, where, no doubt, their case would receive ample attention. The case was so extremely clear that he was surprised hon. Gentlemen should oppose the reinstatement of the Provisional Order regarding Rhyl.
  Motion made, and Question put, "That the Bill be re-committed in respect of the Schedule, so far as the same relates to the Pier at Ryhl."—(Mr. Bass.)
  The House divided:—Ayes 50; Noes 19; Majority 31.
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  MR. BASSagain called attention to the position in which they would be placed by reinstating the Provisional Order in regard to Rhyl. The people of Rhyl were opposed to the pier, and their case was not brought before the Committee. He should oppose the reinstatement of Rhyl in the schedule.
  Motion made, and Question put, "That the Schedule be amended, by inserting the Provisional Order relating to the Pier at Rhyl."—(Mr. Bass.)
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 50; Noes 28: Majority 22.
  House resumed.
  Bill reported; as amended, to be considered To-morrow.

POOR REMOVAL (No. 2) BILL [MR. HERBER]

  [BILL 96.] COMMITTEE.
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 1 (Provision for Removal of Natives of England or Scotland).
  MR. HENLEYdesired to point out to

  1283
  the President of the Poor Law Board the severity with which the clause would operate. For instance, supposing a man born in England went and settled in Ireland: though not chargeable himself, he had children who might be twenty or thirty years of age; and if one of those children became chargeable, according to this clause they could seize the man, who was not chargeable, and bring him and his family back to England. He thought that could hardly be meant.
  MR. HERBERTsaid, the clause was copied verbatim from the English Act.
  MR. HENLEY: Then the English Act must be very had if its effect could be such as he had pointed out.
  MR. C. TURNERobjected to the clause as it stood, inasmuch as it gave no corresponding powers in favour of England to those which it proposed to confer on the boards of guardians in Ireland with respect to persons born in this country. As the law now stood, the children of an Irishman who had come over to this country—that is, the children born here—became chargeable in this country. Supposing the Irishman had come over to reap, for instance, and brought his wife with him, as he generally did, the offspring became chargeable; and it was by no means uncommon for Irishwomen to come over to England for the purpose of being confined here. They went into the workhouse at Liverpool, and their progeny became chargeable. It was desirable that some limit should be placed to this system; and with this view he moved, as an Amendment in Clause 1, line 14, after the word "Scotland," the insertion of the words "of English or Scotch parents, or of Irish parents having a settlement in England or Scotland, or being irremovable there from by reason of length of residence."
  Amendment proposed,
  In line 14, after the word "Scotland," to insert the words "of English or Scotch parents, or of Irish parents having a settlement in England or Scotland, or being irremovable there from by reason of length of residence."—(Mr. Charles Turner.)
  MR. HARVEY LEWISsupported the Amendment, which he regarded as a very reasonable one.
  MR. HERBERTsaid, that when he told the right hon. Member for Oxfordshire that the clause was copied from the English Act, the right hon. Member turned round and said it was a very bad law. It was no part of his duty to justify the law
  1284
  involved in this clause. The object of the present Bill was to assimilate the laws of the two countries; and if the law was bad, let it be altered for both countries. The hon. Member for South Lancashire (Mr. C. Turner) mentioned the case of Irishwomen in the Liverpool workhouse who declared that they came over to be confined. Now, he doubted whether Irishwomen came over on purpose to be confined in England. The Irish who had children born to them in this country were persons who came over to labour, and were frequently worn out by work in making fortunes for great English manufacturers, when they were turned off, and sent to rot in an Irish workhouse. In Ireland there was no power of removal. An Englishwoman, the wife of a soldier, in passing through Kerry gave birth to a child, which was taken to India, and subsequently becoming chargeable in England, was removed to Kerry, a settlement being claimed solely on the ground that the child was born during its mother's passage through Kerry. The Amendment proposed by the hon. Member for South Lancashire would render the whole Bill invalid, because it would be impossible to prove whether the parents had, perhaps Borne thirty or fifty years before, achieved their irremovability in England.
  SIR BALDWIN LEIGHTONsaid, with regard to the objection that it would be difficult to discover a settlement after the lapse of thirty or forty years, that many hon. Gentlemen knew it was very often the case that questions as to settlement very often arose, after years had passed away, between one parish and another in England; and he did not see why the Irish should have an advantage over the English in this respect. Before there was any talk of reciprocity, the law of settlement in Ireland ought to be assimilated to that of England.
  MR. C. TURNERmentioned that women actually crossed from Ireland to England in order to be confined here.
  MR. HUSSEY VIVIANobserved, that if an Irishman had been three years in England, he could not be removed. It was not true, therefore, that after taking the benefit of Irish labourers, they were sent back to rot in their native land. It should also be remembered that there were no English tramps and vagrants in Ireland, whereas shoals of these sort of people came over here from the sister country. The Amendment proposed by

  1285
  the hon. Member (Mr. C. Turner), would obviate whatever the hon. Member for Deny complained of, in the case of the soldier's child, provided the parents were English.
  MR. BUTTsaid, he approved the clause as it stood, but he was quite willing to agree to a provision by which no English-man should be removable from Ireland under such circumstances as would render an Irishman irremovable in England. Practically, an Irish settlement was enforced here on a person who was born across the Channel. The Amendment of the hon. Member for South Lancashire would neutralise the Bill. The English got the advantage of Irish absentees, both rich and poor, and ought to bear the corresponding disadvantages.
  MR. C. P. VILLIERSthought that the objectors to this clause, instead of charging his right hon Friend with overlooking the English law of settlement, were open to that charge themselves. The question was not so much what loss would he inflicted upon England, as what was the present law of settlement. A child horn in a parish had a settlement there, unless it could be proved that the child derived any other settlement. It did not signify whether the child was of Irish or of foreign parents. If found chargeable elsewhere, it was removable to where it had a birth settlement, if no other settlement could be found. It was no more unjust to the place where the child was born whether it was removed from the extreme end of England or from Ireland. The power of removal did not change the law of settlement, and it would not be likely that removals would be made by the warrant of a magistrate more frequently than was now done by simply giving the person 2s. 6d. to go back to the place where he would be chargeable. He thought the fears which had been expressed were exaggerated, and that nothing could be more proper than to make the law in Ireland the same as in England. He could not agree to the Amendment, because it would, in fact, render the Bill inoperative, and he thought it would be more open to say at once they would not give the power of removal to Ireland.
  MR. COLLINSsaid, that if there was a law of settlement in Ireland, and no law of derivative settlement in England, no injustice would be done by the Bill to English parishes. But, as that was not so, this Bill would put Irishmen in a better
  1286
  position than Englishmen, and produce an inequality which did not now exist. He hoped, therefore, that the Committee would consent to the Amendment.
  MR. M'MAHONbelieved it would be of great service to Ireland if there were a law of settlement in that country, as the knowledge that evicted tenants would come on the rates would put a stop to evictions and bring about peace and tranquillity.
  MR. LOCKEhoped the wretched antiquated law of settlement would never be extended to Ireland. No one who had experienced the iniquities of the English Poor Law would wish to introduce it into any other country, He had always been an adovocate of one simple settlement, and he supported the Bill in the hope that it would lead to re-consideration of the English Poor Law, with a view to its assimilation to the Irish law.
  SIR HERVEY BRUCEsaid, he was opposed to the introduction of the English law of settlement into Ireland, and his principal objection to this Bill was that it assimilated the Irish law to the English.
  Question put," That those words be there inserted."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 73; Noes 43: Majority 30.
  MR. HERBERTmoved that the Chairman report progress, in order that he might consider what course he should take with the Bill. It would be trifling with the House to ask them to go on at present with the Bill after an Amendment had been carried which virtually destroyed the force of it.
  MR. MAGUIREsuggested that the right hon. Gentleman should abandon the Bill. He did not think the measure a wise or a politic one, and he did not much regret a division that had thoroughly crippled it. He objected altogether to the principle of removal.
  MR. M'MAHONhoped the right hon. Member would state whether he meant to abandon or to go on with the Bill. He thought it was a very useful measure, and he recommended the right hon. Gentleman to proceed.
  COLONEL FRENCHthought his right hon. Friend would do quite right in abandoning the Bill.
  MR. COLLINSsupported the Motion for reporting progress, as likely to prevent confusion.
  MR. BUTTintimated his intention, should the Bill be pressed further, to move

  1287
  an Amendment to neutralize the power of removal in England, as had just been done in the case of Ireland.
  MR. HENNESSYsaid, that in everything relating to the Irish poor the House of Commons was always inclined to act rather harshly. In England the Irish poor were oppressed.
  SIR JOHN TROLLOPEsaid, that what Irish Members should aim at was the abolition of the English law of settlement. The main principle had been knocked out of the Bill, and the sooner it was abandoned the better.
  MR. HERBERTdid not wish to pledge himself to any course. He merely wanted time for consideration. He would state on Thursday what course he would take.
  House resumed.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again on Thursday.

  PRISONS (IRELAND) BILL.
  On Motion of Sir HERVEY BRUCE, Bill to amend the Law relating to Prisons in Ireland, ordered to be brought in by Sir HERVEY BRUCE and Sir FREDERICK HEYGATE.
  Bill presented, and read 1o. [Bill 178.]

  NUISANCES REMOVAL ACT (1855) AMENDMENT BILL.
  On Motion of Viscount RATNHAM, Bill to amend the Nuisances Removal Act for England, 1855, with respect to the seizure of diseased and unwholesome Meat, ordered to be brought in by Viscount RAYNHAM and Mr. SCHOLEFIRLD.
  Bill presented, and read 1o. [Bill 179.]

  MIDWIFERY BILL.
  On Motion of Viscount RAYNHAM, Bill to prohibit Unqualified Persons from the practice of Midwifery, ordered to be brought in by Viscount RAYNHAM and Mr. BROWN-WESTHEAD.
  Bill presented, and read 1o. [Bill 180.]

  POISONING BILL.
  On Motion of Viscount RATNHAM, Bill for the prevention of Accidental Poisoning, ordered to be brought in by Viscount RATNHAM and Mr. WYKEHAM MARTIN.
  Bill presented, and read 1o. [Bill 181.]

  DUCHY OF CORNWALL MANAGEMENT (1863) BILL [Lords],
  Bill read 1o; to be read 2o on Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 182.]
  House adjourned at half after Eleven o'clock.

MINUTES.
SELECT COMMITTEE—Library of the House (List of the Committee).
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy [H.L.] (No. 150); Militia Pay*.
Second Reading—African Slave Trade Treaty* (No. 129); Volunteers (No. 140); Regimental Debts, &c.*(No. 141); Charitable Uses* (No. 152).
Committee—Thames Embankment (North Side)* (No. 107).
Report—London Coal and Wine Duties Continuance* (No. 104).
Third Reading—Prison Ministers (No. 146); Bleaching and Dyeing Works Act Amendment* (No. 43); Local Government Supplemental* (No. 130); and severally passed.
Royal Assent—Dockyards Protection Act Amendment [26 & 27 Vict., c. 30];
Cayman Islands [26 & 27 Vict., c. 31];

LIBRARY OF THE HOUSE.
Select Committee to consider of certain Matters relative to the Library of this House and to the Papers and Documents delivered for their Lordships' House, appointed. The Lords following were named of the Committee:—

L. Abp. Canterbury.

L. Ponsonby.

Ld. Chancellor.

L. Wycombe.

Ld. President.

L. Redesdale.

Ld. Privy Seal.

L. Colchester.

D. Richmond.

L. Somerhill.

M. Bath.

L. Brougham & Vaux.

E. Stanhope.

L. Monteagle of Brandon.

E. Malmesbury

E. Russell.

L. Cranworth.

V. Eversley.

L. St. Leonards.

L. Willoughby de Eresby.

L. Wensleydale.

L. Chelmsford.

L. Colville of Culross.

L. Kingsdown.

BRAZIL—THE SLAVE TRADE.

  QUESTION.
  LORD BROUGHAMsaid, he wished to ask his noble Friend the Foreign Secretary, Whether he had any objection to produce a Despatch or Note from Senhor d'Abrantes, to our Chargé d'Affaires at Rio, on the subject of the Slave Trade; also, whether, if the Note had not arrived in this country, he had any objection to produce the Despatch of our Minister in reference to the matter, or any Communication which might have taken place with respect to the liberation of Slaves at Rio? Having put these Questions to his noble Friend, he would take occasion to say that he very much regretted the course of conduct pursued by the Brassilia Government in more respects than one; but especially

  1227
  towards the captured slaves for whose liberation Senhor d'Abrantes stated active measures were to be taken; but at the same time he must admit that the conduct of Brazil in relation to the slave trade generally had been most admirable, and presented a very favourable contrast to that of Spain. In the year 1858–9, 50,000 slaves were imported into Brazil. The Brazilian Government, however, took steps to make the trade piracy, or at least a capital offence, and the effect was that the number of slaves imported became reduced to one-half in the next year, and to little more than 10,000 in the year following; the reduction being so complete in the fourth year as to amount to an abolition almost as great as had been effected in any of our West Indian dependencies. While, however, such was the conduct of Brazil, the Spanish Government had fulfilled only one part of the treaty into which it entered in respect to the slave trade. They received £500,000 sterling by way of compensation for consenting to its abolition; but, instead of abolishing it, Governors were sent out to Cuba to recruit their ruined fortunes by conniving at its continuance. One Governor, who happened not to stand in want of money, reduced the trade very considerably; but he was in the next year succeeded by another, who, being a needy man, took bribes from the slave traders, and thus permitted the traffic to increase. There had been instances of fortunes of £90,000 or £100,000 being made by Spanish Governors in that way, and the trade at present was so great that 23,000 were annually imported into Cuba. While Spain had acted in that manner, the Brazilian Government and people had not been slow to improve the social position of persons of colour, as was evidenced by the fact that the physician of the Emperor of Brazil, some two or three years ago, was a man of colour, and that the various offices in the State were open to the class to which he belonged. He wished he could pay a similar compliment to the people of the United States; but it was well known that they practised no such liberality and justice. To show how little the people of those States were inclined to liberality in this matter, he might mention that when some years ago an International Congress was held, attended by delegates from all quarters, the two American delegates were so offended by the introduction of Dr. Delany and some other gentlemen of colour
  1228
  to the Congress, that they resigned their positions at once, and ceased to attend its meetings.
  EARL RUSSELLsaid, there was no objection to produce the Papers referred to by the noble and learned Lord.

OATHS OF ALLEGIANCE AND SUPREMACY.

  BILL PRESENTED. FIRST READING.
  LORD CAMPBELLsaid, that the difficulty of engaging the attention of the House to the subject of his notice, after the much more interesting topics they had recently debated, was so great that nothing but a sense of duty would have led him for a moment to attempt it. To guard himself in some degree against the charges of rashness and presumption, he might mention that since the general election of 1847, which had forced the question of the oaths on the public and on Parliament, his attention had happened to be very much directed to it. He should ask the House to read a Bill for the first time, and give, as rapidly as possible, an explanatory statement of its objects, having no intention or desire to proceed to any further stage during the Session. The uncertainty of being able at any future time to offer such an explanation alone induced him now to trespass on the goodness of their Lordships. There were only three points on which it was essential that he should gain the concurrence of the House:—First, the necessity of revising and amending the arrangement of the oaths formed in 1858, when they were last adjusted; secondly, on the principle which ought to govern such revision and amendment; thirdly, on the safest and the most convenient application of the principle. And it was only on the first of these three points that it was requisite to dwell, not with length indeed, but with anxiety. If a clear and obvious case for further legislation was established, an imperfect and erroneous scheme would not be viewed with harshness or severity; if no sufficient reasons were advanced for agitation of the subject, a Bill, however perfect it might seem in principle and detail, would very justly be resented by their Lordships, inasmuch as the great and the established principle of Quieta non movere would then have been improperly departed from. It was difficult for noble Lords to summon the year 1858 to their memory, intercepted as it was by the size and splendour of the

  1229
  objects which had since then demanded the attention of the world. But if we had imagination to revive it, if noble Lords could suddenly transport themselves into its discussions and its conflicts, no argument would be necessary to show that the conclusion then arrived at on the oaths was temporary and provisional. What was the arrangement? Two Acts of Parliament were carried by Lord John Russell and Lord Lucan. The first created a new oath with a profession of Christianity appended to it. The second gave both Houses of Parliament the discretionary power to exempt Jewish Members (no one else) from making the profession appended to that oath, but not from making the profession appended to any other. The arrangement was substantially unchanged, although two further Acts of Parliament—one in 1859, one in 1860—had immaterially modified it. How did it arise? Lord John Russell carried through the House of Commons a Bill by which Jews would have become admissible to Parliament. The House of Lords amended it in such a way as to exclude them. Much controversy arose between the Houses and much excitement in the country. Mr. Thomas Duncombe, suddenly relying on a precedent, persuaded the House of Commons that Baron Rothschild might sit upon Committees without subscribing to the oaths. So great was the perplexity that a solution then appeared to be essential, no matter how crude, or hurried, or anomalous, provided it would give at once at least a respite to the discord of the Legislature. Lord Lyndhurst and Lord Lucan both came forward with proposals. That of Lord Lyndhurst was withdrawn, that of Lord Lucan was amended, and in a great degree transformed, at the request of the noble Earl who then led the Government. The Bill which the Commons had sent up, and that which their Lordships had originated, were at last so interwoven as to be essential to each other, and in that way reached the statute-book together. He had given the outline of what took place in 1858, in order to explain that the result did not represent the mind or judgment of any one who took part in the discussion in Parliament or out of it. It was not the plan of Lord John Russell or Lord Lyndhurst, or Lord Lucan, or the Opposition, or the Government. It was rather a fortuitous conclusion emerging from a multiplicity of councillors, an exuberance of projects, a rivalry of objects, and a chaos of ideas. And from such ele-
  1230
  ments of birth it was not to be expected that a sound or final system would present itself. But what language was employed by those who gave their sanction to it. It was one of reservation and of protest. Every one accepted it as a temporary exit from a difficult emergency. Every one condemned it as a lasting settlement of a long-agitated problem. He would not quote the Parliamentary debates, but he would refer to what might be regarded in the light of history—the fact, namely, that Lord Palmerston on one side, Mr. Spencer Walpole on the other, both clearly intimated, in assenting to it, that the question could not be considered as disposed of, and that further legislation was inevitable. What defects did it contain to bring about that general conviction of its being inadequate and temporary? To give a special class exemption from a statute by Resolutions or by Standing Order, by many had been deemed unconstitutional, and by all was said to be invidious. It was a dispensing power such as the Crown had formerly pretended to. The permissory power established by Lord Lucan's Bill was confined to the oath established in Lord John Russell's Bill. Lord John Russell had declared that that oath contained some things which ought not to be there, or at least ought not to be perpetuated. But in order to correct it Baron Rothschild must be driven out of Parliament, and all the former agitation brought again into existence, since the discretionary power to admit him vanished with that single oath. So long as the scheme of 1858 remained, there would always be a disposition in the House of Commons to amend it, and Bills might reach the House of Lords which they were not inclined to accept. In 1860 this had happened. But far more grave was the objection that debates in the House of Commons may occur at any moment on the Standing Order by which the Jewish members were admitted. And they inevitably would arise if parties happened to be evenly divided. For the last twenty years we had not seen the results of a contention between two parties of equal strength and equal aspiration. Let any one recall the close of Sir R. Walpole's Government about 1740, when the sick and dying were brought down to the floor of the House of Commons to divide, and ask himself whether at such moments no attempt would have been made to rescind a Standing Order which gave half a dozen votes to one party or the other.

  1231
  Let any one recall the time when Mr. Pitt came in a second time about 1805, when, on the impeachment of Lord Melville, 216 voted for, and 216 against him, and the Speaker took a quarter of an hour to decide his casting vote; and consider whether at the beginning of the Parliament no attempt would have been made to rescind a Standing Order which might give to Opposition or to Government the triumph each was eagerly pursuing. Or, if those illustrations were too distant, let any one recall the latter years of Lord Melbourne's Government, when power turned on a majority of two or three, and ask himself whether at that time the Standing Order would not have been questioned by whichever party it might injure. Whenever, therefore, a condition always possible arose, the whole question would revive which in 1858 men felt so anxious to get rid of. It would be admitted on these grounds that the legislation of that year required to be amended. On what principle, however, was a juster settlement attainable? He (Lord Campbell) was anxious to repudiate the principle which belonged to the Bill of 1858 when it first left the Commons, and was first presented to their Lordships. A profession of Christianity appended to the oath clearly had no value, unless universal in the obligation to subscribe to it. It could not be a test if those who disbelieved in Christianity were exempted from the action it would have upon them; nor could it stamp the character and colour of that faith upon Parliament, when only taken by a portion. On the contrary, in such a case it would exhibit and define the fact that Parliament, on that vital question, was divided. So far from adding a new sanction to, it disparaged to some extent the daily service by which, in both Houses, business was preceded—revealing, with the precision and authority of law, the fact that a class of Members differed from the faith implied in such a mode of worship. They were thus naturally led to the alternative—namely, that the oaths should be so framed as to be available for all whom the law admitted into Parliament, and no necessity exist for the exemptions or the privileges by which a section was enabled to avoid the forms imposed on the remainder of the Legislature. [The noble Lord then discussed the different forms in which that principle was applicable.] The oath of 1829, passed for Roman Catholics, contained no phrases or positions which could debar the Protestant or Jewish Mem-
  1232
  bers from subscribing to it. If adopted as the single oath, religious lines of demarcation would vanish from the Legislature. In the judgment of Lord John Russell, as expressed in 1858, they ought to do so. The oath of 1829, however, was modern in its character—and the value of such forms depended in some degree on their duration and antiquity. The Roman Consul, who, when Corinth fell into his power, and when rare and valuable sculpture had to be transmitted to his country, explained to the contractors for its passage, that should damage take place, new figures would be rigorously called for, illustrated the type of intellect which overlooks a vital truth—namely, that no modern form of words can have the solemnity and dignity of those which have already linked ages, generations, Parliaments together. The proposition he had ventured to embody in the Bill was, leaving the oath of abjuration in the grave to which it had been sentenced, to re-enact the oaths of allegiance and supremacy to supersede that of 1858. These oaths of allegiance and supremacy were established in the first Act of William and Mary; again in the 8th Act of William and Mary; again in the Bill of Rights, meant as an eternal monument of freedom—were never altered or disturbed till 1858, were then altered and disturbed for no purpose except to remove the complication on the Jewish question which existed. The complication which yet remains will disappear if we re-enact them. They are known to be available for all Members of the Legislature, whether Protestant or Jewish, and Roman Catholics will still continue to subscribe the oath of 1829. [Lord Campbell then referred to a Bill which Lord Lyndhurst had introduced in 1855 to repeal the oath of abjuration, and which, had it been carried, would have led to the exact position which his Bill designed to accomplish.] He had the shelter, therefore, of that venerable Lord, as well as of the Bill of Rights and the innumerable Parliaments in which the oaths he wished to re-enact had been accepted. The clauses were so framed as to supersede the oath of 1858, to revive the oaths he had referred to, and to maintain in the House of Lords its indisputable right to determine upon which Testament oaths should be administered, so that no Jewish Peer could take his seat in that House without their formal sanction, should the Crown ever give existence to the question. While, therefore, the posi-

  1233
  tion of the House of Lords would be unaltered and inviolate, and no member of the Jewish faith, without its fiat, could ever mingle in its councils—the difficulties which still arise from the imperfect system of 1858 would pass away; no collision on the oaths could take place between the Houses; no debates on the Standing Order could arise in the Commons; the anomalous and unbecoming demarcation of the Legislature into the adherents and the opponents of our faith would be avoided; and the solemnities intended to be permanent in the Bill of Rights would be restored. But, if such a mode of acting does not seem to be desirable, I appeal to the present, to the late Government, and that right rev. Bench which has so clear a right to influence the question, that they may gradually mature a safer and a happier solution. Two things seem to be indisputable, that the legislation of 1858 cannot be accepted as enduring; and that nothing would tend more to the dignity and credit of the House of Lords, clouded in the eyes of some by their long, although sincere, resistance to the claims of Baron Rothschild, and also by the form in which that resistance ended, than that the settlement we still require should be accomplished by their labour. The noble and learned Lord then presented—
  "A Bill to substitute the Oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy as enacted in an Act passed in the Second Session of Parliament in the First and Second Tears of King William and Queen Mary instead of the Oaths now required to be taken by Her Majesty's Subjects other than Roman Catholics."
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, there could be no doubt that it was desirable to have the words of an oath as clear and plain as possible, and it was impossible to defend the working of the existing oaths. As, however, he had not read the oath proposed in the Bill of his noble Friend, he could not give an opinion upon it. There was, however, no particular inconvenience experienced at present, and he did not see any great advantage in discussing the matter. He would suggest to his noble Friend to ascertain whether there was a reasonable chance of his having a majority before he moved the second reading; for there would be no advantage in moving in the matter of these oaths unless there was reasonable ground for expecting that legislation would follow.
  THE EARL OF DERBYsaid, he understood the noble Lord to say that it was not
  1234
  his intention to proceed with the Bill this Session.
  LORD CAMPBELL: Hear, hear!
  Bill read 1a; and to be printed. (No. 150.)

ECCLESIASTICAL COMMISSIONERS.

  RESOLUTION MOVED.
  LORD EBURYrose to call the Attention of the House to the Distinction made by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners in the Distribution of the Common Fund between Benefices in public and in private Patronage; and to move to resolve, That, in the Opinion of the House, the Necessity of the Case and not the Incidents of Patronage, should be their main Consideration, as laid down by the directing Statute. The noble Lord said, that in bringing this matter before their Lordships, he would first of all give a brief outline of the circumstances that had led to the present position of the Ecclesiastical Commission. The Commission had been originally constituted by an Act of Parliament, which passed about twenty-five years ago. Various functions were by that Act intrusted to the Commissioners; and in 1858 the powers of the Church Building Commissioners were transferred to the Ecclesiastical Commission. At the present time this Commission had to take notice of about seventy Acts of Parliament. The Commissioners had a revenue of about £200,000 a year, with a floating balance of £200,000. No doubt the Commission existed, and for a long period had existed, only by continuance Acts; but any one who looked at the circumstances must be convinced that it would be for many years one of the great public Departments of the country, if it did not eventually become entirely permanent. There was reason for exercising great vigilance with regard to this subject. One of the difficulties which had to be encountered in dealing with this subject was, that as no one knew what the Commissioners were doing until the act was accomplished, any one who took objections to them had the appearance, and was sometimes charged with the intention, of moving a vote of censure upon them. Another difficulty in the way of a fair discussion of the question was this—that most of the leading men in both Houses either were now, or had been, Members of this Commission; and although they

  1235
  did not appear to know much of what passed in the Commission, yet somehow or other they seemed to think themselves bound by the decisions which it came to. For example, he had taken his grievance to the noble Earl below him (Earl Granville), who told him that he was one of the Commissioners, felt bound by their acts, and must decline to receive his proposition. Then he went to the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Derby), with whom he was somewhat more successful; for although he did not receive any great promise of support, the noble Earl said, that when the proper time came, he was willing to hear what could be said on the subject. The fund to which his Motion related was originally of two kinds—the episcopal and the common fund; but the former merged into the latter, and it was the administration of the common fund with which they now had to deal. The 3 & 4 Vict., c. 113, by which the Commission was constituted, enacted (section 67), that if any surplus remained after keeping up the estates of the right rev. prelates, and paying the stipends of the canons and prebendaries, it should be applied in making additional provision for the cure of souls in parishes where such assistance was most required. With regard to monies arising from tithes, however, it was enacted, that whether there was a surplus or not, they must be answerable for local claims, and must go to add to the stipends of clergymen in the district whence the tithes arose. With regard to benefices patronage to which was in public hands, the Commissioners had been somewhat inconsistent. For some time they made augmentations without any equivalent at all; at other times they required from the persons having the disposal of those benefices an equivalent for the assistance bestowed; but in the case: of benefices in the hands of private patrons, there had been a uniformity of injustice, for the Commissioners had never given anything in the way of augmentation without exacting an equivalent from the patron, or some one interested in the advowson. Considering that this had been the practice of the Commissioners for a great many years, their Lordships would, no doubt, be surprised that this subject had never been brought forward until now. The reason was, however, a good one. When the Ecclesiastical Commission was originally
  1236
  constituted, great hopes were entertained that there would shortly arise, from the suspended canonries and other sources of income, a large surplus for division among the poorer livings. But this did not turn out to be the case, for, with the exception of a few augmentations between 1842 and 1844, there was no real surplus until 1856. Since then the surplus had increased largely; for, whereas in 1856 it amounted to £5,000, it rose to £100,000 in 1862. The Commissioners had this year introduced a rule, in reference to a certain class of livings, which had given rise to much dissatisfaction. They had determined, where the population was above 10,000, to raise the stipends of all the incumbents of such benefices to £300 a year. They proposed this with regard to livings at the disposal of public patrons; but in the case of livings in the hands of private patrons, whatever the population might be, they declined to augment the stipend without an equivalent. This had given rise to a great deal of murmuring, and some of the clergy aggrieved had requested him to bring the case before their Lordships. Now, there was nothing in the nature of private patronage itself, referred to in the Act of Parliament regulating the distribution of this fund, nor in any external circumstances whatever, which justified the principle adopted by the Commissioners. As to private patronage, it was unnecessary to say a word; for when the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack lately proposed to transfer from public to private patrons some hundreds of benefices, their Lordships received the proposal almost with acclamation; nor had he ever heard that private patronage was at all worse administered than public patronage. The statistics of the case, deducting all livings the presentations to which were alternately in public and in private hands, showed there were in the patronage of private individuals in England and Wales about 6,000 livings, all of which were placed under disability by the rule he had mentioned. Let them take the population. The Commissioners proposed to raise the stipends to £300 a year where the population was more than 10,000. Of the livings in private patronage there were no fewer than 20 with more than 10,000 inhabitants, and less than £300 a year; and of these 20, 2 had more than 20,000, and 1 over 30,000 population. These livings had an aggregate population ex-

  1237
  ceeding that of several of the dioceses in England, and the average income was £147 a year each; and seven were without parsonage houses. Yet, by the rule of the Commissioners, these livings were not to receive a single farthing of the proposed addition, unless they found the means of offering an equivalent—an offer which was absolutely worthless under the circumstances. He would go lower. There were 38 incumbencies in the hands of private patrons, where the population was over 5,000 and under 10,000; 16 of these were without parsonage houses; and the average income was £124. Many of the livings which he referred to, where the population was over 10,000, were among the poorest and most distressed districts in the east of London, and the aggregate population was very large. His Motion did not go to the extent of binding the Commissioners in all cases, nor would it prevent them, in exceptional cases, from requiring compliance with any terms they might think it right to impose. There had been very great munificence, on the part of private individuals, in founding and endowing churches. Some of these instances were well known to their Lordships. In these cases the disability imposed by the rule of the Commissioners would act very injuriously. The Earl of Aberdeen had, at the cost of £10,000 or £12,000, built, and to some extent endowed a church in the populous district of St. George-in-the-East. The right of nomination was, of course, vested in the noble Earl; and if the incumbent applied to the Ecclesiastial Commissioners to make a grant in aid of the endowment, he would be told that they could not do so unless the patron would contribute a further sum in addition to the £10,000 or £12,000 he had already expended; but if he were inclined to pay more money, the Commissioners would grant a sum equal to the further amount contributed by the patron. In another case, where a gentleman had paid between £4,000 and £5,000 to form a district, the great tithes of the parish would soon come into the possession of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners; but, according to the present rules, no portion could be allotted to the district. He did not mean to make any attack upon the Ecclesiastical Commission. That body had been exposed to many and serious attacks; but, having sat upon two Committees—one in that House, and one in the House of Commons—to in-
  1238
  quire into the conduct and management of the Commission, he was bound to say, that although in his opinion they had made a few mistakes and probably perpetrated a few jobs, yet, upon the whole, considering the extent of their transactions and the novelty of many of the cases upon which they had to adjudicate, the Commissioners had administered the trust committed to them with fidelity and success. If, however, it could be shown that he had not overstated the hardships arising from the existing rules for the administration of this fund, he hoped their Lordships would assent to the Motion which he proposed. The noble Lord concluded by moving to resolve,
  "That, in the opinion of the House, the Necessity of the Case, and not the Incidents of Patronage should be the main Consideration of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, as laid down by the directing Statute."
  THE EARL OF CHICHESTERsaid, that when his noble Friend commenced his address by calling attention to the importance of watching over the proceedings of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, he must have forgotten that their proceedings had been investigated by Parliament on several occasions, and that the results, upon the whole, had, he believed, been satisfactory. He should not think it his duty to enter upon this occasion into details, nor need he refer to the special cases which had been mentioned, as the noble Lord had not given notice of his intention to bring them forward. The best mode of meeting the remarks of the noble Lord would, perhaps, be to refer their Lordships to the Acts of Parliament governing and prescribing the conduct of the Commissioners and to their practice under those Acts; and he thought he could show that the distribution of those funds by the Commissioners had been in accordance with those enactments, and was not materially at variance with the course suggested by the noble Lord—namely, that in the distribution the wants of the assisted districts had been considered, and that there had been no question of patronage. The original Act 3 & 4 Vict., c. 113, directed the formation of a common fund, to be applied in making additional provision for the cure of souls in parishes where such assistance was most needed, and in such manner as the Commissioners should deem most conducive to the efficiency of the Established Church. The mode was left to the discretion of the Commissioners. Then there

  1239
  was a proviso, that in dealing with rents or tithes, due consideration should he given to the wants and circumstances of the parish or district whence such rents or tithes were drawn; and by a subsequent Act that provision was extended to all property whatsoever. There was an exception to that Act which enabled the Commissioners, if they thought fit, in places where there were large masses of the population, collected for the purposes of mining, to make temporary grants to meet benefactions. A Committee of their Lordships' House in 1858, appointed to examine into the state of spiritual destitution unhappily existing throughout the country, had inquired, among other things, into the administration of the common fund by the Commissioners; and in their Report the Committee stated that they were of opinion that the principle already applied to tithe ought to be extended to property of other descriptions, and that where there was a large population to be provided for they should have the first claim. It appeared to them, therefore, that the law should be so amended as to direct the Commissioners to deal with the property in question on that principle, so far as it could be done with the charges and obligation created by Parliament or already incurred by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. In making this recommendation, the Committee assumed that on all occasions, except those of extreme destitution, the grants of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners should only be made on condition of their being mot by private benefactions in the manner after described; and the closing paragraph of the Report expressed a very strong opinion of the obligation which rested on the wealthy members of the community belonging to the Church of England to meet the grants made by the Commissioners in behalf of the spiritual destitution prevailing throughout England, which was so great that it was impossible it should be provided for without voluntary aid. He had now to state what had been the practice of the Commissioners in carrying out these enactments. The Report of the Commission which had been laid on the table this Session stated that the total number of benefices and districts augmented and endowed by the Commissioners amounted to 1,438, and the total permanent charge in respect of benefactions exceeded the sum of £107,000 per annum; in addition to this the Commissioners had annexed
  1240
  to livings tithe rent-charges of the value to £11,000 per annum. The Report also stated, that with a view to the further relief of spiritual destitution, the Commissioners lad determined during the current year, first, to appropriate a capital sum of £100,000 to meet benefactions already offered in accordance with their views published in Februrary 1862; secondly, to discharge those of the local claims proposed in the last Report to be immediately dealt with, which the £20,000 per annum then voted did not suffice to meet; thirdly, to augment, unconditionally, so as to raise to £300, the income of all benefices under public patronage where the population was not less than 10,000, except such as were subject to special legislative provision; and fourthly, to augment the income of all benefices in private patronage having a like population to a like amount, on condition that one half of the sum required for such augmentation should be provided from non-ecclesiastical sources. That was the course which had been taken by the Commissioners this year; and considering the Acts of Parliament he had quoted, and the Report of the Committee of their Lordships' House to which he had referred, he did not think the Commissioners could have done otherwise. With regard to livings having a population of 10,000 souls, it was determined by the Board that the grants should not this year exceed £10,000 or £12,000 a year. The Commissioners thought the livings in public patronage had the first claim; and though it was quite true that some of those in private patronage equally required augmentation, he thought the Commissioners were quite justified in requiring, at all events during the first year, that some attempt should be made in such cases to obtain subscriptions of a private character in order to meet their grants. Some of the large livings in the east of London might be cases of very great hardship, and some of them had the misfortune, if such it was, to be in private patronage. It might be expedient that the Commissioners should, in a future year, consider such cases, and if necessary—if they should see that there was no probability of private benefactions being forthcoming—it would be quite competent to make unconditional grants to those livings; indeed, such a proposal was before the Board, and there was no reason to suppose that any objection would be made to it on the part of the

  1241
  Commissioners. There was the other form of augmentation under the Act of Parliament by temporary grants, which were made whenever any one was able to meet the grant by corresponding subscriptions; these giants, however, were United to mining districts, and were not numerous. The only remaining mode of distributing the common fund was by augmenting livings from the annual grant of the capital sum of £100,000, during the present and preceding year, in conformity not with any restriction of Parliament, but with the frequently-expressed opinion of Committees, to meet benefactions of a corresponding amount. Provided the necessary sum was subscribed to meet the grant of the Commissioners, the grant was made without any question as to whether the patronage was private or public. In reviewing the course which the Commissioners had taken in this respect, he did not see how they could have acted otherwise, consistently with the express enactments and declared opinions of Parliament. With regard to the words of his noble Friend's Motion, although with regard to livings in private patronage they did usually make provision that some contribution should be made to meet the grant, yet he thought it could be shown that the Commissioners had done substantially what those words seemed to suggest—because in measuring the extent of any claim and the real urgency of the cases which came before them, the smallness of the income and the largeness of the population were the only elements to which they attached importance.
  LORD PORTMANsaid, he must congratulate his noble Friend who had made this Motion, on the success he had already achieved; for, as he understood, a right rev. Prelate who had left the House had given a notice which would enable the Commissioners to carry out very fully that which his noble Friend wished to effect. That proceeding, on the part of the right rev. Prelate, had perhaps been expedited by his noble Friend's notice. [The Earl of CHICHESTER: No; it preceded it.] He believed that the greatest possible vigilance ought to be exercised by Parliament over this Commission; because, being a very numerous body, it did not act under the same sense of responsibility as it would feel if reduced within working limits. The fewer men there were to carry on the business of a large establishment like that, the more keenly would its administrators be alive to their
  1242
  responsibility to Parliament, and the greater would be the security for good management. He could not comprehend why the working of the Commission was so extremely costly as it now was. He had taken the best means in his power of investigating the accounts laid before Parliament, and he must say that they most fully answered their purpose. They gave an enormous quantity of figures, and there was the greatest possible difficulty in understanding what the results of those figures were. When, therefore, he said that, so far as he could understand, the management of the estates was so much per cent, he might be as far wrong as possible. But taking the totals according to the papers on the table, he found that the expenses of managing this enormous property amounted to something like 20 per cent of the income. The larger the property, the less ought to be the percentage for management; and therefore, he repeated, he could not understand why, in this case, the expenses of management should be apparently so enormous. There were very heavy charges for surveyors, accountants, lawyers, and the clerks of the establishment; and he thought that a great part of that outlay must be caused by a needless multiplicity of letters, by valuations and re-valuations, and other things which might as well be done without. If this enormous expenditure was necessary, there was an important question which, in his opinion, Parliament ought to entertain—namely, whether it was expedient that this property should be held in the hands in which it now was, and whether a great portion of it, scattered in all parts of the country, ought not perhaps to be realized. He believed it might in many cases be consolidated with great advantage, so as to insure to our poorer and most neglected districts that every farthing which the estates could yield should be applied for their spiritual benefit, without any waste or improper expenses of management. As, however, there was an inquiry going on in the other House of Parliament in relation to these matters, and after the assurance which had been held out that the subject of this Motion would receive consideration from the Commission, he did not see that any good would be done by dividing the House on the present occasion; and he would therefore suggest that his noble Friend should not press his Resolution. No one would venture now to defend the holding of a plurality of livings; but the insufficiency of endowment arose to some extent

  1243
  from the abolition of that practice, and there were cases in which the want at present felt might he met by the union of benefices adjacent, where there were very small populations.
  THE EARL OF HARROWBYsaid, that his noble Friend had stated that the cost of management of the Commission amounted to 20 per cent of the income; but it must be borne in mind that this percentage included the cost of buying and selling large estates, for every year the Commissioners had hundreds of thousands of pounds worth of property passing through their hands; and this, of course, involved an enormous expense for surveyors' and other charges. He believed that it would be found, on a better examination of the accounts, that the ordinary expense of management of the estates in the hands of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners was about 4 per cent—certainly not 20 per cent. The Commissioners were men the most conversant in these affairs, and had the most absolute control over them; and from the statements that had been laid before the public he had been led to the conclusion that the greatest economy was observed in the arrangements. With respect to the specific Motion of his noble Friend, he (the Earl of Harrowby) confessed that in principle he was completely with him, though he admitted that there was something to be said on the other side. There were calls enough of various kinds to swallow up all their resources. It must be admitted that these grants were often rendered of great avail as supplementary to other funds—for instance, where a sum was sought to be raised for church extension, a sum perhaps of £100 was raised in a parish, which was perhaps supplemented by £200 from the rural deanery; this, again, would be increased by a grant from the Church Building Society; and then came in the aid of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners in the shape of a grant, most valuable aid being thus afforded at the time when it was most anxiously needed.
  After a few words from Lord EBURY in reply,
  Motion (by leave of the House) withdrawn.

PRISON MINISTERS BILL—(No. 146.)

  THIRD READING.
  Bill read 3a (according to Order) with the Amendments.
  An Amendment moved, at the end of Clause 3 to add the words "No Minister shall be appointed under this Act for any Prison in which there is not a chaplain of the Established Church:" (The Lord Polwarth.)
  Motion agreed to; Words added.
  Another Amendment moved, at the end of Clause 4 to add the words "and no Minister shall be permitted to attend or visit any Prisoner belonging to any religious Persuasion differing from that to which such Minister belongs:" (The Earl of Belmore.)
  Motion agreed to; Words added.
  Another Amendment proposed, in Clause 5 to omit all the words after ("Fourteen Days") to the end of the Clause: (The Lord Redesdale.)
  Motion negatived.
  Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

VOLUNTEERS BILL—(No. 140.)

  SECOND READING.
  EARL DE GREY AND RIPONrose to move the second reading of this Bill, and said, that the Report of the Royal Commissioners appointed to inquire into the state and condition of the Volunteer Force, rendered necessary by some of its recommendations certain changes of the law; and when the preparation of the Bill came under the consideration of his right hon. Friend the late Sir George Lewis, it appeared to him to be desirable to consolidate and bring into one statute the existing law which regulated the Volunteer Force. The principal provisions of the Bill were, therefore, merely a re-enactment of the existing law. The principle was observed of making no material change, but retaining the same arrangements under which a force of 160,000 men had been enrolled; because it was felt that it would be very inexpedient to make any important change in the conditions of their service. In the first place, in accordance with the recommendations of the Commissioners, the Bill altered the terms upon which the Volunteer was to become "efficient" as it was called in this Bill, or "effective" as it was called in the old Act. Under the old Act the simple condition was, that the Volunteer should have attended drill a certain number of times. The Royal Commissioners recommended, that as a grant was to be made by Parliament in aid of the funds of the Volunteers, a higher degree of efficiency

  1245
  should be required, and a greater security for efficiency obtained than was involved in mere attendances at drill. But as those requirements would enter into minute details, it was thought better to take power to define those details by Orders in Council, instead of embodying them in the clauses of the Bill itself. It was, however, provided that the proposed Orders in Council should be made known in sufficient time previous to their coming into operation to enable either House of Parliament to express an opinion on them. Another clause to which he would direct their Lordships' attention was that which recognised the system of administrative battalions or regiments formed of two or more different corps. It was also proposed to clear up the doubts which existed under the present law as to the complete applicability of the Mutiny Act to the adjutants and sergeants who formed the permanent staff of Volunteer corps, and one of the clauses in the Bill declared them subject to the provisions of the Mutiny Act, and provided machinery for enforcing its provisions. Power was also taken in the Bill to enable Volunteers to acquire land for rifle ranges wherever it was necessary. These were the principal new provisions of the Bill. Some objections had been taken to provisions in the Bill which were simple re-enactments of the existing law; but, on the whole, the Government had thought it wiser not to alter the conditions on which the Volunteers had originally taken service; but he should he happy, when the Bill was in Committee, to consider any alterations that might he proposed. He was happy to say that the latest Reports received at the War Office with regard to the condition of this force were most satisfactory. A slight diminution in numbers had taken place at the end of last year, the causes of which were inquired into, and pointed out in the Report of the Royal Commissioners; but it was to be hoped that the measures which had been adopted on the recommendation of the Commissioners would check that diminution, and that the provisions of this Bill would place the force on a sound basis, and maintain it in a high state of efficiency, not as the substitute but the supplement of the regular army.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMONDsaid, that he did not rise to oppose the Motion for the second reading of the Bill. But he cauld not help observing that the 35th
  1246
  clause gave most arbitrary powers for the acquisition of rifle ranges. By that clause ground for ranges could be taken on the certificate of the Lord Lieutenant of the county, "that it is fit and proper that the and should he taken compulsorily for the purpose." It was manifest that private individuals might by that means he exposed to considerable inconvenience. It was true that parks, gardens, and ornamental grounds were exempted from the operation of the clause. But it was not clearly set forth what was to be considered a park or ornamental ground. He trusted that the clause would be so framed in Committee that no doubt could exist upon that point.
  VISCOUNT HARDINGEexpressed his approval of the clause by which the number of days for drill was to be fixed by an Order in Council, and not by the Act itself; and also of the clause giving the commanding officer a power of dismissal. He believed that without such a power the discipline of the force could not be maintained. It had been suggested that courts of inquiry should be substituted in that case for the judgment of the commanding officer. But it should be remembered that the courts of inquiry were not judicial tribunals, and that witnesses could not be sworn on oath by them. Besides, it would, he thought, be very injudicious to give to Volunteer officers, who were not, generally speaking, acquainted with military law, the power of settling such questions by courts of inquiry.
  VISCOUNT MELVILLEalso strongly objected to the very arbitrary powers given by the 35th olause, for taking land for rifle ranges against the will of the owners.
  LORD TRUROsaid, that although there were a few provisions in the Bill which he wished to see amended, he believed that it would, on the whole, give considerable satisfaction to the Volunteers. He doubted the policy of placing sergeant instructors under the Mutiny Act, and he was afraid that under such an arrangement the Volunteers would lose the services of many valuable men. He confessed that he approved of the provision continuing to the commanding officers the power of dismissal which they had hitherto possessed. Up to the present time, there did not appear to have been any abuse of that power on the part of commanding officers; and he saw no reason to apprehend that they would henceforward transgress the limits of discretion and moderation, acting as they did under the control of public opinion, and a judg-

  1247
  ment which hitherto appeared to have been carefully exercised.
  Motion agreed to: Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Thursday next.
  House adjourned at a quarter before Eight o'clock, till to-morrow, half past Ten o'clock.