Sitting of 15 July 1864

MINUTES.
SELECT COMMITTEE—On Standing Orders Revision—Sir Henry Willoughby, Mr. Ayrton, and Mr. Richard Hodgson added.
Report—On Scientific Institutions (Dublin) (No. 495); on Dockyards (Second Report) (No. 496).
SUPPLY—considered in Committee— MISCELLANEOUS ESTIMATES.
WAYS AND MEANS — Resolutions [July 14] reported; Exchequer Bonds (£1,600,000), Bill ordered.
PUBLIC BILLS — Resolutions in Committee — Reported — Fortifications and Works*, Bill ordered; Corn Returns*, Bill ordered.
Ordered — Metropolis Management Act (1862) Amendment*; Hackney Carriages*; Indian Medical Services*; West Indian Incumbered Estates Act Amendment*.
First Reading — Bank Post Bills (Ireland)* [Bill 211]; Indian Medical Service* [Bill 213]; Corn Accounts and Returns* [Bill 214]; West Indian Incumbered Estates Act Amendment* [Bill 215]; Hackney Carriages (Metropolis)* [Bill 216]; Exchequer Bonds (£1,600,000)* [Bill 216]; Fortifications (Provision for Expenses)* [Bill 218]; Metropolis Management Act (1862) Amendment* [Bill 219].
Second Reading—Public Works (Manufacturing Districts)* [Bill 204]; Westminster Bridge Traffic* [Bill 205]; Drainage and Improvement of Lands (Ireland) Supplemental* [Bill 207]; Salmon Fisheries (Scotland) Acts Amendment* [Bill 210].
Committee—Cattle Diseases Prevention [Bill 175] on re-committal—R.P.; Improvement of Land Act (1864)* [Bill 187] on re-committal— R.P.; Bank Notes, &c, Signature* [Bill 206]; Scottish Episcopal Clergy Disabilities Removal [Bill 161]; Justices Proceedings Confirmation* [Bill 203].
Report—Contagious Diseases* [Bill 163]; Bank Notes, &c, Signature* [Bill 206]; Scottish Episcopal Clergy Disabilities Removal [Bill 161]; Justices Proceedings Confirmation* [Bill 203].
Considered as amended— Bleaching and Dyeing Works Acts Extension* [Bill 181]; Turnpike Acts Continuance, &c* [Bill 194]; Militia Pay*; Sheriffs Substitute (Scotland)* [Bill 164]; Registration of Deeds (Ireand)* [Bill 176]; Poisoned Flesh Prohibition, &c. [Bill 199].
Third Reading—Turnpike Trusts Arrangements* [Bill 196]; Ionian States Acts of Parliament Repeal* [Bill 197]; Harwich Harbour Act Amendment* [Bill 1711.
Withdrawn— Game (Ireland) (No. 2)* [Bill 140].

CATTLE DISEASES PREVENTION (re-committed) BILL— [BILL 175.]

  COMMITTEE.
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clauses 1 to 5 were agreed to.
  Clause 6 (Market for Cattle affected with certain Diseases).
  LORD NAASsaid, he objected to the clause, which authorized the local authorities to set aside a place in a market or fair in which to place diseased animals when brought for sale. The animal might be only suspected by an ignorant policeman, but the consequence to the proprietor would
  1568
  be that although the animal might be perfectly healthy the remainder of his stock would find no purchaser. Moreover, there was no machinery by which the object of the clause could be fairly carried out.
  SIR WILLIAM MILESsaid, he could not agree with the opinion which the noble Lord entertained of the working of the clause, and he hoped that the Committee would proceed with it, although the words "or fair" might perhaps be left out with advantage.
  MR. T. G. BARINGsaid, the clause before it was adopted by the Committee was carefully considered. The penalty merely applied to those persons who knowingly sent diseased cattle to market, and he considered it a very useful provision. The operation of the clause would be confined to markets.
  SIR LAWRENCE PALKsaid, he did not regard the clause as so objectionable, because the presence of a diseased sheep in a flock would be much more damaging to the remainder than if the animal were removed to such a place as that contemplated by the clause. He thought its working would be found difficult in fairs, but it certainly ought to be applied to markets, where the animals were generally fat beasts and were usually purchased by the butcher.
  MR. CAIRDobjected to the clause, because he perceived that the proposed remedy would oftentimes prove the means of propagating the disease which it was desired to prevent, as the animal would frequently have to be dragged from one end of the market to another, and come into contact with a large number of healthy animals.
  MR. BRADYsaid, he believed that the effect of the clause would be to involve the appointment of a large number of Inspectors, and thus create a great deal of corruption. Further, the decision of the Inspector could not be taken as final; they must have a Court of Appeal. It would be utterly impossible to carry such a clause out.
  MR. THOMPSONadvocated the retention of the clause.
  SIR GEORGE COLTHURSTsaid, he thought they ought not to proceed with the Bill, as they had not the Report of the Committee.
  MR. COGANsaid, he hoped that the Government would consent to withdraw the measure for the Session.
  MR. BLAKEsaid, he concurred in the opinion that the Bill ought to be withdrawn.
  MR. CORBALLYadvocated the withdrawal of the clause, which he believed would cause much disturbance in Ireland.
  MR. H. A. BRUCEcould not see the force of the objections urged against the clause, because it offered no obstacle to a man's taking diseased animals into the market. It only enacted that a certain place should be set aside for diseased animals, and a person whose animals were to his knowledge diseased, would incur a penalty if he did not make use of the place so provided.
  MR. MONSELLsaid, he would move that the Chairman do leave the Chair, as they ought not to proceed further with the Bill without having the evidence before them.
  Motion made, and Question put, "That the Chairman do now leave the Chair."— (Mr. Monsell.)
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 24; Noes 39: Majority 15.
  MR. COGANsaid, the majority against the Motion was composed of a number of Gentleman who had come from the library and Committee-rooms, and who had consequently heard nothing of the discussion. As he felt certain that if they had heard the discussion they would have voted for the Motion, he should move that the Chairman report Progress.
  LORD EDWARD HOWARDsuggested confining the operation of the Act to England, and excluding Ireland from its provisions.
  MR. T. G. BARINGsaid, that it was useless to continue the Bill in face of the determined opposition which had been exhibited against it by the Committee. At that period of the Session he should not have attempted to carry the measure had he not understood that the Opposition of the Irish Members was confined mainly to one clause referring to Inspectors, which he himself disapproved. He should, therefore, concur in the Motion for reporting Progress.
  MR. HUNTsaid, he regretted the determination of the Government, because he believed that it was a fair stand up fight between the Irish and the English Members, and he should like to have seen it settled in a good old English way, and if the Government had proceeded with the Bill he believed that its opponents would have found themselves in a minority similar to the position in which they had been left by the last division.
  MR. H. A. BRUCEsaid, he would be quite content to pursue the plan recommended by the hon. Member for Northamptonshire if the opponents of the Bill would have been satisfied with the results of a round or two, but their opposition was so determined that it was useless to proceed with the Bill.
  House resumed.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again this day month.

INDIA—THE INDIAN ARTILLERY.

  QUESTION.
  MR. O'NEILLsaid, in the absence of his hon. Friend (Mr. Torrens), he would beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War, What steps have been taken to carry out the orders contained in the Secretary of State's (for India) despatch, No. 61, dated the 29th of February last, to have seconded, or made supernumerary Officers of the Indian Artillery employed in miscellaneous staff appointments, and which despatch is reported in paragraph 14 to have received the general concurrence of the Secretary of State for War, and of His Royal Highness the Field Marshal Commanding in Chief?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONreplied, that the despatch in question had been sent out to India, and communicated by a General Order of the Army there. No list of officers who had been seconded had yet been received; but a list had been received of the officers of the artillery and engineers who were to be removed from these corps to staff appointments, and the promotions in succession to them had been already recommended to Her Majesty.

TURNPIKE GATES REMOVED.

  QUESTION.
  VISCOUNT ENFIELDsaid, he would beg to ask the right hon. Member for Petersfield (as a Commissioner of the Metropolitan Roads north of the Thames), Whether he can state the number of turnpike gates and side bars that have been recently removed, the number of new gates and bars erected in their place, and upon what principle the distribution of these gates and side bars has been allotted to the different metropolitan parishes?
  SIR WILLIAM JOLLIFFE,in reply, said, that the number of gates removed by

  1571
  the Act of last year was twenty-five, and the number of side bars removed was fifty-four. All these gates and side bars were within the area of the Metropolis Local Management Act. The number of miles of road given over to the respective parishes was about fifty-five, and the number of miles continued as turnpike roads was sixty-seven. The number of new gates on the sixty-seven miles of road was nine, and of new side bars eight. The total number of places for the collection of toll under the new order of things was thirty-one. Under the old Act it was ninety-three. These were distributed so as to take a uniform toll of 2d. a horse within each district, for the repair of the roads within the district where it was collected. The 41st clause in the Act of last Session was introduced to facilitate the roads comprised in each of the thirteen districts created by the Act becoming parish roads, at the will of the parishes, with the consent and approval of the Secretary of State, and to that he especially wished to direct the attention of his noble Friend and the inhabitants of the county of Middlesex, as the roads might be converted into parish roads with only the delay of a Session.

NIDIA—ARMY BREVET RANK.

  QUESTION.
  CAPTAIN JERVISsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for India, Whereas, when substantive and corresponding brevet rank come together in a Regiment, the former invariably takes preference, what steps will be taken to insure a senior officer holding only brevet rank against being superseded in a Regiment by a junior holding corresponding substantive rank? Will brevet Lieutenant Colonels of five years' service in that rank and thirty-one years' service in all be entitled to the brevet rank of Colonel under the latter part of Clause 69 of Despatch No. 194, June 19, 1864? And will an officer who had served eleven years (or twelve, as the case might be) in the rank of brevet Lieutenant Colonel, obtained in accordance with the above clause, or in such brevet and substantive rank combined, be eligible to take his turn in the List of Officers nominated for Colonels' Allowances?
  SIR CHARLES WOODreplied that, inasmuch as all officers promoted to brevet rank would rank according to the dates of their substantive rank, he did not see how
  1572
  senior officers could be superseded by juniors. With regard to the second Question of the hon. and gallant Member, his reply was that brevet lieutenant-colonels of five years' service in that rank and thirty-one years' service on full pay altogether would be entitled to the brevet rank of colonel under the latter part of the clause.
  In reply to Colonel SYKES,
  SIR CHARLES WOODsaid, that the appointments to the Irregular Forces were made, and always had been, irrespective of rank.

RELATIONS WITH BRAZIL.

  QUESTION.
  MR. BERNAL OSBORNEsaid, he wished to ask the First Lord of the Treasury Whether, pending the existing suspension of political relations between the English and Brazilian Governments, Her Majesty's Ministers have appointed a Consul at Rio de Janeiro in succession to the late Consul Westwood; and, if so, whom; if it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to appoint a Consul at the port of Santos, in succession to the late Consul Huntley; and whether Her Majesty's Ministers consider themselves bound to fulfil the assurance officially conveyed to the Brazilian Government by the Earl of Aberdeen, when Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, on 2nd July, 1845, to the effect that "he would be ready to repeal the measure of 1845 on the entire cessation of the Slave Trade in Brazil?"
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: Sir, there is no intention at present of appointing a Consul at Rio. Mr. Morgan, the Consul at Bahia, has been ordered to Rio for the moment for the transaction of commercial business, but he is not the Consul there. The consulship of Santos is also vacant, and Mr. Haydon has been appointed for the moment to transact the business there. It is not the intention of Her Majesty's Government to propose to this House to repeal the Act of 1845; and I may mention that Lord Aberdeen was at the head of the Government from December, 1852, to December, 1855, and no steps were taken during his administration for repealing the Act in question.
  MR. BERNAL OSBORNE: I beg to give notice that on going into Committee of Supply I shall draw the attention of the House to the state of our relations with Brazil.

AUSTRALIAN POSTAGE—QUESTION.
LORD ALFRED CHURCHILLsaid, he wished to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether he would object to postpone the execution of the recent increase in the rate of postage to Australia until the colonies shall have been communicated with as to their desire to have a bi-monthly mail in conjunction with the increase of the postage rate?
MR. PEEL,in reply, said, in the recommendation made last year by the Post Office to the Treasury to increase the rate of postage on letters sent from this country to Australia, the object in view was of a double character — partly to reduce the amount annually granted by Parliament to meet the excess in the cost of the service over the receipts for postage, and partly to provide the means of defraying the expenses of establishing a second monthly communication with Australia. There was a very general desire to establish a second monthly communication with Australia; at the same time there was a very strong objection on the part of the Government to ask that House to provide additional subsidies for the expenses of the Australian service. The Government did not proceed with their plan for establishing a fortnightly communication with Australia in consequence of having understood that it was intended to establish a communication with Australia by way of Panama independently of the Home Government. It appeared, however, that that was no longer the case, and therefore they were free to revert to the old plan. Under those circumstances he thought the course indicated by the question was a very reasonable one for the Government to pursue. The Government reserved the right of regulating the rate of postage if they thought proper; but, at the same time, they were desirous of taking part in any measure for increasing the frequency of communication with Australia. It was quite possible that the Australians, though they might object to an increased postage, might be willing to acquiesce in that increase provided it were accompanied with additional communication with this country. Under these circumstances the Government was willing to postpone the increase in the postage until time had been given to communicate with Australia.
LORD ALFRED CHURCHILLsaid, under these circumstances he would not proceed with his Motion on the subject.

UNITED STATES—SEIZURE OF BRITISH PROPERTY IN NEW YORK.

  QUESTION.
  MR. LAIRDsaid, he rose to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether be has received any communications from Lord Lyons in reference to the Seizure (by the Customs Authorities at New York) of a large amount of property, including gold coin, bills of exchange, and other securities, belonging to the firm of Messrs. A. Wolf and Co., British merchants at Nassau, N.P?
  MR. LAYARD,in reply, said, that no report had been received from Lord Lyons in reference to the seizure by the Customs authorities at New York of the property alluded to by the hon. Member, but Lord Lyons had been requested to report on the subject.

PASSPORTS IN ROME.

  QUESTION,
  MR. CORBALLYsaid, he wished to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If he has communicated with the British Consul in Rome with respect to the Passports of British subjects being required to be viséd, while those of American subjects do not require any visa. He did not attribute any blame to the British Consul, and he begged distinctly to disclaim any intention of making any personal attack on that gentleman when he alluded to the subject the other evening?
  MR. LAYARDsaid, the fact was perfectly true, that fees were levied on the visa of all passports in Rome, except those of American subjects, and the reason of that was that when the unfortunate civil war broke out in America the subjects of the formerly United States, but who now belonged to the so-called Confederate States, could not get their passports viséd unless they were prepared to subscribe a declaration that they were loyal subjects of the United States. Those persons who refused to do that were unable to obtain passports, and therefore Cardinal Antonelli consented to relieve American subjects from the necessity of having their passports viséd. It was strictly an exceptional case, and the Roman Government exacted the visa from all other persons. Mr. Severn, the British Consul, did not receive the fees himself; they were regularly remitted to Her Majesty's Government. The charge, therefore, that Mr. Severn was in

  1575
  collusion with the police was utterly unfounded, and had given that gentleman great pain.

SPAIN AND PERU—THE CHINCHA ISLANDS.—QUESTION.
MR. CAIRDsaid, he would beg to ask, If Her Majesty's Government have received any assurance from the Government of Spain to the effect that, during the occupation of the Chincha Islands by that Power, no opposition will be offered to the fulfilment of contracts for the removal of Guano from those Islands?
MR. LAYARDstated that the Spanish Government had given notice that the occupation of the Chincha Islands would not interfere with the carrying out of any contracts for Guano.

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

IONIAN ISLANDS—ANNEXATION TO GREECE.—OBSERVATIONS.
MR. BAILLIE COCHRANEsaid, he rose to call attention to the discrepancies which exist between the statements made by Her Majesty's Government and those of the advisers of the King of Greece respecting the conditions on which the Ionian Islands have been annexed to Greece, and also to the Convention between Her Majesty and the King of the Hellenes respecting the claims of British subjects and others, signed at London 29th March, 1864. As the Ionian Islands belonged to Greece, it was not his intention to go into the question of the policy or wisdom of their cession by England. Since the debate on the 18th of March on the subject, some papers had been laid before the House which had given rise to a certain amount of ill-feeling throughout Greece, and which also suggested questions of great importance to two classes of people in this country—those holding pensions under the Ionian Government and the Greek bondholders. There were also some remarkable discrepancies between the statements of Her Majesty's Ministers and those of the advisers of the King of Greece, which it was desirable should be cleared up. It would be recollected that on the 18th of March the hon. Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs asserted in a very decided
1576
manner that the proposals for the neutralization of the Islands and the destruction of the fortifications had been communicated to the young King and his counsellors, and had met with their approval. The hon. Gentleman said—
"He held in his hand despatches which showed that in August the matter was discussed at Copenhagen long before the King left that city, and both His Majesty and Count Sponneck were well aware of what was proposed to be done, Count Sponneck in the middle of summer not only acceding to the proposal, but suggesting that the whole of Greece should be declared a neutral State."
The Chancellor of the Exchequer also made a statement even more strongly to a similar effect. These declarations on the part of Her Majesty's Ministers had placed Count Sponneck in a very awkward position, and had excited some irritation against him on the part of the Greek people. It was not his habit to deal in imputations concerning the falsification of despatches, and he did not mean to suggest that there was any intentional misstatement by the Ministers; but it appeared that after Count Sponneck arrived in Greece he declared that the whole proceeding took him by surprise. When they looked at the despatches, however, OK which the statements of the hon. and right hon. Gentlemen were based, they would see that there had been a serious misapprehension. In a despatch, dated the 10th of August, 1863, Sir Augustus Paget wrote to Earl Russell as follows:—
"Count Sponneck has learnt that there was a project of treaty communicated by your Lordship to the representatives of the five Powers assembled in Conference for the affairs of Greece, which embodied two conditions relative to the annexation of the Ionian Islands, which he understood to be the upshot of communications which had taken place between Her Majesty's Government and the Cabinet of Vienna. The first condition was the neutrality of the Ionian Islands; the second, that the fortifications of Corfu should be razed. After speaking of the possible effect which the knowledge of these conditions might have in indisposing the Ionian Parliament to vote the annexation, for which reason it became of still greater importance to King George to have the vote before setting out for Greece, Count Sponneck said that if the union between the Islands and the kingdom was to be a real one (an incorporation, in short), as was apparently intended, he did not understand how the Islands could be neutralized without extending the neutrality to the rest of Greece."
It was plain that Count Sponneck in saying that the neutralization of the Islands involved the neutralization of the whole kingdom, was merely using the argumentum ad absurdum, and endeavouring to show that the proposal was a grave po-

1577
litical error. Sir Augustus Paget added that "Count Sponneck appears to have no objection to the razing of the fortifications;" but he submitted that that despatch did not justify the very strong expressions used by the Under Secretary and Chancellor of the Exchequer.
The next point to which he wished to draw attention was the unjust treatment of gentlemen who had accepted service in the Ionian Islands on the guarantee by the British Government of their salaries and pensions. Until lately there was, of course, no idea that these Islands would be given up by England, and these gentle men naturally looked to the British Government for recompense. Indeed, they had sacrificed annually so much of their income in order to secure superannuation. In February, 1864, M. Tricoupi pointed out to Her Majesty's Government that they ought to accept the responsibility of meeting the indemnity to officials. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, however, declared that Parliament would not vote a credit for the purpose, but suggested that the amount might be diminished by withholding the indemnity in cases where other appointments under the British Government were accepted. That was at variance with a previous statement of the Duke of Newcastle, who evidently contemplated that the indemnity might be enjoyed even by those who received other employment. He thought the payment of these pensions would fall with some degree of harshness upon the Greek Treasury, and as it would be unjust to pensioners that they should not be paid, was the English Government to step in? In considering the question it must be borne in mind that the gentlemen entitled to the pensions had been sent out from this country, and that when they were appointed they had not the slightest conception that they would be placed in the position in which they found themselves by an act of policy on the part of the British Government. Were they to do battle with the Greek Government in order that they might obtain their pensions instead of receiving them direct from the Home Government, as they were entitled to do under the guarantees they had received? He trusted that the Government would give some explanations of their intentions upon the subject.
The third point he wished to notice was the future position of the bondholders. The value of the loan was nearly £8,000,000 sterling, and so far the bond-
1578
holders had received scarcely anything. The Greek Government a few months ago forwarded a circular to the Allied Powers, inquiring if they would be willing to limit their demands on the Greek Treasury for five years to only £36,000 per annum in lieu of £140,000, which the Allies were paying for interest and sinking fund, so that the Greek Government might be able to make an offer to the holders of the bonds issued in 1824 and 1825, which if accepted would restore the credit of Greece, and thus insure her future progress. It was important to know if the application had been replied to, and in the event of the Greek Government making a pseudo offer, if the British Government was bound (under those circumstances) to limit its demand to one-third of the £36,000. In spite of the great difficulties by which they had been surrounded, Greece was prosperous, wages were high, the prospects of the country generally were good, and the revenue had increased by one-fifth. The Government, however, were depressed by the amount of debt for which they were responsible, and it was most desirable that some understanding should be come to on the subject, and it appeared to him that the best course to pursue would be for Government to forego a portion of their claim on Greece, and that arrangements should be adopted under which the remainder of her liabilities should be punctually liquidated. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs would afford them some explanation upon each of these three topics.
MR. LAYARDsaid, he regretted that his hon. Friend had thought it necessary to bring before the House the first part of his question. He had hoped that that matter had been forgotten in Greece, and that such a good understanding existed between Count Sponneck and the people of that country, that there could be no occasion for reviving it in reference to either of these irritating topics. But he could not allow the hon. Gentleman to contradict the statements which he (Mr. Layard) had made on a previous occasion without re-asserting that they were strictly true.
MR. BAILLIE COCHRANEsaid, he had only read an extract from the despatches.
MR. LAYARD: The only statement he had made in that House was that the

1579
intention of razing the fortifications of Corfu, and of neutralizing the Ionian Islands, must have been known to Count Sponneck before he started for Greece, because those questions were discussed at Copenhagen in the month of August, and the statement which he (Mr. Layard) had made was fully borne out by the despatches. The question was discussed in the month of August between Count Sponneck and Sir Augustus Paget, and Sir Augustus Paget declared that Count Sponneck raised no objection to the destruction of the fortifications. In a speech made in another place last year by Earl Russell, in the month of June, the noble Earl declared that the fortifications would be razed in consequence of demands which had been made by Austria, demands in which there were reasons to believe Prussia and Russia would acquiesce, and the statement then made was entirely approved by the Earl of Derby. It was also fully corroborated by the despatches. It was perfectly true that Count Sponneck had directed his secretary to write a most improper letter upon the matter to the Archbishop of Corfu, in which very unbecoming language was used towards Earl Russell and himself (Mr. Layard). That letter was posted all over the Island, and such a proceeding at such a moment might have led to grave consequences, but fortunately no such result had followed. He had hoped that the matter would have been entirely forgotten, and he was sorry that it had been revived. With regard to the pensioners, his hon. Friend was in error when he said they were gentlemen who had served the English Government. Those included in Table A of the Convention were gentlemen who came under the Superannuation Fund, and from whose salaries certain sums were deducted in order to provide pensions. [Mr. BAILLIE COCHRANE: By the English Government.] They were paid out of the Civil List in the Island of Corfu, and had nothing whatever to do with the English Government. Having paid towards the Civil List in Corfu, it would be an extraordinary proceeding for this country to guarantee the payment of their pensions. We had done all we could, and had entered into a solemn diplomatic arrangement with regard to the payment of the pensions. By the Convention the Greek Government were bound every year to communicate with Her Majesty's Minister at Athens, who was also to receive notice that the pensions bad been satisfied. There were
1580
two classes of claimants who had some cause to complain; but their case had been strongly recommended by Her Majesty's Government to the Greek Government, and he trusted that the Greek Government would deal liberally with them. With regard to the bondholders, the hon. Member wished the Government to remit a portion of the debt owing to the public here in order that the bondholders might be served, but he (Mr. Layard) doubted whether the House would consent to such an arrangement. He did not think that the British Government were in any way called upon to make any arrangement for the benefit of the private creditors of Greece.
COLONEL DUNNEsaid, it was of very little consequence whether Count Sponneck understood that the fortifications were to be razed or not. Count Sponneck could scarcely feel surprise at such a course being taken, because in the blue-book a conversation was reported between the Chancellor of the Exchequer and M. Tricoupi, in which the right hon. Gentleman distinctly expressed himself in favour of the neutralization of the Islands. We could not have handed over these Islands to Greece without neutralizing them or destroying their fortifications. Those fortifications would have served as a place d'armes for the invasion of Turkey, and would have enabled the frontier of that country to be turned. With regard to the gentlemen who had claims to pensions for their past services in the Ionian Islands, the treatment they had received was shameful. Her Majesty's Government ought not to have ceded these Islands to Greece without insisting on a much better security for the pensions of these gentlemen than that which had been obtained. They had for years subscribed to a fund which would have been sufficient to have ensured the pensions had it not been appropriated by the Ionian Government then under the protection of Great Britain. Our Government had remitted its own claims on the kingdom of Greece in order to add to the civil list of the young King George, but it ought not to have been generous towards a foreign Sovereign without first being just towards our own subjects. He understood that M. Tricoupi, the Greek Minister, had wished the British Chancellor of the Exchequer to place these pensions on our Consolidated Fund, and that the Chancellor of the Exchequer very properly refused to do anything of the kind; but it appeared that

1581
the right hon. Gentleman had suggested that it would relieve the Greek Treasury if it were arranged that these gentlemen should forfeit their pensions on receiving other employment from the English Government. Now, if these gentlemen had a claim to pensions from the British Government, and the British Government chose to employ them again, it might be very fair that they should forego their pensions in consideration of their official salaries, but that was quite a different case; and he must say he thought it most extraordinary that such advice should have been given by a Minister of this country to the Greek Minister. He would take an instance by way of illustration. If an Englishman entered the service of Austria and earned a pension, would it be right that he should thereby lose a previous pension which he had gained in the service of his own country? Great disorders had taken place in Athens and other parts of Greece since the accession of the young King. A repetition of the fearful scenes which occurred when King Otho first went to Athens had been witnessed after the arrival of King George. A series of most brutal atrocities was enacted, the most horrible outrages were perpetrated upon women, and a state of confusion such as had not been surpassed in the times when he himself was in Greece, prevailed there soon after the glorification and rejoicing upon the election of the present King, all arising from the lawless violence of men who carried on war in order to make their own party predominant in the councils of the new Sovereign. The existing Government of Greece was one to which it was hardly fair to leave the claims of the officers who had lost their appointments through the cession of the Ionian Islands. The talents of those gentlemen were great and their services had been most valuable, and he deeply regretted the state of insecurity in which they were left in regard to their pensions. He felt sure that their case would be brought before that House before long, that they would have to be paid out of the Treasury of this country, and that, perhaps, we should even be involved in war with Greece on this matter.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he was not about to enter into the general discussion, but as he had been referred to be wished to say a few words. A conversation which he had had with the Greek Minister had been alluded to, and
1582
was said to be described in an official letter of that Minister. He had not seen the letter, and could only speak of that conversation from memory. It was a private conversation, and had nothing to do with the negotiations generally. It was true he had told M. Tricoupi that he did not think it would be possible for the British Government to ask Parliament to undertake the payment of the pensions of those gentlemen who had served in the Ionian Islands. M. Tricoupi wished to know whether the British Treasury could in any way be made auxiliary to pay that charge, and his answer was "No." The hon. and gallant Member said he had made to M, Tricoupi the suggestion that in the event of these gentlemen being appointed to offices in this country, the British rule should be applied to them, and that the amount of their compensation should be deducted from their salaries. Now, he never conveyed to M. Tricoupi any pledge whatever on the part of the British Government. He had simply stated his own individual opinion of what would be equitable, and left it for M. Tricoupi to make any proposal of that kind to the responsible department. The hon. and gallant Member said these gentlemen held their rights to their pensions on an insufficient security. Now they held it on the faith of an instrument to which the British Government was a party, and it was evident that the hon. and gallant Member himself regarded that security as no small matter, because he anticipated the contingency of England having under it to make war upon Greece in order to enforce the payment of these pensions. But apart from the question of security, the hon. and gallant Member questioned the equity of causing these pensions to abate; and he said if he went into the Austrian employment and received a pension for his services it would be hard on his coming back and taking service under the British Crown that his pension from the Austrian Government should abate. He granted it would have been inequitable to impose on those officers the rules and ideas which prevailed in reference to such matters in Austria or Greece. Did the hon. and gallant Gentleman believe that in cases of the abolition of offices in Greece officers were treated as they were treated here? He doubted whether any Government treated officers whose offices were abolished with one third of the liberality with which they were treated in this country. These officers were treated not according to Greek ideas and Greek

1583
usages, but according to English usages; and surely it was the plainest justice that they should apply the English rule, of which it was an essential incident that, in case of the resumption of office, the pension should cease? He did not consider that he was at all officially concerned in the matter, but he entirely defended the equity of that principle, and the adoption of any other rule would have been contrary to justice.
MR. KINGLAKEsaid, he thought the view his hon. Friend the Under Secretary had taken of the case was a mistaken one. He had spoken of these officers as the mere servants of the Ionian State. That was not quite a fair light in which to regard them. In order to test whether they had or had not a moral claim for compensation for the loss of their offices, they should see in the first place who appointed them, and, next, who terminated that state of things under which they were entitled to their offices. When they came to consider who it was that drew these men from their former career of life, they found it was the Colonial Government in England. And when they inquired how it came to pass that their offices, on the continuance of which they had a fair right to rely, had been brought to a conclusion, they found again that the Colonial Office was a prominent party in the transaction. If, then, the circumstances should ever arise in which the question had to be considered, he hoped the British Government would have no difficulty in seeing that the claim of these gentlemen was one which in fairness and generosity could not be resisted.

UNION ASSESSMENT COMMITTEES.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  MR. HUBBARDsaid, he rose to call the attention of the House to the Returns of the Resolutions and proceedings of the Union Assessment Committees, and to the necessity of assisting their operation, by the introduction of some moderating authority in the very large latitude they had taken in the application of the Act. His object was to afford the House an opportunity of judging how far it was necessary to assist the different unions. Much depended on the spirit in which the committees set to work, and whether they did so willingly and intelligently. As might be expected there were considerable differences observable in these respects. A meeting of delegates in Somerset, presided
  1584
  over by Sir W. Miles, passed a Resolution to the following effect:—
  "The feeling of the delegates in discussing the different questions propounded at the meeting was unanimous in the determination, as far as was possible, not only to secure a uniform and correct valuation of parishes in any particular union, but so to construct and carry out the Act, that it should not be only between parish and parish in a particular union, but that the same principles should be the guide in every union throughout the county; so that when the valuation is completed, not only will the assessment thus established be the assessment for Poor Law purposes, but will be a true and correct basis upon which all other county charges may be estimated."
  That was a very favourable representation of the spirit of enlightened committees, but he was forced to admit that, owing possibly to the difficulties which beset their operations, the results arrived at by many unions were far from satisfactory. The first thing to be done was to arrive at a true definition of the gross estimated rental. Now, from the passing of the Act of 1836 down to 1859 there was unhappily great diversity of opinion as to the interpretation of the law in that respect. Mr. Lumley, of the Poor Law Board, in his Manual defined the gross estimated rental as rack-rent, with the addition of tenants' rates and charges. Others held that it was equivalent to the rack-rent alone; and in 1859 the Law Officers of the Crown, on being consulted by the Poor Law Board, decided in favour of that view, which was thereupon adopted by the Board. He found, however, that some of the Union Committees had ignored that decision, and in these assessments had followed Mr. Lumley's earlier interpretation; and he suggested that the Board should direct the attention of such mistaken Committees to the error they had therein committed. The next point was to ascertain the net rateable value. It appeared that the committees allowed themselves a considerable range in regard to deductions. The allowances on "naked lands," or lands without buildings, for instance, were from 1 to 3 per cent in Somerset, 2½per cent in Bedford, Berks, Devon, Shropshire, Suffolk, and the East Riding of Yorkshire. 1 per cent only was allowed in Walsingham and another union in Norfolk, and nothing at all in two unions in Lincoln. On the other hand he found a deduction of 5 per cent in Northampton, Hertford, Gloucester, and some other counties. One union in Gloucester allowed 7½ per cent, and Market Harborough, in Leicestershire, allowed as much as 10. In the case of land with

  1585
  buildings and houses attached to it, the counties of Somerset and Buckingham and two unions in Norfolk allowed from 5 to 10 per cent in the county of Southampton the rule was to allow 5 per cent where the rent was above £200, and 10 per cent where it was under £200 a year. In Derbyshire, Worcestershire, Lancashire, the East Riding of Yorkshire, and a great part of the North and West Ridings, the allowance was 7½per cent; in Doncaster, Hartlepool, Teesdale, and part of Licolnshire, 8⅓. In other unions in Lincolnshire it was 5 per cent, and in Shropshire generally 5 per cent, although in one union it was 15, and he could find no reason for so remarkable a discrepancy. The information was much less definite in regard to the allowances on houses. In the county of Buckingham it was from 10 to 20 per cent and from 10 to 25 per cent on cottages, which embraced a class of houses under the value of £6 or £8 a year. At Hartlepool and Teesdale the allowance was 161 per cent on both houses and cottages: in Lancashire, 15 on houses and 20 on cottages; Somerset, from 10 to 15 on houses and from 10 to 20 on cottages; Cheshire, 10 per cent; Nottinghamshire, 10 on houses and 12 on cottages; and Bakewell, in Derbyshire, 12½ on houses and 20 on cottages. The discrepancies in excess of these allowances were considerable. In the Strand union, in the county of Middlesex, the allowance on the whole of the house property was 25 per cent. And these discrepancies were not confined to the allowances in different counties, but in various unions in the same county there were also great discrepancies. For instance, in the county of Bucks, the majority of unions allowed 5 per cent on land, whereas the union of Buckingham allowed only 2£; Newport Pagnell allowed 15 per cent on land and houses, Buckingham 10; Newport allowed 10 per cent on cottages, Buckingham 15. In Lincolnshire one parish allowed 10 per cent, another 8, another 5, and another 3; Shropshire generally allowed 5, but the Ludlow union allowed 15. He thought these discrepancies were so great that they called for correction at the hands of the Poor Law Board, because wherever they existed in the same county certain unions must necessarily be placed at a disadvantage with regard to the county rate, for it was admitted that the Union Assessment was to be the basis, not only of the Poor Law Assessment, but of the county rate. Great inconvenience arose from
  1586
  swerving from the requirement of the Act, that the assessment should be framed from the most truthful estimates which could be arrived at in reference to the gross rental and the necessary deductions for maintenance. It was no answer to say that an entire county agreed in accepting an enormous and disproportionate deduction. It had no right to do so. One class in particular was injuriously affected by such a system—namely, the clergy. The tithe rent charge was known to a farthing, and the outgoings were so few that there was no margin for granting any concession except the proper one. The clergy, therefore, were rated on their tithe rentcharge to the fullest amount. They had no right to complain of that, but they had a right to complain if, in their own locality, other property was assessed upon an incorrect basis. Upon that ground he trusted the Government would see that some alteration was imperatively required wherever these extravagant deductions had been made. Accuracy was in this matter desirable on more grounds than one. Even the elective franchise was materially affected by the process of assessment. House property had been generally valued at two-thirds of its value, so that a house worth £10 was only valued at £7, and many occupiers hitherto excluded would be admitted to the franchise under a truthful assessment. On these grounds he thought the matter required investigation, and in the absence of correct results by any other means, he thought they ought to be obtained by the appointment of Government Inspectors. He might be told that it was easy to point out discrepancies; but, with regard to the deductions, could he point out what should be their limit independently of differences of soil and locality? He thought he could at all events name the amounts which would ordinarily apply. Those limits were 2½ per cent on naked land, 10 per cent on farms, 20 per cent on houses, and 25 per cent on cottages. These allowances would, he thought, meet all but exceptional cases. If a farmer appealed against his assessment at 10 per cent on that principle, he might demand the assessment of land and house separately, and in that case there would be no relief, unless the house assessed at 20 per cent were nearly equal in value to the land assessed at 2½, a thing which would rarely occur, but still there was the remedy. As to "accommodation land," its assessment according to the rent is objected to as ex-

  1587
  cessive. "We admit," say the occupiers, "that we give the rent at which we are assessed, but it is more than it is worth; we give it because the property is near our residence, or is convenient for our business, but the rent is beyond its value." But it is obvious that if the demand for abatement were conceded, they would be enabled to pay an excessive rent at the cost of the other ratepayers. A larger question was the assessment of parsonages and mansions. Parsons had complained of their assessments on the grounds that their residences could not, by law, be let without the sanction of the bishop; and squires, that their mansions, the land and shooting being let off, would not let at all. Both parties had caught at the words of the Act, that the annual value should be that at which the property would "let from year to year;" but the spirit as well as the letter of the Act was that they should be assessed at the "net annual value;" and in the case both of the parsonage and the mansion the right course would be to estimate what the house would let for if the owner were out of it and wanted it again. In fact, neither the squire himself nor the parson could be ignored in estimating the value of their occupations. There was great diversity in the practice of various unions in respect to the mode of ascertaining the gross rental of houses, and in settling the deductions. The only deduction which ought to be made out of gross rental, according to the analogy of farms and other property, was that for repairs. So with respect to the tithe rent charge, in some cases the amount of the rent charge, as commuted, was adopted; in others the last year's receipts, and in others again the cost of collection was deducted before entering the "gross estimated rental." He thought these anomalies should be removed, and the assessments be rendered uniform. Then, as to the deductions on account of the stipend of a curate, the law was most puzzling. It appeared to be an anomaly that there should be no deduction for the performance of the duty by the parson himself, but that there should be a deduction when the performance was by means of a substitute. It was, he submitted, necessary to include within the operation of the Union Assessment Committee, places and parishes which were now external to it. It was a great anomaly that parishes and unions should be exempted from the operation of two Assessment Acts which had passed that House, and it was absolutely due to the
  1588
  rest of the unions of the same county, that these exemptions should be removed. All parishes acting under local Acts should be brought in this respect under the general law. He next came to the nature of the matters to be assessed. Last year a considerable number of petitions were presented to that House praying for the removal of anomalies in regard to the exemption of particular classes of property, and a still greater number had been presented that year. A striking exhibition of the absurdity of the law as it now stood was this, that all mines but coal mines were exempt from rates. How had that happened? Because the lawyers maintained that, according to the true construction of the law of Elizabeth, coal mines only being specifically mentioned as rateable, all other mines must be excepted. In the time of Elizabeth coal mines probably were the only mines of importance in existence; but that was no reason why the Legislature should continue to exempt all other kinds of mines. A gentleman from Leeds had written to him that in a neighbouring township there were large stone quarries, which were not assessed either to the poor or the highway rates, although accidents in them greatly augmented the poor rates, and the stone waggons cut the roads into ribbons. The feeling on that question was so strongly in favour of a more rational and equitable adjustment that he believed no difficulty would be found in satisfying even those who might naturally demur at relinquishing the privileges they had so long enjoyed. He trusted, whatever the present impressions of the hon. Gentleman the President of the Poor Law Board on a mere casual discussion of the subject, he might be enabled to lay before the House next Session some legislative proposition for remedying the grievances to which he had referred.
  MR. C. P. VILLIERSsaid, he felt gratified to observe the attention which the hon. Gentleman had given to the working of the Act throughout the country. He had pointed out defects in the law and its administration, but it was only fair to consider what the question of local assessment had been up to that time, that it had been a system under which persons had almost been allowed to tax themselves, and under which the levying of £8,000,000 sterling had been intrusted to the most incompetent and irresponsible hands. The Act which had been substituted for a system that had been in operation for centuries had only been in existence for eighteen

  1589
  months, and the hon. Gentleman should not therefore be too impatient of actual or seeming irregularities, seeing that they were not the necessary consequences of the Act, and that every year they might be expected to diminish in number. The hon. Gentleman had called attention to certain irregularities that he had observed, and which he brought seriatim under the notice of the House. Some of these irregularities had come under his (Mr. C. P. Villier's) notice, and others had not. The hon. Gentleman first insisted upon the necessity of assisting the operation of the Union Assessment Committees by enforcing the legal construction of the gross estimated rental. He presumed his hon. Friend's meaning was, that the House should legislate further on the subject, but he did not know what else could be done that had not been provided for already. The hon. Gentleman referred to a legal construction having been put on the words "gross estimated rental." That definition had been given by the Law Officers of the Crown; it bad been embodied in an Act of Parliament, and had been recognized in courts of justice; and a circular had been issued by the Poor Law Board, and addressed to all the Poor Law Unions in the country, directing them to act on that definition. Therefore, everything that law and authority could do had been done to impress the unions with the fact that there was a definition of gross estimated rental on which they might rely. The hon. Gentleman said there were some unions—he did not mention them—which persisted in disregarding the Act of Parliament and the circular of the Poor Law Board. If so he did not know what other legislation would induce these Assessment Committees to do otherwise. The instances to which his hon. Friend referred were, he believed, very few and far between. Of 700 unions he did not think there would be found six that disregarded the law of the land and the directions of the Poor Law Board. The hon. Gentleman next pointed to the wide range of deductions made by these Assessment Committees in obtaining the net rateable value. Having ascertained the gross estimated rental, they were allowed a discretion in determining the value to be rated, and his hon. Friend found a want of uniformity in the different unions. It was possible that might be the case at first, but his hon. Friend had not explained the circumstances so as to enable the House to declare that the Assessment Committees
  1590
  were not justified in these differences. The range of deduction might be 15 per cent in one county and only 10 per cent in another, but the House was not therefore to presume that the Assessment Committees had acted capriciously. The Act, as he had stated, had hardly been in operation eighteen months, and the publicity given to the assessment would cause the irregularity to cure itself. When the House was asked to legislate on the subject, he wanted to know how the want of uniformity could be cured unless Parliament fixed a maximum that should never be exceeded of 10 per cent, or some other percentage, as deduction for repairs, &c. But his hon. Friend must know that something depended on the character of the soil, the climate, and twenty things that belonged to one county and not to another. A maximum would be very arbitrary, and at all events it would not be desirable on the scanty information before the House, and so soon after the passing of the Act, to legislate on such a matter. He could not for these reasons agree to limit the range of deductions by law. His hon. Friend next asked him to prohibit arbitrary abatements from actual yearly rentals of property proposed upon the plea of its being accommodation land, and to declare that the value to the occupant of a mansion or parsonage was not to be ignored in estimating the assessable value of such property. He would grant that these arbitrary abatements ought not to be made, but his hon. Friend must remember that there was a power of appeal against anything arbitrary or unjust which had never existed before. He believed that the Assessment Committees were composed of competent men, and able and honourable men, who had done their duty in a manner which could hardly have been expected of them. The suggestions of his hon. Friend seemed to cast doubt upon their competency and honesty, but he certainly could not agree with him in that matter. His hon. Friend had laid great stress upon the tithe rent charge, but in what he said upon that subject he thought there was a little confusion, because of all descriptions of rateable property the value of tithe rent charge was the most readily and certainly ascertainable. There were questions as to the deductions which the clergyman was entitled to make, and of these there were two which were always and fairly admitted—one for the repair of the chancel of the church, and the other

  1591
  for the risk of collection. His hon. Friend had dealt chiefly with the deduction for the stipend of the curate. He was quite sure that the desire of the hon. Gentleman was to befriend the clergy, but he thought that in their interests he had better leave that matter alone. Formerly the clergy were never allowed that deduction, and some years ago the question was referred to a Committee of that House, who strongly recommended that no such deduction should be sanctioned. A case was then taken to the Court of Queen's Bench, and it was decided that the stipend of the curate might be deducted in cases in which the duties were so overwhelming that they could not be performed by the incumbent alone, or in cases in which the Bishop insisted upon the employment of a curate. Since then the Courts had set their faces against any extension of this principle, and both Lord Chief Justice Cockburn and Mr. Justice Blackburn had questioned the soundness of the decision of the Court of Queen's Bench. His hon. Friend asked him when the Government would consider the propriety of introducing a Bill to amend the law, by including within the operation of the Union Assessment Committee Act "all places and parishes now external to it." He thought that his hon. Friend had not fully considered what these places were, and what were the objects of the Union Assessment Act. That Act applied strictly to unions, and the places to which he referred were not unions or parts of unions. One of the first objects of the Act was to find a correct basis upon which to levy the parochial contributions to the common fund. These places that were not unions or parts of unions had no common fund, nor did they contribute to any. He did not mean to say that in such parishes and places there was no irregularity in the assessment of property but they did not come within the scope of the Union Assessment Act. A single parish having no guardians could have no assessment committee. His hon. Friend also asked him whether he would bring in a Bill to extend the liability to rating to woods, mines, and other property which had hitherto been exempted. That was rather a difficult question to reply to. As his hon. Friend knew, several attempts had recently been made to legislate upon the subject, and he need not refer to the particular reasons which had prevented their success. He could only say that he had very carefully examined the evidence taken by a
  1592
  Committee of that House a few years ago, and he must confidently state that, so far as he understood the matter, there was no reason for these exemptions. The technical construction of the law was all very well in the courts, but if taxation was to be equal, and property was to bear the burdens to which it was liable fairly, it was not right that one class of property should be exempt from, while others were liable to, rating. Where property was of such a kind that it was difficult or impossible to collect the rates, that was a ground for exemption; but in this instance no such reason existed. The exemptions were not universal throughout the United Kingdom; they did not exist either in Scotland or Ireland. The ground on which the courts had held that mines other than coal mines were exempt was that they were not mentioned in the Act of Elizabeth; but they were liable to highway rates, sewers rates, church rates, and other rates which were not fixed, as was now so much the fashion, upon the basis of the poor rate. The exemptions having endured for a very long time, there were in existence a great number of interests which would be very tenacious of the exemptions which they had enjoyed so long; therefore, it was not easy to produce a change. It was, however, one of the advantages of the Act that all these matters were being looked into very closely, and judging from the memorials which had been received by the Poor Law Board, and the petitions which had been presented to that House, he could not believe that the same influence and interest which had hitherto prevented a change would prevail in the future. Whatever was practical in that matter he should be ready to recommend to the House, but it was no use introducing Bills when there was no chance of carrying them He did not, however, believe that it was impossible to levy rates, either upon mines or woods. He hoped that his hon. Friend would not be too impatient with respect to the operation of the Act. It was substituting a rule and order for the confusion which had hitherto existed. Things did not proceed very rapidly in this country, and his hon. Friend would no doubt be thought a little in advance of the rest of the world in his suggestion that more power ought to be assumed by the central board. He had no doubt that if a proper survey had been made and the assessment had been left in the hands of the Government officers, the thing would have been

  1593
  done more perfectly and more promptly, but his hon. Friend knew what was the system in this country, and how tenacious the people were of their local self-government and of doing everything for themselves. His only astonishment was that this Bill had worked so well, the best proof of which was the increase which had taken place in the amount of assessments. Prom a list which he held in his hands he found the increase in the valuations in the undermentioned unions to be as follows:—Birkenhead, before the Act, £204,453, by the Committee, £290,091; Altincham, before the Act, £198,465, by the Committee, £258,314; Penzance, before the Act, £115,714, by the Committee, £143,837; Romford, before the Act, £125,770, by the Committee, £150,137; Medway, before the Act, £101,338, by the Committee, £145,233; Alverstone, before the Act, £128,000, by the Committee, £193,145; Wolverhampton, before the Act, £209,100, by the Committee, £318,274; Cardiff, before the Act, £167,623, by the Committee, £277,460. It simply remained for him to assure his hon. Friend that he would give every consideration to those matters which he had brought before the House, and to repeat what he had before stated in the course of the Session, that he thought every person occupying the office he had the honour to hold ought to be in a position, from the evidence he would shortly have of the working of the Act, to introduce such Amendments as might be required to enable it to be worked efficiently.

BRITISH CLAIMS ON PORTUGAL.

  PAPERS MOVED FOR.
  MR. AYRTONsaid, he rose to call attention to the unsatisfied claims of British subjects on the Portuguese Government, and to move for papers. However much hon. Members might differ with respect to the duties of a Foreign Secretary, there could scarcely be any doubt that he could not be more usefully employed than in protecting the interests of British subjects abroad. He was, therefore, anxious to bring under the notice of the Foreign Office a case which appeared to him to be one of singular injustice. He had already called the attention of the House to the case during the last Session, and he consequently need not trouble them again at any length. In 1858 the Minister of Public Works in Portugal was extremely anx-
  1594
  ious to establish a line of steam communication between Lisbon and the Portuguese possessions on the African coast. He sought to attain his object by setting up a national joint-stock company at Lisbon, but when the design was matured he found himself in the position—in which Foreign Governments did not unfrequently find themselves—of not possessing the means requisite to carry out his object, and naturally looked to England to supply him with the necessary resources for the purpose. Application was accordingly made to some shipowners in this country, who said they were quite prepared to treat with him for the sale of vessels suited for the proposed line of packets. They were, however, anxious to have adequate security for the value of their ships before they parted with them, and instituted very careful inquiry as to how they were to be paid. The Portuguese Minister after some time arranged that the company which was about to purchase the vessels—not having a large amount of ready cash—should buy them on the credit of shares, which should be made equivalent to money by being guaranteed by the Portuguese Government. A dividend of 7 per cent was secured on the shares, and a further sum was raised on debentures, the interest on which was fixed at 6 per cent. The owners of the vessels, however, would not part with them until an act of association was framed and the guarantee confirmed by a vote of the Cortes. They further pointed out that as their debtors were a Portuguese company, over which the English shareholders had little or no control, it was expedient that the Government of Portugal should find some means of preventing them from misconducting their affairs and thus rendering the shares of little or no value. The Minister of Public Works accordingly appointed two Commissioners to watch over the company, and the owners of the ships thought that everything had at last been made safe. The shares and debentures were accordingly accepted and the ships and the money supplied. After, however, the undertaking had been in existence two or three years, it appeared that the Government Commissioners, instead of taking care that everything should be conducted in an honest and straightforward manner, were rather conniving at the irregularities which were taking place. The result was that the company got into a state of insolvency and had to appeal to the Government, who advanced a sum of £100,000 to relieve them

  1595
  from their embarrassments, and thus as mortgagees became the principal owners of the whole undertaking. The English shareholders under those circumstances were naturally desirous that the affairs of the company should be closely investigated; but the directors, with the connivance of the commissioners, actually created a number of shares for the purposes of a meeting, and with the power thus attained they were able to outvote the rest of the shareholders, to dispose of the shares according to their own wishes, and to vote themselves free from blame or liability in the matter. The English shareholders found, of course, that the shares were, in consequence of those proceedings, very much depreciated in value; the affairs of the company went on from bad to worse, and the whole concern was soon brought practically to an end. Their creditors here, however, thought that at all events the debentures constituted a simple debt, of which there would be no difficulty in obtaining the discharge; they brought an action, and the jury found all the facts in their favour; but the Court, after keeping all the papers a long time, pronounced, without assigning any reason for it, a decision against them. He was, moreover, informed that the Minister at Lisbon having been made acquainted with the proceedings, had arrived, with respect to the matter, at a conclusion of a most unsatisfactory character, amounting, in fact, to a denial of justice. Now, it was desirable, he thought, that Her Majesty's Government should take some notice of these transactions, particularly as it would appear that the Portugese Government were meditating another venture in our well-stocked money market. Every opinion that had been given by the diplomatic authorities had been entirely in favour of those claimants. In consequence of representations which he had made in the last Session, the Government of Portugal bad been brought so far to a sense of its duty as to pay the arrears of interest up to the middle of last year. He hoped now that they would not only pay the interest which had since accrued but also the principal, and thus bring the matter to a close. He was aware of the difficulty which Her Majesty's Government had in getting the Government of Portugal to act rightly. A few years ago he had induced Her Majesty's Government to make representations in another case of injustice, and it had taken two years to bring the Portuguese Government to do what they were bound. He hoped
  1596
  the Under Secretary would exhibit now the same energy which he had shown on that occasion, and he begged to conclude by moving for the papers on the subject, in order that his hon. Friend might have an opportunity of giving some explanation.
  Amendment proposed,
  To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "an humble Address he presented to Her Majesty, that She will be graciously pleased to give directions that there be laid before this House, Copy of the Papers relating to the claims of British Subjects in respect of the Union Mercantile Company,"—(Mr. Ayrton,)
  —instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  MR. LAYARDsaid, that the case to which his hon. Friend had called attention belonged to a class of cases with which it was extremely difficult to deal, and the difficulty had been rendered still greater by speeches which had been lately made in that House. He feared that Governments like the Government of Portugal were encouraged by such speeches to resist our demands. Without pledging himself to all the facts related by his hon. Friend, he believed his sketch on the whole was correct. British capitalists had been induced to invest their money in an undertaking which might to a great extent be called a Government one. That undertaking had not succeeded to the full extent, and the Government had repudiated the guarantee which it had given. An action had been brought in the Portuguese Courts, but, according to the opinion not only of our own agent but of the highest legal authorities in Portugal, there had been a gross maladministration of justice in the matter, and the English shareholders had not received fair play. Her Majesty's Government had referred the case to the Law Advisers of the Crown, and they gave it as their opinion that there were still tribunals in Portugal to which recourse might be had. As long as that was the case the Government could not make official representations. His hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland (Mr. Lindsay), who was somewhat connected with the matter, had gone to Portugal during the year, the Foreign Office furnished him with every assistance, he had been supported by Sir A. Magenis, and on his return home it was hoped that the affair had been settled. But the Portuguese Government had first

  1597
  repudiated the guarantee, and next the engagements into which they had entered. Friendly representations had been made to them over and over again through Sir A. Magenis, over and over again the Portuguese Minister had promised to settle the claims, and over and over again those promises had been broken. He could wish for their own credit that the Portuguese Government would settle these claims, and, indeed, it would be for their interest to do so. This was exactly the country which could develop the resources of Portugal by supplying it with money; but it was impossible that British capitalists should lend their money as long as the Portuguese Government remained guilty of so gross a broach of faith. He could assure his hon. Friend that the Foreign Office would do all it possibly could in the matter unofficially. It could not take any official steps on account of the legal difficulties that were in the way. The Portuguese Government said there was still an appeal. Her Majesty's Government held that appeal to be hopeless, and he believed the shareholders were of the same opinion, but still they could not act upon it. After what had passed in the House that evening, he hoped the Portuguese Government would feel it a duty which they owed to their own honour to satisfy the claims which were made upon them. He had not the least objection to produce the papers.
  MR. AYRTONsaid, he would beg leave to withdraw the Motion. He might add that he believed the claimants had exhausted all their appeals.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

FORFEITURE OF LANDS AND GOODS BILL.—QUESTION.
MR. CHARLES FORSTERsaid, as there was a general concurrence of opinion from both sides of the House in favour of the principle of the Bill, and as the Bill consisted of but one clause, he could see no reason why it could not be carried into law this Session. He wished to ask, Whether, in the event of the Order of the Day for going into Committee on the Bill being discharged, the Attorney General will be prepared to introduce it as a Government measure early in the next Session of Parliament?
THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, the hon. Gentleman had done good service in taking up this Question, and the object he had in view was worthy of the
1598
assent of that House. Still it was not quite so simple a matter as he seemed to suppose, but must be dealt with rather more in detail than by a Bill of one clause. If the hon. Gentleman would trust the matter to him he would undertake that a Bill should be introduced next Session.

ASSIZES FOR THE WEST RIDING.

  QUESTION.
  COLONEL SMYTHsaid, he wished, in the absence of the right hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Sotheron Estcourt), who had a Motion on this subject on the paper, to ask the Government, Whether, after the next Assize for the West Riding had been held at Leeds, they would allow the question of the future Assize Town of the West Riding to be reheard in case sufficient evidence should be laid before them to justify a rehearing?
  SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, the best answer he could give was to refer the hon. and gallant Gentleman to Her Majesty's reply to the address of the other House, which referred to the terms of the Act of Parliament, and stated distinctly—as, indeed, was the case with every other assize town—that if hereafter public convenience in reference to the administration of justice should seem to require that a change should be made or an inquiry instituted, the Question should be re-considered. Of course this could be done as well in regard to the West Riding as to any other county, Leeds stood in no exceptional position—it was to the West Riding what Winchester was to Hampshire and Salisbury to Wilts, and nothing more; and according to the terms of the Act of Parliament reference might be made to the Privy Council if it were shown that a change was required in the interests of the administration of justice.
  Main Question put, and agreed to.

SUPPLY—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES.
SUPPLY—considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
(1.) £5,184, to complete the sum for Magnetic and Meteorological Observations, &c.
MR. AUGUSTUS SMITHsaid, he had before objected to the weather table issued under the auspices of the Board of Trade, and he still entertained the belief that no reliance could be placed on those

1599
prophecies or forecasts of the weather which had lately appeared, and which had very rarely been verified. It was said the forecasts were based on scientific principles, but unfortunately that did not save them from being contradicted by events. About two years ago a forecast was made of an expected gale from the north. It happened, however, that the gale blew from the south, and its effects were very mischievous. In another case a gale from the south-west was prophesied, but instead of blowing on our coasts, as it was stated in the forecast it would, it visited the Baltic, and fortunately was confined to that sea. He had gone through the different tables of forecasts, and had found them twice wrong to once right. He wished to know, whether any instructions had been issued by the Admiralty that their sailing vessels should be governed by the forecasts?
LORD CLARENCE PAGETsaid, he differed from the hon. Gentleman, and believed he expressed the opinion of every seafaring man in the country, when he characterized the remarks just made with respect to Admiral Fitzroy's signals as very unfair. Admiral Fitzroy never professed to prophesy exactly what the wind was going to be, but said that the system was still in its infancy, and required great development. It was, however, making progress, for every European Government was adopting it and making a comparison of observations. In reply to the Question, whether naval officers were to be governed by the weather signals, he could only say that he thought an officer would be blamed if he went to sea in spite of a bad weather signal, and caused damages to occur to his ship, unless he was under some stringent orders on no account to delay his voyage. All along the coast, the seafaring population paid great attention to the signals. His own constituents, who were upon the sea coast, had repeatedly expressed their satisfaction with the system; and he thought it would be extremely unwise, now that the system was becoming developed, suddenly to stop it.
MR. DILLWYNsaid, he understood that his hon. Friend did not object so much to the weather drums which were intended to indicate from what quarter a gale was coming, and which might be serviceable, as to the pretences of forecasting the weather. Those weather prophecies, he thought, did not mislead the public, for the public paid no attention to them.
1600
These prophecies were like Ministerial answers—they might be read in a hundred different ways. He hoped his hon. Friend would divide the Committee against the Vote. The noble Lord talked of the system being in its infancy. It would be time enough to ask for a Vote when the system had attained a mature growth.
MR. LAIRDsaid that, being connected with a seafaring population, he could state that the weather observations were considered very important, and had been the means of saving a vast amount of life and property.
Vote agreed to,
(2.) £500, Royal Geographical Society.
(3.) £1,000, Royal Society.
(4.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That a sum, not exceeding £500, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1865, for enabling the Directors of the Royal Academy of Music to provide accommodation for the Institution."
MR. BERNAL OSBORNEsaid, he wished to ask for an explanation of the Vote.
MR. PEELsaid, that the Royal Academy of Music had existed for thirty or forty years, during which time it had been a self-supporting institution. Its object more particularly was to afford to persons desirous of entering the musical profession an education in this country as good as on the Continent. The expenses of the Academy had been on the average of the last few years £500 a year greater than the receipts from the pupils. The deficiency was made up by voluntary subscriptions and by money derived from a sum which had been invested. That sum of money amounted originally to £10,000, but was now reduced to £4,000, so that it was obvious that if the sum went on diminishing in that way the society would have no alternative but to close their doors. Under these circumstances the society had addressed a memorial to the Chancellor of the Exchequer requesting that Parliament might be recommended to grant to the Academy a small sum, and that memorial was signed by a very long list of names, including almost every name of eminence in the musical profession. The Academy undertook to instruct teachers, and some of the most eminent professors had stated their opinion that it was worthy of support. The Vote was not proposed with the view

1601
of propping up a decayed institution, but with the object of enabling the Academy to recover itself. Under these circumstances he hoped there would be no opposition to the small sum proposed by the Government.
MR. BERNAL OSBORNEsaid, the House would remember that on a recent occasion a financial lecture had been delivered by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who had told them that every man had his peculiar crotchet which he pressed upon the Government and Parliament, however expensive it might be to the public. There was before them at that moment an example of what the Government themselves could do in this way. That was the first time a Vote was asked for the Academy of Music. The Academy was a private one. ["No, no!"] He believed it was strictly a private Academy. In the present Session the House had put a stop to street music, which amused the people. They were now about to pay for music for the better classes. The House had degenerated into a rich roan's club. The first attempt was to get £500 for the Academy of Music, but before long we would have them in a building, and when the public interests required that they should be turned out, the House would be asked for a Vote to keep them in. He could not understand how the Government could make such a proposition if they were anxious for economy. He knew the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Frederick Peel) was a musical man, that he attended concerts, and was acquainted with the Academy. Well, he also was acquainted with it; and he challenged the Chancellor of the Exchequer to produce six good singers whom it had ever produced. They did not want the Academy at the expense of the taxpayers of the country; and though the House was a thin one he hoped it would have sufficient spirit to reject the proposition. Again he challenged the Chancellor of the Exchequer to produce any person eminent either in vocal or instrumental music whom the Academy had handed down. It was nothing but an attempt on the part of a few amateurs to indulge their taste at the expense of the public; and he, therefore, moved that the Vote be rejected.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERobserved, that there could be no doubt that his hon. Friend (Mr. Osborne) was exercising a right in objecting to a new Vote proposed by the Government,
1602
and there could be no doubt that it was quite within the province of the Committee to reject the Vote; but he could not see much relevance in the other matter which his hon. Friend had introduced—namely, the demands made on the Government by private Members. The two questions were quite different from each other. However, his hon. Friend opposed the Vote on two grounds. He said the Academy was a private institution, and he further said that the proposition of a Vote of £500 would be followed by demands for larger sums. Now, with regard to the first objection he entirely denied that the Academy was a private society unless they said that all the multitude of institutions for which they voted annual sums were private societies. They might say on the same grounds that the Royal Institution and the Royal Academy were private societies. Societies for the promotion of the arts and sciences in this country did not emanate or proceed directly from the State; but still the system had been for the State to afford a moderate assistance to those institutions, His hon. Friend said that these grants always grew enormously. That he denied. By way of illustration, he would take another grant—that to the Geographical Society, which was first proposed when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer ten years ago. If any hon. Gentleman asked the question of a member of the Geographical Society he would find that it mainly owed its prosperity to the grant of £500, which had first been voted ten years ago, and had never grown. It was a truth that the culture of music in this country had extended enormously in our generation. The people of England had become conscious of the fact that the taste for music was a gift conferred on mankind generally in various degrees. With some persons it was absent altogether, but as a general rule it was an universal gift. In regard to music, as in that of other sciences, it was found that benevolent persons were disposed to promote education among the young, but were not so ready to support schools and colleges for training teachers. His hon. Friend was mistaken in thinking that the Vote was intended for the support of an institution in which a particular class of music was to be cultivated. The Academy gave no preference to English music in particular. If his hon. Friend looked at the memorial in favour of the Vote, he would find that it was signed by some of

1603
the most eminent musicians of the various schools of music. At the present time the Crown, the Royal family, and a small number of persons had the exclusive honour and burden of supporting the institution, and it appeared to him when the claim presented itself, that it was not possible to say it was an illegitimate application, having regard to other Votes which the House passed annually. It was true there was no money-Vote for the Royal Academy, but that institution had a grant of premises which was equivalent to several thousand pounds a year. Before they undertook to submit the Vote to Parliament the Government had required the society to show them that they had the confidence of the musical profession. That they had now shown by the names of the Englishmen and foreigners who supported the application. Secondly, they had required that the society should discard any intention of acting on a system of private patronage; they had required that the society should throw open their doors to all comers, and conduct the institution on the most liberal principles. To both those conditions the society had conformed. Thirdly, the Government said they could not take upon themselves the responsibility of supporting the Academy. All they could do was to apply to Parliament for an experimental Vote, and if the countenance of Parliament was the means of securing for the Academy adequate public support the grant might be continued, but the Government could not make the society public pensioners. The expenditure of the Academy was several thousands a year, and the moderate amount covered by the Vote was only applied in aid of private subscriptions, the bulk of the expense being borne by the pupils. He did not think that the House would retrace its steps and revoke the grants made that very year in behalf of kindred objects, and he hoped therefore that this Vote would also command cheerful acquiescence.
MR. AYRTONsaid, there was no analogy between the Academy of Music and the Geographical Society, which was essentially a public society, with public objects, whereas the Academy was merely for the purpose of giving persons a superior knowledge of music, and thereby enabling them to earn larger salaries than they otherwise could command. As to the precedents which had been referred to, every act of extravagance into which the House was inveigled by the Government,
1604
was made a precedent to justify further extravagance in some further Session. The Government seemed to be about to teach every thing to every body at the public expense, and when the Chancellor of the Exchequer spoke of a maximum grant of £500, he should look to the Science and Art Department. No sooner would the grant be made in London than the provinces would ask why they should not also have a share; and Dublin and Edinburgh would make demands which could not be resisted for the establishment of schools of music there. The Kensington Museum had led to a museum at Dublin and Edinburgh, and to an expenditure of thousands for erecting, filling, and keeping up those buildings, and for a travelling museum very much like that of Barnum or Womb-well. In the memorial which had been presented, the memorialists trusted that the time was not distant when music might stand here on the same footing as in those countries where the Government wholly and permanently maintained a school of music. These persons had not arrived at the happy frame of mind which the Chancellor of the Exchequer had attained when he said that he saw the end of this expenditure. Now he (Mr. Ayrton) only saw the beginning of it. The grant was for the maintenance of music of a high character among the upper classes, who ought to be able to pay for it themselves, while they were unable to endure the organs and the humbler music of the lower classes. A more contemptible vote was never presented to Parliament, and he hoped it would be rejected.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he did not wish to mislead the Committee, and he would, therefore, inform them that there had been an application from Dublin founded upon the proposed grant; but the answer given was that it was an experimental proposal, and that any other application was premature. Within very moderate limits he thought it not unwise to recognize the claims of Dublin and Edinburgh in such cases. But if even the grant of £500 were supplemented by grants of £200 or £300 to those two cities, the fears of the hon. Member must be easily excited if they were aroused by the contingency of such proposals. He hoped that the hon. Gentleman would not attempt to propagate the fallacy that it was a question between the music of the higher and of the lower classes, because the music of the higher classes was the

1605
opera, and was essentially foreign music, whereas the vote applied chiefly to music enjoyed by the middle classes, especially in London.
MR. CLAYsaid, that even if the consequences foreseen by the hon. Member (Mr. Ayrton) were realized, and the provinces obtained a share in the giants made for purposes of art, he could not say that any harm would be done by the softening-influences of art being felt all over the country. The hon. Gentleman said that the object of the Academy of Music was to enable people to make money. That was not so. Its object was to improve the taste and increase the knowledge of music throughout the country; and if some persons thereby gained a higher position than they would otherwise have obtained, that was a mere accident, and was not the original aim and intention of the Academy. He remembered the time when nothing beyond hunting and drinking songs were known as English compositions, and when one opera, Artaxerxes, represented the English school. Things had now changed, and we had a musical school not inferior to that of any country, which result was mainly owing to the influence of the Royal Academy of Music.
COLONEL DUNNEsaid, he did not know whether it was competent to him to move a similar grant for Dublin, but if it were, he would do so, and an hon. Friend was equally ready to propose a Vote for Edinburgh.
MR. AUGUSTUS SMITHsaid, he wished to know if the science of music was to be encouraged by a grant of public money where was the system to end? He thought that the less Government had to do with such institutions the better it would be for everybody. Formerly agriculture and fisheries were sustained by public money, but since the grants had ceased neither agriculture nor the fisheries had been less productive. If any Government management were to be given to any particular science, he thought it would be most usefully given to a school of cookery, as there was no country in the world in which the proverb, "Providence sends food and the devil cooks," was more verified than in England.
SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEreminded the hon. and gallant Member for Portarlington (Colonel Dunne) that it was complained that Ireland was suffering from a pressure of taxation. The hon. and gallant Gentleman wished for additional
1606
expenditure, because additional expenditure was proposed for England. But increased expenditure meant increased taxation, although it might be well for a rich country to bear the increased taxation, yet it would bear more hardly upon a poor and suffering country like Ireland. He would be sorry to impede the spread of musical taste and knowledge, but he was disinclined to support that new Vote.
COLONEL DUNNEexplained, that he did not desire to increase expenditure, but what he complained of was, that while Ireland had too much of the taxation, she had too little of the expenditure.
MR. DILLWYNsaid, he could not see the analogy which the Chancellor of the Exchequer had drawn between the grant for the Academy of Music and the grant made to the Royal Academies, the Geographical Society, and the Royal Society. With respect to the Royal Academy, they had the benefit of a public building, for the use of which they drew an immense revenue, and yet were found resisting the demands of the country. The grant for the Geographical Society was for a public purpose—the exhibition of their collection of maps. The Royal Society received a grant of £1,000 to carry on certain experiments for public purposes. The Vote could not be said to be of an analogous character, and therefore he should oppose it. It was in the continuance of a system by which they were very fast assuming a paternal character and educating the whole nation. He thought it would be much better to leave the people to their own voluntary efforts.
MR. ADDERLEYsaid, he thought the principle upon which such rules as that they were discussing might be justified was this—that in some things the natural demands of the people were not so vigorous as they ought to be for the interests of the nation, and those demands were particularly connected with the fine arts. In those cases the State, or those who represented it, were justified in giving public money in the interests of the people for the purpose of stimulating a demand which, when it once became natural, would be beneficial to the nation. On that ground they justified the Vote for science and art, and the result had proved the justness of the principles upon which that Vote was proposed; for notoriously the taste of the country had been stimulated, and the designs of our manufactures raised, and the consequence had been a great pecuniary benefit

1607
(even to put it on that ground) to the country at large. The question was whether music should be treated upon the same footing as other arts, and he thought that it ought; and that if the Vote were rejected they should in consistency withdraw the other Votes which were given for the encouragement of science and art. The principle which had been acted upon was to give public money where it was felt that an artificial stimulus was required to promote a particular object.
MR. BERNAL OSBORNEobserved, that if the principle of the right hon. Gentleman were adopted, the Vote before the Committee would be only the thin end of the wedge, and before long they would be asked to vote for music schools all over the country. The Academy of Music was a private society started forty-four years ago by the Earl of Westmoreland and other noblemen and gentlemen, under the patronage of George IV., but till now not a sixpence of the public money had been voted for it. It appeared, however, that the subscriptions of the patrons had fallen off considerably; and hence the appeal which was made on behalf of a bankrupt private society. For his own part he should have been content with Artaxerxes even (to which, by the way, the hon. Gentleman had not done justice) rather than have this false system of Government aid established. There was a beautiful air in that opera, "In infancy our hopes and fears." Well, the Vote was in its infancy, and they had better crush its hopes at once. He held that the State ought not to pay for more than the mere rudiments of education. If they had a Vote for music, why not for dancing? An enthusiastic dancer once undertook to prove that all the orations of Cicero and Demosthenes might be represented by dancing, and there was a great deal to be said for the art. Some day they might have the Chancellor of the Exchequer institute an analogy between the Geographical Society and the Academy of Dancing. If the House was not a mere rich man's club they would put a stopper on that stimulating process at once.
SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, that while the hon. Member for Swansea declared that all these things should be left to voluntary effort, the hon. Member for Liskeard showed that voluntary effort had in this case been at work for forty-four years, and could go on no longer. There was surely some inconsistency in these
1608
views. He believed the Government had done right in proposing the Vote to a society which had contributed greatly to the improvement of a national taste for music.
MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, that if there was one art or science more than another which could stand by itself and did not require the aid of Government, it was music. There had been of late years an immense advance in musical taste in this country, and there was no art more popular. It was in no need of a miserable Vote of £500, and he hoped the Committee would reject it.
MR. HENNESSYsaid, he must protest against the Chancellor of the Exchequer offering to Ireland the prospect of a paltry grant in aid of music when everything in the country had gone to rack and ruin through his mismanagement. What they wanted was something practical.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, the hon. Member had mistaken what he said.
SIR GEORGE BOWYERthought that the knowledge of music was in such a condition in this country that improvement was highly desirable; and he protested against the time of the Committee being wasted in discussing a Vote which was so small as to have scarcely any effect upon the expenditure of the country.
The Committee divided:—Ayes 52; Noes 42: Majority 10. Vote agreed to.
(5.) £771,473, Customs (Salaries and Expenses).
SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYsaid, he wished to ask how it was that there was an increase in the Vote this year of upwards of £17,000? There was strong reason to believe that the Reports of imports and exports were not correct, that there were no accurate data upon the subject, and he wanted to hear from the President of the Board of Trade what was the machinery by which the Returns were obtained, and whether he would undertake to show that the monthly and annual Returns, especially of exports, were accurate?
MR. MILNER GIBSONsaid, he believed there was no reason to doubt the general accuracy of the Returns. The imports with regard to quantity were ascertained from the entries made and also from information supplied by the dock authorities. He believed it was the practice of the Customs to compute the value of the imports from the prices of the various

1609
articles according to the price current of the day. As to the exports, in the case of quantity the bill of lading on which the duty was formerly levied was no longer required, but there was a Customs bill of lading shown by those who unloaded the ships to the Customs officers at the dock gates. The value of the exports must depend in a great degree upon the declaration of the merchants, but he had no doubt that they gave a very fair and accurate account. He believed that there was no reason to doubt the general accuracy of the Returns made by the Customs of the imports and exports of the country.
MR. PEELsaid, the increase in the Vote of £17,000 was purely nominal with the exception of a sum of £4,600, which arose from a small addition to the Customs establishment in the course of last year.
Vote agreed to.
(6.) £1,313,467, Inland Revenue (Salaries and Expenses).
(7.) £2,114,616, Post Office (Salaries and Expenses).
(8.) £492,536, Superannuations, &c, Customs, Inland Revenue, and Post Office.
SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYexpressed himself dissatisfied with the explanation given by the President of the Board of Trade upon the Customs Votes. He should not have raised the question if there had not been evidence on the table that the Returns were very inaccurate.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that in 1860 the Government proposed that a certain charge should be levied on bills of lading for exports, mainly with a view of giving the Customs authorities power to obtain very precise and accurate statistics with respect to goods exported. A great deal of complaint, however, was made by the trade on that subject, and a Committee reported that the old mode of obtaining such statistical information was sufficient for its purpose.
MR. SEYMOUR FITZGERALDsaid, the real question was, whether the President of the Board of Trade could pledge himself that the statement he had made about the existing machinery for collecting this information was a correct one, and whether the right hon. Gentleman himself could rely in any way upon that machinery?
MR. MILNER GIBSONsaid, he had stated that they took the declaration of the merchants as to value.
MR. SEYMOUR FITZGERALDsaid, he wished the right hon. Gentleman to explain more explicitly what was the exact machinery by which the value and quantities of exports were ascertained.
MR. MILNER GIBSONsaid, he would beg before he did that to be permitted to make further inquiry. They had not the same means of ascertaining such particulars in regard to exports as they had in regard to imports; and in the case of the former they placed reliance on the declaration of the exporter.
MR. WHITEsaid, he could himself testify to the absolute inaccuracy of the Board of Trade Returns, especially in respect to non-dutiable articles. Some merchants were in the habit of declaring goods at double their true value, and very often gross exaggeration took place. At the same time, as the merchants had no more interest in misrepresenting in one year than they had in another, these Returns afforded a rough means of estimating the progress of our trade.
Vote agreed to.
House resumed.
Resolutions to be reported on Monday next; Committee to sit again on Monday next.

WAYS AND MEANS.—REPORT.
Resolutions [July 14] reported.
In answer to Sir STAFFORD NORTHCOTE,
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he expected that a portion of these bonds would be paid off next year.
SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYinquired the rate of interest on the bonds.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that the rate of interest would be specified in the Bill.
Resolutions agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. MASSEY, Mr. CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER, and Mr. PEEL.

SCOTTISH EPISCOPAL CLERGY DISABILITIES REMOVAL BILL.

  [Lords.] (No. 16). COMMITTEE.
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee).
  Clauses 1 to 3 agreed to.
  Clause 4. (Persons admitted into Holy Orders by Bishops in Scotland not to be admitted to Benefices, &c. in England or

  1611
  Ireland without Consent of Bishop of the Diocese).
  MR. KINNAIRD MR. KINNAIRD moved the omission of the following words at the end of it:—
  "Any such Bishop shall be entitled to refuse such consent and approbation without assigning any reason for such refusal, any law or practice to the contrary notwithstanding."
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 3, line 10, to leave out the words "and any such Bishop shall be entitled to refuse such consent and approbation without assigning reason for such refusal, any law or practice to the contrary notwithstanding."—(Mr. Kinnaird.)
  SIR WILLIAM HEATHCOTEsaid, the adoption of the Amendment would be fatal to the object of the Bill.
  Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 48; Noes 5: Majority 43.
  Clause agreed to.
  Remaining clauses agreed to.
  House resumed.
  Bill reported, with an Amendment as amended, to be considered on Monday next.

POISONED FLESH PROHIBITION, &c, BILL. [BILL 199.]

  CONSIDERATION.
  Bill, as amended, considered.
  LORD NAAS LORD NAAS moved that the clause excluding Ireland from the operation of the Bill be omitted.
  After short debate, Clause omitted.
  Bill to be read 3o, on Monday next.

  METROPOLIS MANAGEMENT ACT (1862) AMENDMENT BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. BARING, Bill to amend "The Metropolis Management Amendment Act, 1862," ordered* to be brought in by Mr. BARING, Mr. COWPER, and Mr. TITE.
  Bill presented, and read 1o.* [Bill 219.]

  HACKNEY CARRIAGES (METROPOLIS) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. LOCKE, Bill to amend the Laws relating to the Hackney Carriages of the Metropolis and the Proprietors and Drivers thereof ordered* to be brought in by Mr. LOCKE, Sir MORTON PETO, Mr. Alderman SALOMONS, and Mr. AYRTON.
  Bill presented, and read 1o.* [Bill 216.]

  INDIAN MEDICAL SERVICE BILL.
  On Motion of Sir CHARLES WOOD, Bill to repeal certain parts of the Act of the sixteenth and seventeenth years of Her Majesty, chapter ninety-
  1612
  five, and to make provision for the Medical Service of Her Majesty's Indian Forces, ordered* to be brought in by Sir CHARLES WOOD and The Marquess of HARTINGTON.
  Bill presented, and read 1o.* [Bill 213.]

  CORN RETURNS BILL.
  Acts considered in Committee.*
  (In the Committee.)
  Resolved, That the Chairman be directed to move the House, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Law relating to Publication of Accounts of Corn Imported, and to Returns of Purchases and Sales of Corn.
  Resolution reported.
  Bill ordered* to be brought in by Mr. MILNER GIBSON and Mr. HUTT.
  Bill presented, and read 1o.* [Bill 814.]

  WEST INDIAN INCUMBERED ESTATES ACT AMENDMENT BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. CHICHESTER FORTESCUE, Bill to amend the West Indian Incumbered Estates Act, ordered*to be brought in by Mr. CHICHESTER FORTESCUE and Mr. PEEL.
  Bill presented, and read 1o.* [Bill 215.]

  EXCHEQUER BONDS (£1,600,000) BILL.
  Bill for raising a sum by Exchequer Bonds for the Service of the year one thousand eight hundred and sixty-four;" presented, and read 1o.* [Bill 217.]

  FORTIFICATIONS (PROVISION FOR EXPENSES) BILL.
  Bill for providing a further sum towards defraying the expenses of constructing Fortifications for the protection of the Royal Arsenals and Dockyards, and the Ports of Dover and Portland, and of creating a Central Arsenal; presented, and read 1o [Bill 218.]
  House adjourned at a quarter after Two o'clock till Monday next.

MINUTES.
— SELECT COMMITTEE — Report— Railway Companies (Borrowing Powers* (No. 127).
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Mutual Surrender of Criminals (Prussia)* (No. 204); Naval Discipline* (No. 205); Thames Embankment and Metropolis Improvement (Loans)* (No. 206); Highway Act Amendment* (No. 207); Expiring Laws Continuance* (No. 208); Isle of Man Harbours Act Amendment* (No. 209); Militia Ballots Suspension*.
Second Reading—Judgments, &c., Law Amendment* (No. 194), and referred to Select Committee; College of Physicians* (No. 114); Inland Revenue (Stamp Duties)* (No. 198); Inclosure (No. 2)* (No. 177); Trespass (Ireland)* (No. 202).
Committee—Accidents Compensation Act Amendment* (No. 158); Street Music (Metropolis)* (No. 196); Railways (Ireland) Act Amendment* (No. 178); Drainage and Improvement of Lands (Ireland)* (No. 189).
Report—Street Music (Metropolis)* (No. 196); Railways (Ireland) Act Amendment* (No. 178); Drainage and Improvement of Lands (Ireland)* (No. 189).
Third Reading—Factory Acts Extension* (No. 176); Indemnity* (No. 197); India Stocks Transfer Act Amendment* (No. 195); Defence Act Amendment* (No. 193),and passed.

POWERS OF CONVOCATION TO PASS SYNODICAL JUDGMENT ON BOOKS.— ESSAYS AND REVIEWS.—QUESTION.
LORD HOUGHTON,in rising to put the Question of which he had given notice, as to the powers of the Convocation of the Province of Canterbury to pass a synodical judgment on books written by either clergymen or laymen, said: My Lords, I should hardly be acting with due respect to your Lordships, or to the Law Officers of the Crown, if I did not accompany the Question which I am about to ask with a few comments, for the purpose of showing, as well as I am able, that I am not calling your attention to a speculative or fanciful subject, but to a practical grievance and to
1536
an immediate danger. I think, also, that I am bound to show in a few words, that there is sufficient doubt and difficulty as to the interpretation of the law upon this subject to justify me in asking Her Majesty's Government to require the opinion of the Law Officers with respect to it. The subject which I now desire to bring before your Lordships is the synodical judgment lately pronounced in the Convocation of the Province of Canterbury on a certain book called Essays and Reviews. The censure or condemnation of books has from the earliest times been a prompt and available means which both the ecclesiastical and the civil powers have employed for the suppression of opinions of which they disapproved; and, therefore, the combination of an entire liberty of the press with good social order is justly regarded as the highest triumph of modern civilization. From the time when the Emperor Charles V. prohibited the use of certain books in the University of Louvaine, from the time when the Pope Alexander Borgia established the system of licences at Rome, that power has been freely exercised, both by Churches and by States. Therefore, there is nothing peculiar in the fact that Convocation has desired to exercise, or has attempted to exercise, this power. But, at the same time, I think your Lordships will regard it as worthy of consideration, whether that power can at the present time be legally, and, perhaps, afterwards you will consider whether it can be constitutionally, exercised. The synodical condemnation which has been pronounced by the Convocation of the Province of Canterbury with respect to this book is in the following terms:—
"That this Synod, having appointed Committees of the Upper and Lower House to examine and report upon the volume entitled Essays and Reviews, and the said Committees having severally reported thereon, doth hereby synodically condemn the said volume, as containing teaching contrary to the doctrine received by the United Church of England and Ireland, in common with the whole Catholic Church of Christ."
My Lords, I am not going to enter, nor do I wish your Lordships to enter, into any theological controversy; my sole interest, here at least, is for the freedom of opinion and the liberties of literature. The opinions expressed in this book, therefore, I will set aside as matters which it does not become me to discuss. The nature and structure of the work, however, are

1537
so peculiar as to make the case against the censure so much stronger, that your Lordships will permit me to state what it is. Some years ago a young and enterprising publisher formed a scheme for establishing a theological review, which should hare a larger latitude of speculation and scope of criticism than is usual with publications of that character at the present day in this country. For that purpose he collected certain articles; but he afterwards abandoned the project, and published in one volume the essays which were collected for the purpose of forming that review. Thus, then, the volume of Essays and Reviews was collected together without any mutual arrangement on the part of the contributors, and without any connection of the subjects whatever; and it is, therefore, as varied a work as might be any number of the Quarterly or Edinburgh Reviews, to which I believe that some of your Lordships or of your relations occasionally contribute. Therefore, I wish your Lordships to understand that in the condemnation of this work the Convocation of the Province of Canterbury have committed an act Which, if followed up, as of course it will be, will enable them to condemn in toto, in like manner and with the same authority, any work in which they find any one article which contains theological propositions with which they do not agree. Now, this seems to me to be a very perilous precedent, and one carrying with it very serious consequences: for your Lordships will see that this condemnation does not fall upon any propositions which have been selected by Convocation as objectionable in themselves, and which therefore it was their duty to produce, but that it falls upon all the authors of papers in this book, although one of them is a layman and another a clergyman, I believe, Mr. Pattison, in whose essays no one has ever pretended to find anything objectionable. I think that in itself it is a matter of regret that a book of this nature should have been selected by Convocation as the commencement of the Index Expurgatorius of which English literature may expect to be the subject in future, unless prompt objection is taken to this process; and I hope that your Lordships will see that this is a question of pressing and immediate difficulty. Now, as to the law of the subject, the law relating to Convocation is exceedingly doubtful and difficult. Your
1538
Lordships are aware how almost contemporaneous was the reformation of the English Church with the invention of printing, consequently there were very few opportunities for the condemnation of works by the Houses of Convocation before the Reformation. But it is worth your Lordships' consideration, and I think it conveys a moral which may be of some advantage to the right rev. Prelates, that in the year 1555, in the reign of Queen Mary, the first works which we find condemned by the Convocation of Canterbury are these—a work on The Sacrament of the Altar by Archbishop Cranmer; a Communion Book, which is, in fact, our present Book of Common Prayer; and a suspect version of the Bible, which is the foundation of our present translation. At that time Convocation interfered with matters with which at the present day it would hardly think it right to meddle. I have been told by my friend Mr. Froude, that he has found during his researches among the records an address from both Houses to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth, requesting Her Majesty as soon as possible to put an end to the life of Mary Queen of Scots, "as being an idolater she was perfectly justified in doing." But this particular question of the suppression of books hardly appears in the history of the English Convocation until those times when secular and ecclesiastical motives were so mixed up with one another that it would be unfair to attribute to the Church of England those defects and errors which really belong to the State. In the times of King William and Queen Anne ecclesiastical politics ran so high, and had so much effect upon the general distribution of patronage and power in this country, that it is no wonder that Convocation took the part it did. Therefore, I would rather direct your Lordships' attention to one great peculiarity of these attempts to censure and suppress books, which is this—that when the Lower House of Convocation were led away by political violence or religious zeal, they were in almost every case restrained by the superior wisdom of the Prelates, which prevented any considerable evil from being done. Thus I find that in 1689, when a work upon St. Athanasius's Creed was presented by the Lower House of Convocation as a subject for condemnation, the Upper House took counsel with the lawyers of the time, and they reported that having consulted those learned in both

1539
laws they were of opinion that Convocation could not proceed judicially. In the year 1700 there was a still stronger case with regard to a work by Toland, called Christianity not Mysterious, a work which at that, as at all times, would be most offensive to devout persons, believers in the Christian religion. The work was presented by the Lower House to the Upper for condemnation. And what was the conduct of the Upper House? The Upper House took legal advice, and this is the answer they gave—
"Upon our consulting with counsel learned in the law concerning heretical, impious, and immoral books, and particularly concerning a book of Toland's, sent up to us from the Lower House, we do not find how, without a licence from the King, which we have not yet received, we can have sufficient authority to censure judicially any such books; but, on the contrary, we are advised that by so doing both Houses of Convocation may incur the penalties of the statute of the 25 Henry VIII."
In the same year, the Lower House, unchecked it seems by this rebuke, presented for censure no less a book than The Exposition of the Articles, the work of one of the Bishops themselves — Bishop Burnet. This, no doubt, naturally excited some indignation on the part of the Upper House, who returned this reproof, which I will venture to recommend to the attention of the right rev. Prelates, because the case is similar to that which I am now bringing before you—not certain propositions, but the whole book being condemned—
"That the Lower House of Convocation censuring the book of the Bishop of Sarum in general terms, without mentioning the particular passages on which the censure is grounded, is defamatory and scandalous."
I come next to a case, on which, I have no doubt, the right rev. Prelates have very much relied—namely, the celebrated case of Mr. Whiston, in 1710. In that case the works of Mr. Whiston were presented by the Lower to the Upper House for condemnation. The Upper House was at that time presided over by Archbishop Tillotson, and I wish that any of your Lordships who take an interest in the subject would read the letter which was written by the Archbishop—a letter characterized by such great moderation and such profound respect for the law of the land, that I cannot help thinking that it may have been the very document which inspired a right rev. Friend of mine with the strong dislike and distrust of that pre-
1540
late which he lately expressed. In this letter, which is too long to read, Archbishop Tillotson sums up in the most masterly manner all the objections to the action of Convocation in questions of thi3 kind. He cites all the legal objections to which I have already alluded, and points out that the Act of 17 Charles II., which repealed the Tithe Commission, enacted that no court for dealing with ecclesiastical matters should be set up without the authority of the Crown; and he concludes by saying that it was necessary that the result of the deliberations should be laid before her Majesty, with an humble request that She might be pleased to submit the case to her revered Judges for their opinion. That was accordingly done, and the Judges consulted arrived at a decision which would no doubt carry with it great weight on such matters. Twelve Judges out of sixteen—[Lord CHELMSFORD: There were only twelve Judges altogether]— I am much obliged to the noble and learned Lord for the correction; but eight Judges and the Attorney and Solicitor General reported that this jurisdiction might be exercised in Convocation. They, however, add a proviso at the conclusion of their judgment, which appears to me to deserve great consideration. They say that this being a matter on which an application for a prohibition on the part of the person prosecuted might come on for judgment before some of them, they desired to be understood as giving their opinion, reserving to themselves entire liberty of altering it in case any records or proceedings which they were at the time strangers to should be laid before them, or any new considerations suggested to them which might convince them that they had made a mistake. Now I think that qualification, referring, as it no doubt does, to the possibility of an attempt being made to prohibit such a censure, by mandamus or other legal process, considerably modifies the effect of the judgment. It is, nevertheless, I admit, a document of great importance, and carries with it very serious weight. After their judgment was delivered, the Queen gave to Convocation plenary powers. But a curious historic fact is, that, when acting upon the Judgment and the Queen's Letter giving to Convocation such plenary powers as they required, they proceeded to pronounce sentence on Mr. Whiston, and to submit the sentence to the approval of the Crown; the Crown would not give that approval, and they could never find

1541
the Queen under such circumstances as to enable them to procure her assent; so that Mr. Whiston escaped. The only other case to which I shall call attention was that of Dr. Clarke, in 1714, whose book on the Trinity was condemned by both Houses of Convocation. He made, however, a submission, which was considered sufficient by the Upper House, but not by the Lower. The result was that there was a most unseemly difference of opinion, and Convocation was dissolved without any condemnation of Dr. Clarke having been passed. There is, therefore, nothing to guide us in this instance, except, perhaps, the case of Mr. Whiston, and connected with that case there were, as your Lordships have seen, great doubts and difficulties. There has since that time been a great deal of legislation with respect to ecclesiastical matters, and I think it a question worthy of consideration, whether the Act 3 & 4 Vict. c. 86, s. 23, does not affect this case. By that Act it is declared that no criminal proceedings shall be instituted against any clergyman in holy orders for any offence against ecclesiastical law in any ecclesiastical court otherwise than was therein enacted and provided. That being so, I consider myself justified in putting my first Question to Her Majesty's Government, Whether they have taken or are willing to take the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown as to the powers of the Convocation of the Province of Canterbury to pass a synodical judgment on books written either by clergymen or laymen? If it should be determined that Convocation has the power of passing these censures, it still appears to me that it is required not only that the Act should be legal, but that it should be privileged; because, unless it is privileged, in the same way as the Acts of your Lordships' House and the House of Commons, surely it is competent for any person who considers himself damaged in fortune or reputation by any one of those judgments to appeal to the Courts of the land for that protection which the laws of England afford to every British subject. This, it appears to me, is a very grave matter, and can be got rid of only by the argument that those censures are not of such a nature as to inflict any injury on a man's character or prospects. I, however, deny the justice of that argument. I say that those who inflict those censures mean that they should punish, and by punishing injure. It is intended when a censure is passed that it should be
1542
injurious to the person censured, and it is regarded as a punishment. Let me take the case of the first author whose name appears in this volume of Essays and Reviews—the Rev. Dr. Temple, a most distinguished man, the Master of Rugby School, of the excellence of which the late Royal Commission spoke in such high terms. It seems to me that it may be very well argued that Dr. Temple's interests in that school are seriously injured by the decision which has been pronounced by Convocation. It may be that it may have the effect of preventing parents from sending their boys to the school, or of inducing them to remove them from it, and thereby inflict an injury on Dr. Temple in his status and emoluments. Then there is the case of the last author whose name appears in this book—Mr. Jowett, a Professor of Oxford, who has been treated with such signal injustice as to excite even the strongly expressed feeling of your Lordships' House. Can any one say that Professor Jowett may not have suffered injury in his future career from the censure to which I am referring? Let me suppose the case of one of those eminent writers rising to the highest position in the Church, and occupying a seat on the right rev. Bench—might they not have this censure still hanging over them, diminishing their influence, and preventing them from occupying that position in the State to which by their talents they are entitled? And if Convocation has the power to inflict so serious an evil as that to which I have drawn your Lordships' attention, must they not for very consistency continue their course of condemnation and censure, condemning such works as that of Bishop Colenso, which has created so much excitement lately—or any other work which the earnest clergy of this country may be disposed to regard as heretical? I contend that Convocation has no right to pick out this one book for censure; they should direct their attention equally to all other books of a similar character, and then who can say how far they would have to go? But, supposing this power to be legal and privileged, still even then it ought, I contend, to be accompanied by some degree of form and procedure. It has been urged that it is an essential vice in the constitution of Convocation that it has no power to call for evidence or papers, and does not possess the other attributes of a court of justice. Convocation cannot proceed to make a new canon without the express license of the Crown, and I

1543
can see no true distinction between making a new canon and pronouncing a sentence of this sort. I wish, therefore, to know explicitly from the Government whether this censure ought not to have been pre ceded by a license from the Crown, and whether it has really any meaning without that license? The fact that Dr. Williams after having made a strong application to Convocation to be heard in his defence was refused permission, and condemned unheard, I am sure will be repulsive to your Lordships' sense of justice. In a letter he has written to me Dr. William complains of this act of injustice, and hi says—
"The nature of a suit in the Ecclesiastics Courts is to deal only with legal issues. The defendants in such a suit are excluded from all the moral bearings which depend upon literary, scientific, or other research. Convocation, by refusing to hear me, has declared I shall be hears nowhere."
My Lord, I feel deeply, not only this act of injustice, but also the mistake which Convocation has made in diverging from the path of useful and practical reform on which it has entered of late years to an attempt to limit freedom of expression and thought in this country. The newly appointed Dean of Lincoln, Dr. Jeremie, Professor of Divinity at Cambridge, spoke with excellent sense on this point in Convocation. He said—
"If we once do so we shall be involved in endless difficulties. I believe that the whole tide of public sympathy, now in our favour, will turn against us, and we shall ultimately lose the means of usefulness we now possess, and which we cannot hope to retain unless we confine our attention to reforms of a particular nature."
If Convocation persists in proceeding in this path, I fear the result will be a reversion to the constitutional form which has been adopted before to check its eccentricities; whereas if they will employ argument to meet argument, knowledge to meet knowledge, and intellect to meet intellect, they will do all which will be the best for their Church and their country. I will, in conclusion, put to Her Majesty's Government the Question of which I have given notice—
"Whether they have taken or are willing to take the Opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown as to the Powers of the Convocation of the Province of Canterbury to pass a Synodical Judgment on Books written either by Clergymen or by Laymen; as to the immunity of the Members of that Body from Proceedings at Common Law consequent on such Judgments; and as to the Forms according to which such Judicial Power must be exercised if it belongs to that Body?"
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, the speech of my noble Friend (Lord Houghton) has been so able, that it relieves me in a great degree from any difficulty as to my answer. There are three modes of dealing with Convocation since it has been permitted, which I deeply regret, to come into action again and transact business. The first is, while they are harmlessly busy, to take no notice of their proceedings; the second is, when they seem likely to get into mischief, to prorogue them and put a stop to their proceedings; the third, when they have done something clearly beyond their powers, is to bring them to the bar of justice for punishment. Now, before what Court could they be brought, and what would be the punishment that could be inflicted on them? All the laws about which my noble Friend has addressed you were passed at the time of the Reformation, and were passed for a purpose which the Legislature had most at heart—to secure the supremacy of the Crown. The supremacy of the Crown is guarded by strict words, which carefully enunciate this truth—that the Crown is the fountain of all jurisdiction, ecclesiastical and spiritual as well as temporal, and that none shall presume to exercise that jurisdiction, either directly or indirectly, without the special warrant of the Crown and with an appeal to the Crown. But as if there were an expectation that the clergy would endeavour to usurp the rights and powers which history tells us they have at all times been anxious to obtain, the statutes have carefully provided that the express license of the Crown should be necessary to enable Convocation to act in any manner, and that if Convocation should attempt to pronounce any sentence, or execute any law or ordinance, without the previous license Mid authority of the Crown, they shall incur the penalties of a prœmunire. The enactment of the 25 Henry VIII. c. 19 s, that the clergy shall not presume to it attempt, allege, claim, or put in use, any constitutions or ordinances or canons in heir Convocations without the King's license so to do. Words could not more precisely or accurately define that all jurisdiction to be exercised by Convocation is to be under the power and authority of the sovereign, and that without an express authority they are prohibited from alleging r putting in use any ordinance or canon, hat is, from passing any judgment, option or sentence. But the caution of

1545
the Legislature did not even stop there. Not only did it require that Convocation must be put in motion by the Crown, but it said that no ordinances or sentences —nothing which Convocation might choose to pronounce—should have any validity until it had received the sanction of the Crown, and that if any attempt were made to give any force to them without that sanction the parties so offending should incur the penalties of prœmunire. I am afraid my noble Friend has not considered what the pains and penalties of a prœmunire are, or his gentle heart would have melted at the prospect. The most rev. Primate and the Bishops would have to appear at this bar, not in the solemn state in which we see them here, but as penitents in sackcloth and ashes. And what would be the sentence? I observe that the most rev. Primate gave two votes— his original vote and a casting vote. I will take the measure of his sentence from the sentence passed by a Bishop on one of these authors—a year's deprivation of his benefice. For two years, therefore, the most rev. Primate might be condemned to have all the revenues of his high position sequestrated. I have not ventured —I say it seriously—I have not ventured to present this question to Her Majesty's Government; for, my Lords, only imagine what a temptation it would be for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to spread his net and in one haul take in £30,000 from the highest dignitary, not to speak of the oi polloi— the bishops, deacons, archdeacons, canons, vicars—all included in one common crime, all subject to one common penalty! I cannot contemplate that possibility, and, therefore, your Lordships will not be surprised to hear that I have refrained from approaching the subject — that I have shrunk altogether from taking the first step of asking counsel of the Law Officers of the Crown in the matter. Had I taken that step I have no doubt I should have been advised, that if there was a synodical judgment it would be a violation of the law; I should then have been placed in the disagreeable position of having to advise a prosecution; and, entertaining as I do a sincere affection for the Episcopal Bench and a sincere personal regard and affection for many members of the Episcopate, I am happy to find myself relieved from such great difficulty and embarrassment. But the question is a most serious one for the right rev. Bench; and, in the hope that
1546
I might save my right rev. Friends from danger, I was extremely anxious to know from them what the thing was which they call a synodical judgment, but in which, as it seems, no person has been condemned. I thought it right, however, to remind the right rev. Prelates that they were under no necessity of producing the records of Convocation if they thought it more prudent not to do so. The most rev. Prelate has not favoured me with a copy of the judgment, and therefore I have been obliged to have recourse to the ordinary sources of information. But assuming that the report of the judgment which I have read is a correct one, I am happy to tell your Lordships that what is called a synodical judgment is a well-lubricated set of words— a sentence so oily and saponaceous that no one can grasp it. Like an eel, it slips through your fingers. It is simply nothing, and I am glad to tell my noble Friend (Lord Houghton) that it is literally no sentence at all. I have had recourse to a publication which seems to have some authority, and I find that the sentence was in terms to this effect—
"That this Convocation having appointed Committees of the Upper and Lower Houses to examine and report on the book entitled Essays and Reviews, and the Committees having severally reported thereon, this Convocation does hereby synodically condemn such book, as containing teachings contrary to the doctrines received by the United Church of England and Ireland, in common with the whole Catholic Church."
If, my Lords, the book had been the work of one hand, this sentence might have had some effect; but seeing that the book is nothing but a pair of covers holding together seven separate essays, being the distinct works of so many authors, and seeing that this sentence does not attribute any offence to anything but the volume containing those separate writings, no one of the authors is condemned, and each one of them may say, "This thing that is condemned is not mine; it is no child of mine — it belongs to you." In this way the volume and the sentence which condemns it may be handed round from one to another, and the application of the sentence be repudiated by the authors in succession. Convocation could not have been more successful if they had synodically sat down to produce a sentence of no meaning, than they were when in their labour they produced this ridiculus mus. As a judgment, this sentence has no meaning whatever— this judgment is no judgment at all. And though, if I desired to be strict and severe

1547
—as I have certainly no desire to be—I might bring the whole body that have sought to exercise this jurisdiction within the penalties of the statutes, for they have equally broken the law, although their sentence is abortive; yet I am happy to assure my noble Friend, as no one is hurt by this oily form of words—as no one can say that he is injured by them—that having regard to the impotency of the thing, Her Majesty's Government intend to take no action in the matter, Solvuntur tabuæ risu. But, my Lords, I would remind the right rev. Bench that the question raised by this proceeding is a very serious one, and in order, if possible, to prevent Convocation being misled hereafter, I wish to explain exactly how the case stands. The question does not depend, as I have seen it stated, upon the Act of Henry VIII alone. That was one out of a number of statutes. But the Legislature was anxious to repeat again and again the great principle of the law upon which the constitution of the country as regarded the union of Church and State depended—namely, the supremacy of the Crown in all matters civil and ecclesiastical. That principle is most clearly stated in the language of the 17th section of the 1st of Elizabeth, c. 21, which is as follows—
"And that also it may likewise please your Highness that it may be established and enacted by the authority aforesaid, that such jurisdictions, privileges, superiorities, and pre-eminences, spiritual and ecclesiastical, as by any spiritual and ecclesiastical power or authority hath heretofore been or may lawfully be exercised or used for the visitation of the ecclesiastical state and persons, and for reformation, order and correction of the same, and of all manner of errors, heresies, schisms, abuses, offences, contempts, and enormities, shall for ever by authority of this present Parliament be united and annexed to the Imperial Crown of this realm."
Now, if there had been ten thousand times the jurisdiction attaching to Convocation, the whole of it would be taken away and annexed to the Crown. It could not remain in Convocation, and for this plain reason— because the statute of Henry VIII., con firmed by the statute of Elizabeth, has declared the final ownership of all this jurisdiction shall be vested in the Crown. But from Convocation no appeal is given. Now, it is impossible that any body can exercise ecclesiastical jurisdiction without appeal to the Crown; from Convocation there is no appeal; it therefore can exercise no jurisdiction to condemn either books or authors even if it had a license so to do. In the introductory part of the statute of 37 Henry VIII. c. 17, the Crown
1548
is described as being Supreme Head on earth of the Church of England, having full power and authority to correct, punish, and repress all manner of heresies, &c., and to exercise all other manner of jurisdiction, commonly called ecclesiastical jurisdiction. Again, in the same preamble, it is stated—
"Inasmuch as your Majesty is the only head of the Church of England and Ireland, to whom by Holy Scripture all authority and power is wholly given to hear and determine all manner of causes ecclesiastical, &c."
Again, by the antecedent statute of Henry —23 Henry VIII. c. 9—it is declared, that no person is to be cited to appear be fore any spiritual jurisdiction out of the diocese "wherein he dwelleth," except by the Archbishop acting as a Court of Appeal. All those statutes taken together must bring us to this conclusion—that it was the intention of the Legislature to marshal ecclesiastical jurisdiction for trying all ecclesiastical offences in this order—first, the diocesan of the diocese in which the person cited lives; then the Archbishop in court of appeal; and lastly, the Crown, as the supreme head and the final administrator. But if you interpose your Convocation you interpose a body that is not exercising any accountable jurisdiction—that is, not controlled by any court of appeal. It would therefore be an anomalous body exercising an anomalous jurisdiction, not falling at all within the order of arrangement contemplated by the statutes, and not amenable to the final jurisdiction of the Crown if it should attempt to exercise anything in the nature of jurisdiction. It is impossible that Convocation can exercise anything like this jurisdiction. With regard to your meeting among yourselves as a debating club, expressing your opinion whether this or that book is a good or a bad one, even that is not a very small nor is it a very proper thing, because you may thereby involve yourselves in circumstances of great peril. You cannot declare that the book of a clergyman is heretical without involving the author in the charge of heresy. Let me bring before you the predicament in which any individual member of the Episcopal Bench may stand. You, the Upper House, come to a particular determination. But suppose the author of one of these essays is presented to a living or any other piece of ecclesiastical preferment, and suppose that one of the Bishops who has been a party to these proceedings is called upon to institute.

1549
The Bishop will naturally say, "How can I institute a man whose work I have joined in condemning for heretical opinion?" But in declining to institute the Bishop might be involved in very serious consequences, and be subject to a proceeding denoted by another hard word, a duplex querela. I call upon the Bishops to pause before they again place themselves in such a position— to pause for their own sake, even if they have no regard to the injustice, to the anomaly, to the unreasonable spectacle of condemning a man whom they have no power to convene, whom they have no authority to hear, and whom, when he presents himself as a suppliant, their own timidity and fear of going beyond their tether compel them to dismiss. Those who do not concur in these proceedings may probably think that, by protesting against such a course, they may save themselves from consequences; but, if they will take my recommendation, whenever there is any attempt to carry Convocation beyond its proper limits, their best security after protesting will be to gather up their garments and flee, and, remembering the pillar of salt, not to cast a look behind. I am happy to say that in all these proceedings there is more smoke than fire. The words of condemnation are innocent and innocuous, though they do not, probably, proceed from a spirit that is equally harmless. As to the Question of the noble Lord, after what, I trust, may be an intelligible statement of the law, I have only to assure the noble Lord that it is not the intention of the Government to take any steps in the matter.
THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, I assure your Lordships that I feel the great disadvantage under which I must labour after the two speeches which have just been made, and especially after that of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack. At the same time I must be allowed to express my sincere regret that in the concluding words of the noble and learned Lord's address he should have imputed motives. I can assure your Lordships that in the course which we took there was no touch of malice, and that our object was simply and solely to vindicate the Church of England from complicity with opinions which we considered most mistaken and dangerous. I cannot but lament that it was not thought right that the Law Officers of the Crown should give their opinion in this matter. It was not my fault that their opinion was not ob-
1550
tained. Before I took a single step on this subject in Convocation I said, "I will not move till I am satisfied that I am entering on a legal course." A case was accordingly drawn up and submitted to the Law Officers of the Crown, who hesitated, however, in pronouncing upon it; and the answer they at last returned was that they ought not to give their opinion. I regretted this extremely, because the question was one which touched the Royal supremacy, and I did think that it behaved the Government to procure the opinions of the Law Officers on such a question, and to shield Convocation from pursuing a wrong course. Being deprived, however, of this valuable assistance, the case was submitted to Sir Hugh Cairns and Mr. Rolt, who were unequivocally of opinion that we were proceeding in a legal course. This was the case submitted to them—
"Is the Convocation of the Province of Canterbury, when legally assembled under the Queen's writ, estopped by the statute of 25 Henry VIII. c. 19, or by any other statute, from proceeding to pronounce synodical condemnation upon a book, not intending to proceed against the author, without receiving the special Royal License for the purpose?"
The opinion of Sir Hugh Cairns and Mr. Rolt was as follows:—
"We are of opinion that the Convocation of the Province of Canterbury is not estopped by the 25 Henry VIII. c. 19, or any other statute, from expressing by resolution or otherwise their condemnation or disapprobation of a book, although no special Royal License is given for the purpose. Exception was taken early in the last century to the proposal of Convocation to pass synodical censure on a sermon preached by Bishop Hoadley, but it was not alleged that they were disabled by statute from so doing."
My Lords, I know it is very presumptuous in me to venture to bring forward any legal argument; but I cannot help quoting a single passage from a pamphlet which I hold in my hand upon Convocation and Provincial Synods. I do so because I think the gist of this question has been entirely overlooked by both the noble Lords who have addressed your Lordships on the subject. They have spoken as though we were attempting to condemn a person; whereas the question is whether we may not condemn a book or condemn opinions. Now, speaking of the necessity of the Royal Assent before passing a canon, the pamphlet says—
"Not only is the power of Convocation to make canons thus limited, but it is very doubtful, to say the least, whether the Upper House, as such has any jurisdiction or power to try or condemn

1551
a clergyman for the publication or preaching of heretical opinions. In the celebrated case of Mr. Whiston, in the reign of Queen Anne, the Queen, on the petition of the Upper House, took the opinions of the Judges on this question. They were divided in opinion; and, although the majority were of opinion that such a power did belong to the Upper House, they reserved to themselves the power to decide otherwise if the question were brought before them by prohibition."
Now, this is the material passage—
"They were, however, of opinion that heretical opinions might be examined and condemned in Convocation without convening the authors or maintainers of them."
If that is the law, Convocation is now within it. I think, therefore, that all the dreadful penalties which the noble and learned Lord spoke of as being in store for us may be passed over without any great concern. There is a passage in the judgment of the Privy Council in the case which seems to me to invite the very thing which has been done by Convocation—
"A few short extracts only are before us, and our judgment must by law be confined to the matter which is therein contained. If, therefore, the book, or these two essays, or either of them as a whole, be of a mischievous and baneful tendency, as weakening the foundations of Christian belief, and likely to cause many to offend, they will retain that character, and be liable to that condemnation notwithstanding this our judgment."
This passage surely shows that the book itself might be justly liable to condemnation, though the Court, having only "a few short extracts" before it, could not take cognizance of all the matters contained in it. Apprehensions are entertained lest Convocation should proceed continually in the same direction as it has lately taken, constantly condemning books as they are brought before them; but I ask your Lordships whether since the Reformation there has been any crisis in the English Church of so grave a character as that through which it is now passing; and whether there is ever likely to occur in the next 200 or 300 years so serious a case or one calling so urgently upon Convocation, the Synod of the Church, to pronounce its opinion. The very passage I have quoted from the judgment seems to me to intimate that the book does strike at the foundations of Christian belief. I will abstain from entering into theological questions; but, taking one sentence only from the book, "no testimony can reach the supernatural," I say that that strikes at the root of Christian belief, and that if such a doctrine is to prevail there is an end to the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ.
1552
I ask again, was there ever a case which called so loudly for our interference? Here is an address which was forwarded to me from 500 or 600 of the clergy of one diocese only—the diocese of Rochester— who say—
"Believing, as we do, that imminent danger will accrue to the truth, and to the Church of England and Ireland as a witness of the truth, and an instrument in the hands of God for the salvation of men's souls, if steps are not taken by which the said disastrous effects on the popular mind may be promptly met, and, if possible, prevented, we earnestly beseech your Grace to take counsel with the rest of the archbishops and bishops of the Church of England and Ireland with a view to the adoption of such measures as may clear the Church from any supposed acquiescence in an interpretation of its articles and formularies which we hold to be at variance with their plain meaning and with the true faith."
Now, with such appeals as these could we really sit with our hands folded and say, "We know we have the power of pronouncing condemnation, but we are afraid of the outcry which may be raised if we condemn the book, and so we will not condemn it?" I say we should have been unworthy of our position in the Church if we had adopted such a course.
THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, that in his quotation as to the power of Convocation the most rev. Prelate had omitted a passage declaring that tenets and opinions might be examined and condemned under the authority of a Royal license.
THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: I hope, in conclusion, that three or four clergymen of the Church of England will never again be found to combine—for such, I must assert, is the proper term to use in this case — to publish opinions of such a dangerous tendency. I know that in the Edinburgh Review and elsewhere the charge of combination has been denied, but combination I must call it, and that there was concert between these clergymen I cannot but believe. I think it is hardly fair to say that the parties to this question have not been heard. If there should ever be a renewal of the agitation which has existed in the Church since this publication, I trust that Convocation will be found ready to act again; bat I hope it will be long before any such crisis does occur in the history of the Church of England. I will only repeat that I regret very much that the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown was not obtained, and that their opinions had not been pronounced upon it before Convocation proceeded to take cognizance of the case. "We took the best

1553
opinions we could get, and we believed that we were fully authorized to act upon those opinions.
THE BISHOP OF LONDON: My Lords, I think the most rev. Prelate has good ground of complaint that his desire to obtain the opinion of the highest legal authorities was not granted. There is no subject which may not be treated with ridicule, and perhaps there are matters which may be more easily disposed of by ridicule than by more serious treatment; but, still, we know that very grave consequences often arise from very small causes—and upon no subject are those consequences more likely to arise than on the intricate relations between the power ecclesiastical and the power temporal. The experience even of the last fifteen or twenty years has shown that these disputes between the civil power and the ecclesiastical power, unless attended to in the beginning with great care and caution, are likely to lead to very serious evils. A cloud no bigger than a man's hand may spread until it bursts into a hurricane. Within the last fifteen years experience has shown us that if the Government of Sir Robert Peel had been advised to treat with due respect the little and insignificant squabble which arose, I believe, in the Presbytery of Auchterarder, we should not have been reduced to the unfortunate predicament of seeing the Established Church of Scotland rent in twain, and one very large section of the religious feeling of that country become entirely separated from the Established Church. It does, therefore, seem to me that when such questions arise, however limited their sphere, and however unimportant, it is desirable that those who are at the head of affairs should take such steps as will, if possible, settle the disputed questions before they attain a gravity which may be dangerous. The noble and learned Lord has favoured us, who formed the minority in Convocation, with some advice; but if your Lordships had ever attended a meeting of Convocation you would know that the summonses are couched in most imposing language, and I know not what penalties are threatened to those who may be regardless of the commands of their superiors, and refuse to take any part in the proceedings. It is all very well to call this a debating society, but it is a debating society which must meet when the Queen summons it; and it would be hardly decorous in me without grave cause to refuse to obey the
1554
summons. If, therefore, there is the slightest chance that the law may be violated by such a body, it is undoubtedly necessary that the very highest legal authority should as soon as possible be consulted and should pronounce upon what is the law, and what is the course which each individual belonging to that assembly ought to take. This was done in the reign of Queen Anne in Whiston's case, when the matter was referred to the twelve Judges. I am not sure that that opinion has been correctly stated by the noble Lord who opened this discussion. Unless I am mistaken, the question referred to the twelve Judges was whether, under the circumstances in which Convocation then met, it could proceed to censure the book of Mr. Whiston? Those circumstances were somewhat peculiar, for the Queen had summoned Convocation to take into consideration the religious condition of the country; and although the Queen had not actually named the book of Mr. Whiston, yet she had given a general license to Convocation to deal with all similar books. Therefore, so far as I can judge, I am distinctly of opinion that Mr. Whiston's case did not in any way establish the rule that Convocation without the Royal Assent was entitled to enter upon a consideration of such matters. That was not a case of Convocation entering upon a matter without the Royal license so to do; but a case in which Convocation was called together by the Queen to enter upon such subjects generally, and then the opinion of the twelve Judges was taken whether that general license entitled them to consider a particular branch of the general subject. Now, undoubtedly, there is no such general license in the present instance, and therefore doubts may fairly arise, and did present themselves to the most rev. Prelate, as to whether he would be justified in proceeding to do that which the clergy, not of one diocese alone, but of many dioceses, called upon him to do. No one can know the most rev. Prelate without being convinced that he would not proceed in this or any other matter without being clear and distinct as to what was his duty. The natural course for him was to request that the highest legal authority should set him right if he were likely to go wrong, and that step he took upon this occasion. It would have been well if the noble and learned Lord had spoken at the proper time with that

1555
clearness and precision with which he usually speaks, and has spoken now, or if the Law Officers of the Crown had been permitted to deliver their opinions upon this matter. Instead of that course, however, the noble and learned Lord held his peace while Convocation was proceeding, and after they had concluded their deliberations he now comes forward to pronounce, with all the force of his great authority, against the legality of their judgment. Now, the most rev. Prelate had, it appears, taken privately the advice of two of the most eminent lawyers of the day. But it must be admitted that, even with the authority of two such eminent men in his favour, Convocation is not necessarily acting legally; for their Lordships knew how frequently men most eminent in the law proved to be mistaken in their opinions. I need only refer again to the northern portion of this kingdom an instance. One of the peculiarities of the difficulty which led to the Scottish disruption was that those who held ecclesiastical authority in Scotland at that time were advised by one of the most eminent lawyers of the day to take the steps which they did take. The name of the lawyer still survives in his son, the present Lord Advocate of Scotland, and he was regarded as a most able and acute lawyer. He gave a distinct opinion, which afterwards turned out to be wrong; but that he was mistaken was not found out until the dispute had become too serious to be settled quietly. It is well to be forearmed in such matters, not only with an able opinion, but with the opinions which have the highest authority. Let it not be supposed that there is anything like a desire on the part of the clergy to violate the law, or to stretch their ideas of ecclesiastical rights beyond what is legal and proper. No body of men are more anxious to obey the law than the clergy, but they must know what the law is before they can obey it, and you (the Government) do not tell them. You leave them to find it out for themselves, to go to the best counsel for advice; and when they act upon the opinion thus obtained you tell them—very properly tell them—that they have done wrong, only it would have been better by a timely opinion to have prevented their wrong doing. There was, indeed, good reason for the most rev. Prelate taking the opinion of counsel upon this matter. I hold in my hand a somewhat remarkable document,
1556
an address of the Bishop of Exeter to his clergy in the course of last summer. I do not know whether that rev. Prelate still retains the opinions which he then expressed, but upon that occasion, speaking of Convocation, which he understood had entered upon a similar examination of a book which has been alluded to already in this debate, he said—
"They are sober, discreet, as well as learned and able men, and they would not have rushed into such a danger of violating an Act of Parliament—the Act which relates to the supremacy of the Crown in these matters—without great caution, and without being sure that they were right. Now, we know this is not the first occasion on which Convocation has dealt with heretical books, so called. But I see that on those occasions the wise men—our predecessors—who had to deal with them took special care not to proceed without the license of the Crown. I hold in my hand an answer of the archbishops and bishops in the year 1702, when the Lower House of Convocation called upon them to deal with the book of Toland, in which they said, 'We do not find how, without the license from the King, which we have not yet received, we can have sufficient authority. We know not how, without that license, we can have sufficient authority to censure judicially any such works'—not men, which is an important distinction—'but, on the contrary, we are advised that by so doing both Houses of Convocation may incur the penalties of the statute 25 Henry VIII.'"
The right rev. Prelate having expressed that opinion, it was not unnatural that doubts should have presented themselves to the most rev. Prelate, and that he sought to have those doubts dispelled by the highest authorities. In the course of the debates in Convocation on the matter now under discussion, further doubts on the legality of the proceedings were expressed. It was there stated—
"In Burnet's case, 1700, the Lower House having made a general representation against his book on the Thirty-nine Articles (Bull and Sherlock protesting in the minority), the Upper House answered—' That the Lower House of Convocation censuring the book of the Bishop of Sarum in general terms, without mentioning the particular passages on which the censure is grounded, is defamatory and scandalous.'"
This was one of the points raised against the present judgment. Another was, that it is not according to the precedents of this Synod to censure any writings which have been previously judged in the Ecclesiastical Courts. It is obvious, therefore, that the present case was one requiring to be solved in limine by the highest legal authority. I do not myself think that it is possible to find any precedents for what has been done by Convocation in this case. The case of Bishop

1557
Hoadley has been quoted. He was attacked twice—once before he was made a Bishop, and once after he became Bishop. When he preached a certain sermon before he became Bishop, it was brought under the censure of the House of Convocation, and the very question now argued was brought forward. It was said that the Bishops hesitated to proceed, because they could not believe that they possessed any power so to do, without the authority of the Crown. When Bishop Hoadley's case came on again ten years afterwards, the Court was dissolved—solvuntur risu—and although it was revived again for a short time, Convocation was soon afterwards dissolved, and did not meet again for 100 years, scarcely entering on any other such, except it were that of Dr. Clarke. The mention of Dr. Clarke's name reminds me that I am not so hopeful as the most rev. Prelate in believing that we may never have any more such books as those referred to in this debate. This is, no doubt, a grave crisis through which the Church of England is passing. I look with as much sorrow as any man on the dangerous opinions which are current in the present day; but I trust that the truth will ever prevail. There is one who watches over His Church with greater power than Convocation, and I, for one, do not doubt that by the help of sound argument, learning, and pious lives, the clergy will more successfully maintain the truths committed to them than by the intervention of such censures as those of which we have heard. Thus the Church has been preserved in former trials. I doubt whether the present trial through which the Church is passing is as great as when the Rector of St. James's (Dr. Clarke) suggested an amended edition of the Prayer Book, from which all mention of the Trinity was omitted. There was at that time a large and recognized Arian party in the Church, and this may remind us that the Church has had other and more severe periods of trial from which she has happily passed uninjured. Men always exaggerate the importance of the questions of their own time, and if the only way of meeting errors of this kind is by the censure of Convocation, we may expect a long catalogue of such conflicts as the present. I trust that this will not be the case, and that the peace and harmony of the Church may be preserved by the good sense and good feeling of the clergy. Convocation is not a large body,
1558
and comparatively few of its members attend. At the meeting now in question perhaps not more than forty to fifty members were present. [The ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: Sixty.] At any rate I think it probable that the Church, having its attention called to the subject, will think it desirable to treat these matters in another way. We shall, however, be greatly assisted by knowing whether the course which has now been taken, and which many of us deem unwise, be legal or not. We may be called upon by ecclesiastical authority, though I hope not, to take a similar course again. I desire to know the law for my own protection, and I do not know how I am authoritatively to ascertain the law unless I can have the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown. With regard to Convocation and the position it holds in this country, no one will deny that there is a growing disposition to revert to the action and authority of Convocation. If that is the case, it is the more imperative on the part of that body to see that it maintains its dignity in the sight of this Empire, and to perceive that, if it seeks immunity from criminal proceedings by saying that its resolutions, however high sounding, have no validity, it then, indeed, occupies a humiliating position. In former times, when I filled a lower position in the Church, I never felt so strongly as some of my brethren the necessity for resuscitating this body from its slumbers. Since I have been called to my present office in the Church, finding Convocation resuscitated, I have always endeavoured to perform my duty as a member of Convocation. I do think, however, that our position will be intolerable if we are told, on the one hand, that we are violating the law, and if, on the other, we cannot obtain an authoritative opinion as to what the law really is.
LORD WENSLEYDALE (who was most indistinctly heard)said, that his most rev. Friend the Archbishop ought to take the best possible advice whether Convocation had a right to act judicially, and condemn a work as heretical, or merely to express their opinion upon the qualities of the work as injurious to the Church. In the one case, it had the qualities of a judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction. They might publish it with impunity, whether libellous or not; they could not be punished or rendered liable to an action, however unjust it might be. But if they were not invested with judicial

1559
powers, the publishers or the document would be liable to action, and only have the common protection of every individual in commenting honestly on every published document; and if they were found to have exceeded that universal privilege, they were liable to punishment or to make the injured party compensation. His most rev. Friend ought not to rely on any barrister's opinion, even that of the Attorney and the Solicitor General. This House had unquestionably the power of taking the best possible opinion — that of the Judges; a power which had in his own time been exercised on a Motion by the right rev. Bishop of Exeter as to the Canadian Reserves, and he strongly advised the most rev. Archbishop to move the House to obtain that opinion.
THE BISHOP OF OXFORD: My Lords, it was a matter for the discretion of my noble Friend (Lord Houghton) whether he should or should not bring forward this Question; but having determined to bring this matter before your Lordships, I for one—and I believe my right rev. Brethren agree with me—have nothing whatever to complain of in the tone or manner in which my noble Friend has discharged the duty he has imposed upon himself. My noble Friend, however, fell not unnaturally, for one unacquainted with ecclesiastical matters, into a few palpable mistakes, which detracted somewhat from the weight of his remarks. There was, for instance, considerable confusion in his account of what the twelve Judges agreed upon, and upon what they differed, when their judgment was asked by Queen Anne. The whole Bench, including the Attorney and Solicitor General, agreed in declaring that the Convocation had a jurisdiction which it was free to exercise as to books. They said they conceived that a jurisdiction existed in matters of heresy and the condemnation of heretics. Four of the Judges differed on the second clause of the jurisdiction over the man, but they united with their brethren in asserting the jurisdiction of Convocation over books. They said, "We conceive that heretical tenets and opinions may be condemned, if authorized by Royal license." The authority of the Royal license is the license which calls Convocation together. I say so for this reason—that there is no instance of any license other than this being received for the exercise of this jurisdiction by Convocation. The Queen's Letter was no license; and here was the second error into which
1560
my noble Friend fell. He spoke of the Queen's Letter accompanying the answer of the Judges, informing Convocation of their powers, as if that was a Royal license. But a Royal license is drawn in certain peculiar words, it gives certain peculiar powers. It is framed upon the Act of Submission of Henry VIII., and does not agree in any one point with the Letter of the Queen accompanying the opinion of the Judges. It is, therefore, simply a mistake to suppose that that was a license under the broad seal as is required by the Act of Submission, to enable Convocation to do this thing. It had no relation whatever to it, but was simply a letter accompanying the answer of the Judges, giving an opinion with respect to the legal question asked by Convocation. That is a most important point in the argument, and therefore it is that I have noticed it, and not from any pleasure which I take in showing that my noble Friend has fallen into error. He also fell into another error of the same class when he said that at all events the Clergy Discipline Act, which required that in every suit against a clerk a certain line should be followed, had taken away from Convocation all power to deal with clerks. But how does that touch the condemnation of the book? That was the power the Judges maintained that Convocation possessed; that was the power which was exercised in Convocation upon the authority of the twelve Judges of England, never yet contradicted by any authoritative sentence. But if I have no ground to complain of the tone of the speech of my noble Friend, I think that— I do not say in common with my right rev. Friends, but in common with this House—I have good ground to complain of the tone of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack. If a man has no respect for himself, he ought, at all events, to respect the tribunal before which he speaks; and when the highest representative of the law of England in your Lordships' House upon a matter involving the liberties of the subject and the religion of the realm, and all those high truths concerning which this discussion is, can think it fitting to descend to a ribaldry in which he knows that he can safely indulge, because those to whom he addresses it will have too much respect for their character to answer him in like sort—I say that this House has ground to complain of having its high character unnecessarily injured in the sight of the people of this land by one

1561
occupying so high a position within it. But, my Lords, this is not all. I venture to say that in such a discussion as this there is one duty which more than another it is imperative upon one holding the high place of the noble and learned Lord to be careful to discharge: it is that he does not by any license of speech, or by any carelessness of assertion, mislead your Lordships as to one single fact or one single point of law. Such carefulness, I venture to say boldly in your presence, my Lords, has not been exercised to-night. I will take but one instance. The noble and learned Lord stated that he had applied to my most rev. Friend and myself to give him a copy of the judgment pronounced in the Upper House of Convocation of Canterbury; that he had accompanied the request with a caution that no man was bound to criminate himself; and that my most rev. Friend and I had acted with a wise prudence in not venturing to produce the document. My Lords, what are the facts? After I came into the House this evening the noble and learned Lord asked me to speak to him on the Woolsack. He said, "Have you with you in the House a copy of your judgment?" I replied, "I have not." He said, "I should have liked, if you had, to have seen it." I replied, "I wish that you had told me so before, for nothing would have given me greater pleasure than to have produced it to you." The noble and learned Lord asked the same question of my most rev. Friend the other night, and received an answer exactly similar to that which I gave him to night—that we were most ready to put into his hands the document for which he asked. I ask your Lordships is it the way in which this House should be treated that such a request so answered should be transfigured into the charge which the noble and learned Lord has thought fit to bring against the most rev. Prelate and myself to-night. I must say that I think throughout the whole time he was dealing with the great question of law, the same misleading tendency pervaded the speech of the noble and learned Lord. Throughout he endeavoured to suggest to your Lordships that the question which we were raising was this—whether jurisdiction resided in us spiritual persons as separate from the Crown in virtue of our spiritual character; or whether, as he maintained, jurisdiction in this land comes all of it, ecclesiastical as well as civil, from the
1562
Crown? That was a suggestion that we were in this case attempting to claim a jurisdiction independent of the Crown. My Lords, it is scarcely conceivable that one having the knowledge of the law possessed by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack could really have thought that what we claimed, sitting under the Queen's Writ, acting because we are called together under the Queen's Writ according to Act of Parliament, was to act by a power opposed to the Royal supremacy— when we meet together at the call of the Queen, because we acknowledge that she has such supremacy, and do our duty as the Queen's subjects in a Court which she has called together. The attempt was to suggest that here was one of those reaches of power of which he said the clergy were always guilty, by attempting to set up something against the jurisdiction of the Crown. There was an attempt to make your Lordships believe that which was not only not the fact, but which the very fact of our so sitting contradicted in the act of our sitting. I complain of this; and I complain also of the way in which the noble and learned Lord quoted the 37 Henry VIII. c. 17, to make out his case, when he said that our laws gave to the Queen the title of "the Head of the Church." Are your Lordships aware that though that title was so given in that Act Queen Elizabeth refused to receive or bear it, and that in the revival of the old Acts providing for the Royal jurisdiction, the part which declared the Sovereign to be the Head of the Church, was by Her own special command excluded from the revival? In these cases, I think that this House has a right to have all these matters stated by this high authority in the way in which your Lordships can be most religiously preserved from taking any wrong view of the matter upon which you are addressed. And, my Lords, when at last we are told that it was timidity only which had prevented the Upper House of Convocation from proceeding against the man in this case, here was an imputation of motives, unworthy, I will not say, of those who sit in that House, but unworthy of those who dared to throw out such an imputation. But I leave this to the good taste of your Lordships' House. I have not a doubt how in this House, and how throughout the country, all that I have ventured thus lightly to touch upon will be received. I know enough of this House, and of the people of Eng-

1563
land, to know that it is not by trying, in words which shall blister those upon whom they fall, to produce a momentary pain on those who cannot properly reply to them, that great questions will be solved; but that it is by dealing with them with calmness, with abstinence from the imputation of motives, and above all with the most scrupulous regard to stating upon every point that which shall prevent any man in this House being led to a conclusion other than that which the facts warrant. But, my Lords, I must say, with the most rev. Prelate, that I consider this to be one of those peculiar cases in the history of the Church which call for unusual remedies to redress the evil. What was it that was before us? My noble Friend (Lord Houghton) has said that there was an attempt to repress the liberty of thought. For one, I utterly disavow any such desire. I do not believe that people can be kept to a right belief by any such means. No one can go further than I do in saying, "Let argument be met by argument, learning confronted by learning, and the right shall prevail." But was that our question? Our question was this—men bound by the most solemn obligations that man can possibly take to teach according to the particular line of doctrine laid down by the Church, as the condition of their holding the ministry—these men, in the judgment of this Bench, taught publicly, and in virtue of that sacred office, the opposite to that which they had undertaken to teach. Our action was for the maintenance of truth, and to hold to engagements, and it was not to put down opinion. We had to deal with this question—"Shall the Church of England see these false doctrines stated by those who hold her ministry; and shall we, her highest ministers, having under our Queen the opportunity of, for the ministry of that Church, disavowing these errors—shall we timorously hold our tongues; because if we speak we may be subject to ribald reproach; or shall we, in the name of the Church of England, clear that ministry from being supposed to be at liberty to declare one thing as the condition of taking it, and then to speak another as the habit of its exercise?" It was not, my Lords, to put down opinion, it was to prevent men breaking their solemn obligations, that this step was taken. Nor let it be thought that you have heard the whole facts of the case when you have been told, as you have been told to-night, that the censure was a mere general one,
1564
and that no propositions were abstracted. There were propositions carefully extracted from the book, and cited as the grounds of the judgment, and this course has been always followed on the part of Convocation. In the case of Mr. Whiston the propositions were stated separately from the judgment, but the judgment was founded on the propositions. That was the course which we pursued. We took out of the book the specific propositions which we deemed it most essential to condemn, and we then spoke the condemnation. It was said that in doing this we resorted to the un-English unfairness of condemning men who were not allowed to answer the charges which were brought against them. But I pray your Lordships to mark how the matter stood. We, in the first place, did not condemn the men, while we censured much that was in the book. But is it true that the individuals concerned had no opportunity of answering the charges which were made? Why, edition after edition of the work was published after the passages which were objected to were known, and if the writers wished to explain they had ample opportunity to do so. It is, I would add, one thing to condemn a man, and another to censure a book. The man might not have intended any harm, and if you proceed to censure him you must give him an opportunity of stating what it was he did mean, so that he might be enabled to retract what was found fault with if he were so disposed. The book, however, cannot retract itself. It cannot explain itself. It stands a litera scripta—a document in court which speaks on its own behalf. And if any one of these writers found himself in the company of men who expressed themselves against the religion of the country in a way which he thought incompatible with his position as a clergyman, had not he, I would ask, sufficient opportunity of saying, "I will no longer appear in such company?" Inasmuch, however, as no such attempt was made, and as each successive author allowed his name to be given to the world in the same companionship in each successive edition of the work, he, I maintain, rendered himself thereby morally responsible for the whole of its contents. Here is the true question. We are set in trust in this land for this—that we may be the depository of the truth which God has revealed, as held by this reformed Church of England. Was it or was it not our duty, when we saw the peace of the Church

1565
assailed, to use the instrument which, as we believed and still believe—I may say with additional force when we see the nice avoidance of the expression of any opinion that we were really in the wrong—firmly was our right, and because it was our right, imposed upon us a corresponding duty? One thing I venture to state is this—that I would rather subject myself, in the presence of my countrymen and of your noble House, to any amount of that invective and insinuation, and all those arts of I will not say what part of the Bar of England of which we have seen something to-night—I would, I repeat, rather a thousand times incur it all, than have to look back on my death-bed on myself as one of those who had not striven for the truth of our Established Church, and had not encountered, because I was afraid, personally, of the consequences, anything which the maintenance of that truth might entail. There is, my Lords, a single further remark which I would wish to make. We have heard of the importance of preserving peace and quietness on such questions as that which we are discussing: I firmly believe that such a judgment as that which we have pronounced is the best means of restoring peace to the Church. I believe, indeed, that that effect has already been produced. I know, at all events, that from all parts of this country I have myself received assurances of minds quieted, permitting men to go again about their ordinary duties without being stirred up by the feeling that the Church was resting under an imputation of having allowed to pass uncontradicted false doctrines promulgated by her teachers; and I am satisfied that if you would avoid the recurrence of such a state of things as you have witnessed you will find that the best way in which that can be done is by allowing the Church in her authorized manner to pronounce for her followers, as she has done in this instance, that she disclaims for her living ministry this erroneous teaching.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, the right rev. Prelate has thought proper to accuse me of having misrepresented what took place between us in a manner which will serve as a warning to me how I hold communication with him in future. The lesson will not be thrown away upon me. He has thought proper to construe a statement which I made, in the most perfect good nature, into a charge against himself and the most rev. Prelate
1566
beside him. But the most rev. Prelate at all events does not, I trust, look upon anything which I have said as conveying a serious charge against him, as having improperly desired to withhold the sentence passed by the Convocation. I should be the last man to make such a charge; but, should the most rev. Prelate feel that he has any grounds for complaint, I beg most freely to express my regret that any words of mine should have produced that impression. To return to the right rev. Prelate, I find that he has in the same excited manner which characterized the greater portion of his speech —and at which I beg to say that I was not at all surprised—with much license of language charged me with misrepresenting a passage in an Act of Parliament. My apology for him, I think, must be that he himself docs not quite understand it. The passage cited claims for the Crown, as head of the Church, all jurisdiction and authority; but he says that the title was disclaimed by Queen Elizabeth. So it was in a spiritual sense, but "Head of the Church" is in common phraseology the ordinary mode of expressing the supremacy of the Crown; it occurs in subsequent statutes, and Queen Elizabeth claimed to herself jurisdiction in a more effective manner as supreme Governor of the Church of England.

MUTUAL SURRENDER OF CRIMINALS (PRUSSIA) BILL [H.L.]
A Bill for giving Effect to a Convention between Her Majesty and The King of Prussia for the mutual Surrender of Criminals—Was presented by The Earl Russell; rend 1a*; to be printed; and to be read 2a on Monday next. (No. 204.)

NAVAL DISCIPLINE BILL [H.L.]
A Bill to make Provision for the Discipline of the Navy—Was presented by The Duke of Somerset; read 1 a to be printed; and to be read 2a on Tuesday next. (No. 205.)
House adjourned at a quarter before Eight o'clock, to Monday next, Twelve o'clock.