Sitting of 26 May 1864

MINUTES.
NEW MEMBER SWORN — John Joseph Powell, esquire, for Gloucester City.
SELECT COMMITTEE—Case of Mr. Bewicke, Colonel Dunne discharged, Lord John Manners added.
SUPPLY—considered in Committee—NAVY ESTIMATES.
PUBLIC BILLS—Resolutions in Committee—Life Annuities and Life Assurances (Deficiency of Assets, &c.); Weighing of Grain (Port of London)*.
Ordered—Bank Acts*.
First Reading — Weighing of Grain (Port of London)* [Bill 119]; Banking Co-partnerships* [Bill 118].
Second Reading — Highways Act Amendment [Bill 113], and committed to a Select Committee.
Referred to Select Committee—Highways Act Amendment.
Committee—Vacating of Seats (House of Commons)* [Bill 107]; Army Prize (Shares of Deceased)*[Bill 105]; Beer Houses (Ireland) [Bill 109]— R.P.; Chief Rents (Ireland) [Lords]* [Bill 52] re-committed.
Report—Vacating of Seats (House of Commons)* [Bill 107]; Army Prize (Shares of Deceased)* [Bill 105].
Considered as amended—Union Assessment Committee Act Amendment* [Bill 83]; Chain Cables and Anchors* [Bill 103].
Third Reading — Limited Penalties [Bill 94], and passed.

ARMY—WITHDRAWAL OF THE GUARDS FROM CANADA.—QUESTION.
SIR FREDERIC SMITH: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War, Whether there is any truth in the report that it is intended to diminish the strength of Her Majesty's Forces now serving in Canada by withdrawing two battalions of Guards now serving there?
THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: I stated, Sir, last Friday evening, that it was intended to bring home two battalions of the Guards and one battalion of the Military Train, without relief. As I believe, the chief reasons for this arrangement are that a very heavy expenditure is now being incurred in the hire of buildings for the use and accommodation of the troops in Canada, and it is very desirable to reduce that expenditure as soon as practicable. It is also thought advisable to give an opportunity to Sir Fenwick Williams to concentrate the troops in Canada, which are now scattered over a long line of frontier. But, further, it is considered that by keeping such a number of Guards in Canada it would be impossible to form a brigade of Guards at home sufficient for service, in case they should be required to serve in any other quarter.

INDIA—THE BRITISH ENVOY TO BHOOTAN.—QUESTION.
MR. WILBRAHAM EGERTONsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for India, Whether any information has been received of the imprisonment of the British Envoy to Bhootan;
634
and, if so, what steps have been taken to procure the release of Mr. Eden.
SIR CHARLES WOOD, in reply, said, he had received no public despatch upon the subject referred to by the hon. Member. The only information which had reached him was contained in a private letter from Sir John Lawrence. He had, however, no reason to think that Mr. Eden had been imprisoned, although he was subjected to some species of insult, with the particulars of which he was not at present accurately acquainted. Mr. Eden arrived safely at Darjeeling on the 12th of last month, and he found on his way home that some of the chiefs were preparing to take up arms to rescue him in case he had been detained.

STATE OF THE IONIAN ISLANDS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. SMOLLETTsaid, he would beg; to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies, When the British Protectorate of the Ionian Republic will absolutely cease; and, whether or not the present Lord High Commissioner, Sir Henry Storks, has published an Act, dated the 22nd April, 1864, introducing into the Seven Islands a purely democratic Constitution based upon universal suffrage, the right of voting being conferred upon every inhabitant above the age of twenty-one years, persons under examination for felony and others previously convicted being alone excepted; if so, whether the action of Sir Henry Storks in this matter has been sanctioned by the Colonial Office, and whether the arrangement made is considered by Her Majesty's Government to be calculated to consolidate the Greek Kingdom, and is likely to promote the political security of the King of the Hellenes?
  MR. CARDWELLsaid, in reply, that i on the 2nd of June there would be a transfer of the protectorate from Her; Majesty to the King of the Hellenes. Sir Henry Storks had not published any Constitution, either democratic or otherwise, with a view to the future Constitution of the Ionian Islands. But Sir Henry Storks had received a request from the Government of the King of the Hellenes that certain electoral lists might be prepared for their use. Those lists were accordingly drawn up, and would be found available by the Ionian authorities. He had only to add that Her Majes-

  635
  ty's Government entirely approved of the course pursued by Sir Henry Storks in that matter.

AFFAIRS OF CHINA.

  QUESTION.
  MR. J. B. SMITHsaid, he wished to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether the Communications made by the American Minister, Mr. Burlinghame, at Pekin, in a Despatch to Mr. Seward, the Secretary of State at Washington, and dated the 20th June, 1863, respecting the joint policy to be pursued in China by the Ministers of England, Russia, France, and America, is substantially in accord with a Despatch addressed to Earl Russell, and a Copy of which Sir Frederick Bruce gave to the American Minister; and, whether a Reply has been given to Sir F. Bruce's Despatch, and in what sense?
  MR. LAYARDsaid, in reply, that he had to state that considerable misapprehension appeared to exist with regard to what had been called the suppressed Despatch, and which the hon. Member for Montrose (Mr. Baxter) seemed to think was an agreement or memorandum signed by the representatives of the several Powers mentioned in the Question. He was not exactly aware to which Despatch Mr. Burlinghame alluded, as the date of the Despatch was not given, and neither had Sir Frederick Bruce informed the Government that he had ever communicated such a Despatch to Mr. Burlinghame. But a Despatch, which seemed by its date to be the one in question, had been received at the Foreign Office, and the only objection to laying that Despatch upon the table was that it contained matter relating to other Powers which it would not be for the public convenience to publish. If, however, the hon. Gentleman would allow him to give extracts from the Despatch, he would be prepared to supply him with all the information which he could desire to obtain. He (Mr. Layard) had himself quoted a paragraph from Mr. Burlinghame's Despatch, for the purpose of showing the policy which Her Majesty's Government had pursued and intended to continue to pursue in China, was in accordance with that advocated by the United States and other Powers. With regard to Sir Frederick Bruce, Her Majesty's Government had always felt the most complete confidence in
  636
  him; and as there was no difference between the Government and Sir Frederick Bruce in respect of the principles laid down in the Despatch to which reference was made in the latter portion of the Question of the hon. Member, it did not require an answer.

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

POLAND.—RESOLUTION.
MR. HENNESSY, who had given notice to move the following Resolutions on the subject of Poland:—
"That the negotiations of Her Majesty's Government respecting Poland have not terminated in a satisfactory manner."
"That it appears from the Papers laid before Parliament that the conditions on which the British Government agreed to acknowledge the dominion of Russia in Poland have not been fulfilled by Russia."
"That this House is of opinion that Her Majesty's Government is no longer bound to recognise the sovereignty of Russia in Poland."
said, Lord Wodehouse, on his return from Denmark, had attributed in the other House the failure of his mission to the policy which the British Government had pursued with regard to Poland; and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bucks (Mr. Disraeli) a short time ago had said that there was an intimate connection between the Polish insurrection and the present state of affairs in Denmark, and that the deplorable condition of Denmark was strictly to be traced to the conduct of Her Majesty's Government in those negotiations with respect to Poland. He had heard, also, that an eminent diplomatist, when the rumour reached this country that Lord Clarendon had succeeded in his mission to Paris (a rumour which was unfounded), remarked that if he had been so successful he must have had ample powers to deal with the Polish question. Finding that the Danish and the Polish questions were so intimately connected in the opinion of eminent authorities, he felt perfectly justified, even apart from the European importance of the subject, and the engagements which England had contracted in regard to Poland, in bringing on that discussion at the present moment. Nearly fifty years had passed

637
since the British Government had entered into engagements with respect to the future of Poland, and it was our duty to see how far those engagements had been fulfilled. Poland was an integral part of Europe one hundred years before Charlemagne was crowned, and England had for centuries maintained intimate relations with that country. Malte Brun described the Poland of ancient Europe in glowing language as a most flourishing and prosperous country, where the mechanical arts and manufactures were encouraged by wise sovereigns. Poland was the first country to enforce the principles of free trade, and she had always been distinguished for her religious toleration. The hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Spooner) had on several occasions expressed some doubts on that point, but an authority whom he would no doubt respect — the Rev. Mr. Spurgeon—in a recent address delivered in the Metropolitan Tabernacle, had dwelt with great force on that point, "Religious liberty," he said, "was the chief glory of Poland," even at a time when every other country, England included, was given up to bloody butcheries on account of religion. She was the asylum of the oppressed from all parts of Europe, and, indeed, from all parts of the world. In one city there were three bishops of different faiths; and when a man went to exercise any of his civil rights, no question was ever asked him as to what communion he belonged. He had, he might add, himself heard a Protestant, as eminent in the Anglican Church as Mr. Spurgeon was among Dissenters, declaring at a meeting at Guildhall the same fact—that Poland was foremost in religious toleration —and he confessed that when he listened to Lord Shaftesbury on the occasion to which he referred, he could not imagine the lion. Gentleman behind him would again that evening, ns he had done before, seek to cast a slur on the Poles on the very ground on which Lord Shaftesbury and Mr. Spurgeon were of opinion they were most deserving of praise. But be that as it might be, of the many centuries through which England maintained intercourse with Poland, the century during which Poland suffered under the rule of an elective monarchy was the period to which her weakness and dissensions were to he traced. Although that principle was nominally in force for two centuries, it existed, in fact, only during one century. Even during that period, however, there were to he found in
638
Poland a number of men sufficiently enlightened to discover the weakness of their Government, and they, towards the close of the century, united themselves, under the presidency of Prince Czartoryski, and determined to alter their constitution. How, then, let him ask, did it happen that Poland did not alter her constitution as the Poles desired? The answer to that question was to be found in the attitude which was assumed towards their country by Russia, Prussia, and Austria. When the Empress Catherine of Russia received intimation that the ancient form of Polish government —hereditary monarchy—was about to be restored, she entered into a secret treaty with the King of Prussia, dated June, 1762, in which the following paragraph occurred:—
"Their Majesties the Empress of All the Russias and the King of Prussia mutually engage in the most solemn manner, under any circumstances, and in all cases, that if any one, whoever he may be, should attempt to establish an hereditary kingdom in Poland, their Majesties of Russia and Prussia will not permit it; but, on the contrary, will avert, repel, and annul in all ways, and by all means, projects so unjust and so dangerous to the neighbouring Powers by acting together, joining their forces, and even resorting to arms, if circumstances require it."
Not only was that treaty signed between Prussia and Russia, but the Empress Catherine addressed a despatch to her Ambassador at the Court of Poland, in which she informed him that on account of the proximity of Russia to Poland the whole attention of the former should be directed to preserve entire the existing form of the Polish Government, and that she was determined, if things took a contrary course, to exercise all the power which Providence had given her to settle the affairs of Poland to the advantage of Russia. She added, in the secret instructions which she also sent to her Minister, that if necessary for the accomplishment of her object she would order her troops to invade simultaneously all parts of the Polish territory, and to lay waste their country with fire and sword. Such was the policy of Russia, and he would, with the permission of the House, conclude that part of the subject by referring to a despatch written by the French Ambassador at Warsaw to the Duke de Choiseul, in which he described the effect of that policy, observing that Russia had silenced and intimidated the greater part of the Polish

639
nation by detestable and unheard-of violence on such persons of position as defended public right in the State Assembly, and by repeated acts of tyranny towards all those who ventured to act in opposition to her views. The Poles, however, still determined, even in the face of such opposition, to restore their ancient constitution, and, accordingly, on the 3rd of May, 1791, the Polish constitution was issued by the Sovereign and the Estates of the realm of that kingdom. That constitution, he might add, received the praise of Pitt and the leading English statesmen in many debates in relation to Poland which took place in that House between 1791 and 1795, and the noble Viscount now at the head of the Government might, perhaps, if he had come up from Harrow and taken his seat under the Strangers' Gallery, have heard Mr. Pitt declaiming on the subject. Mr. Burke, moreover, spoke of the Polish constitution in terms to which he wished briefly to allude, because the de jure Poland of to-day was the Poland which Mr. Burke had described when he said, speaking of the change made by the Poles, that, "in contemplating that change, humanity had everything to rejoice at and glory in; nothing to be ashamed of, nothing to suffer." Such was the description given by Mr. Burke of a constitution which lasted only from 1791 to 1795, because then the armies of the Empress Catharine, to which she referred in the treaty and in her letters, entered Poland, and it was divided among the three great Powers. Now, it was a matter of interest to inquire what England did on that occasion. It might surprise some hon. Gentlemen to hear that England, although he believed she did it unknowingly, actually contributed to the partition of Poland; for when that partition was about to take place the King of Prussia solicited a subsidy from the British Government to the amount, if he was not mistaken, of £1,200,000, on the ground that he wanted troops to oppose the French, while it turned out that, instead of employing the troops subsidized by our money against France, he employed them in the subjugation of Poland—a fact which did not escape the attention of the House of Commons, inasmuch as Mr. Jekyll, in referring to the subsidy on the 5th of February, 1795, said the last instalment to his Prussian Majesty had been paid on the 4th of October, but long previous to that period the Prussian troops
640
had gone to co-operate in the infamous project of the dismemberment of unhappy Poland; while the subject was also alluded to by Mr. Whitbread and by Mr. Fox, who said that the Emperor of Germany might conceive that, perhaps, the best way to destroy those French principles against which the war was carried on was to apply the money received from England to the dismemberment of Poland. It was also remarkable that the first Russian fleet which entered the Mediterranean was commanded by an Englishman, took up the transport vessels attached to it in English ports, and was employed to destroy the fleet of Turkey, which was the ally of the Poles, and thus contributed to the dismemberment and destruction of Poland. In 1805 the Emperor Napoleon restored to independence one, and in 1812 another, portion of Poland, and in 1815 Lord Castle-reagh exerted himself with some success to secure the establishment of an independent Poland. The return of Napoleon from Elba deranged the combinations of the Allies, and ultimately, by the Treaty of Vienna, instead of Poland being erected into an independent State, the Crown of that kingdom was conferred upon the Emperor of Russia. In accepting the Crown, the Emperor Alexander told the Poles that, by being placed under his dominion, they had obtained a Constitution appropriate to their wants and their character, the preservation in public enactments of their language, the restriction of public appointments to Poles, freedom of commerce and navigation, and facility of communication with those parts of ancient Poland which remained subject to other Powers, a national army, and a guarantee that every means should be taken to perfect their laws; and soon afterwards, in addressing the Poles, he said—
"Your re-construction is defined by solemn treaties; it is sanctioned by the Constitutional Chart. The inviolability of those external engagements and of that fundamental law insures for Poland henceforward an honourable place among foreign nations."
Notwithstanding these professions, the course which Russia adopted towards Poland was a complete violation of the Treaty of Vienna. The noble Viscount at the head of the Government had himself stated that the stipulations of that treaty were broken as soon as they were entered into, and that the greatest violation of treaties which had taken place in

641
the history of the world was that which occurred in the case of Poland. In 1831 the Poles endeavoured to maintain the treaty by force of arms. He would not say that they rose in insurrection because the Grand Duke Constantine gave to General Zamoiski, one of his aides-de-camp, a letter authorizing him to proceed to the national army of Poland, which was then in the neighbourhood of Warsaw, and to release them from their allegiance to the Emperor. The Poles were defeated, and then fresh promises were given by Russia to Poland and to Europe. The Emperor Nicholas issued the Organic Statute, which up to the year 1862–3 was the law of Poland. The operation of that statute was illustrated by a "confidential report on the condition of the Kingdom of Poland, presented to the Emperor Alexander II. by Tymowski, Minister and Secretary of State, March, 1861." In that report the Minister said—
"The decree of 1831, although it constitutes to this very day the fundamental law for the Kingdom of Poland, and ought thus to be binding on the inhabitants of that country, has never yet seen 'a commencement of execution.' It may be said that since 1831, without any regard being paid to the pledges of the decree, the kingdom has been completely delivered over to the bureaucracy, and has remained exclusively under the thumb of the officials, without any participation whatever of the inhabitants, who were thus placed without the pale of the administrative hierarchy."
He then referred to certain reforms, and continued—
"Nevertheless, it must be added that such a result depends above all on the good faith with which the measures indicated are executed, for the country is radically imbued with the sense of law, and will appreciate the confidence bestowed upon it."
The events of 1861 and 1862 had been described in both Houses of Parliament In the House of Lords, Lord Carnarvon called attention to the subject, and Earl Russell following him said that nothing could justify the violation of law and humanity of which the Emperor of Russia had been guilty. In 1861 there were no less than four successive Viceroys of Poland, each of whom tried a different system, and each of whom was recalled upon its failure. One of them, Count Lambert, took with him into Poland a Russian officer as Commander-in-Chief, who inaugurated the state of siege, and who, being reproached by the Viceroy for a massacre of
642
men, women, and children which took place in the streets of Warsaw, drew out a pistol and committed suicide. Soon afterwards Count Lambert was withdrawn. He mentioned this to show how utterly impossible it was that Russia should govern Poland. It was unfortunate both for himself and for Poland that in 1831 the noble Lord at the head of the Government declined to join France in rendering assistance to Poland; but in 1855–6 there was another opportunity at which that country might have been saved by England. Three years ago he was to his astonishment informed by the noble Lord that, although there was a short despatch written upon the subject in 1856, during the Crimean war no despatch passed between our Government and others upon the subject of Poland. The House would be surprised to learn that at the time of the Crimean war such despatches did pass between England, France, and Austria, and, ns they had been concealed from the country, he would read extracts from them, and ask the Government whether they were authentic. He had a copy of a despatch dated "Paris, December 15th, 1855," from Count Walewski, Minister of Foreign Affairs, to Count Persigny, then French Ambassador in London, in which the Minister said—
"The object of this despatch is to call your attention, and to engage you to fix that of the British Government, upon a question which excites, and with justice, the solicitude of the Emperor, and to which, doubtless, the Cabinet of London does not attach less interest. I mean Poland. The first article of the Treaty of Vienna, 1815, in declaring the union of the duchy of Warsaw to the Russian Empire, provided that it should be unchangeably united thereto by its constitution under the name of the Kingdom of Poland. Even this was, doubtless, but a very incomplete reparation for the injustice of the partitions which annihilated Poland. Still it was an act of homage paid by Russia to the indelible principle of Polish nationality; and the Kingdom of Poland, with its constitution, with its distinct administration, and its army entirely national, in reality possessed guarantees which were wanting in the other dismembered provinces. Contrary to the promises arid to the formal assurances of the Emperor Nicholas, the Kingdom or Poland, incorporated with Russia, has since been nothing more than a province of that empire. The treaties which had constituted its political existence were openly ignored. Nevertheless, the Treaty of June 9, 1815, was then, as it is to-day, an act essentially European, by which all the contracting parties are virtually bound towards each other, and each of them towards all the rest. France and England protested against such an infraction of the public law of Europe, and if for

643
the sake of maintaining the general tranquillity, they shrank from making it a casus belli, both of them with only the more emphasis reserved the rights in regard of which they had just protested, until an opportunity should offer itself for renewing them and upholding them with more chance of success. This opportunity, M. le Comte, cannot fail shortly to arise, and the moment is come for preparing to make the re-establishment of the Kingdom of Poland, within the conditions stipulated by the Congress of Vienna, one of the essential objects of the negotiations for peace, as soon as these negotiations shall become possible, as well as one of the fundamental bases of that peace."
What was the reply of the British Government? The House had never received it, and the country had never known it. But it was given in a letter written by Count Walewski to Count Persigny, and dated October 15, 1855. Writing from Paris, he said—
"Lord Cowley has read to me a despatch from his Government, in reply to that which I commissioned you to deliver to Lord Clarendon on the subject of the situation of the Kingdom of Poland, in its relation to the treaties which determined its legal condition in 1815, and to the eventual basis of the future peace. The Principal Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs declares that, not only would the English Cabinet desire, like ourselves, that the obligations contracted by Russia towards Poland should be fulfilled, but that it would see in the independence even of that country the surest barrier for Europe against the invasions of the Russian Power. The only question in the eyes of Her Majesty's Government is, to know if the moment is opportune for entering into an engagement not to treat with Russia, except on the condition that she carries out the stipulations which concern Poland in the Vienna treaties. He comes to the conclusion that, without tying our hands or binding ourselves to any particular line of conduct, it is enough for us to agree that we will take advantage of events, within the measure of the possible, in favour of Poland."
On a subsequent occasion the French Government renewed their application, and met with a somewhat similar reply. Count Walewski, having become in the meantime the French Ambassador, said—
"I have spoken to the principal Secretary of State on the contents of your Excellency's despatch, dated March 26, I pointed out that if in a European negotiation, having for its object the re-establishment of peace with Russia, no mention whatever should be made of the breach of treaties of which the Russian Government was guilty in assimilating the Kingdom of Poland to the Empire of Russia—a breach against which we had protested—our silence might be treated as an implied sanction, and as an abandonment of our previous protests. The principal Secretary of State acknowledged the full value of this observation, and admitted that at an opportune time it would be desirable to take some steps of a nature to support the opinion previously expressed by France
644
and England on the conduct held by Russia towards Poland in 1831; but Lord Clarendon, in his turn, observed to me that at this moment every attempt to bring Russia to restore matters in Poland to the position in which they were before 1830 would be inopportune, and might be attended with consequences to be regretted."
On the conclusion of peace in 1856 the French Government again urged the British Government to do something for Poland; and he came now to the only papers which had been laid before Parliament on the subject. In a despatch from Lord Clarendon to Lord Palmerston, in April, 1856, he stated that on the 9th inst., "at the request of Count Walewski," he held a conversation with Count Orloff on the subject of Poland, and Count Orloff replied that the Emperor had determined to restore to his Polish subjects everything which had been suggested in the conversation, but that the announcement could not be made to the Congress, as that would be misrepresented in Russia. Count Orloff said in a friendly manner—
"Do not, in the interest of the Poles, bring the subject forward in the Congress; for I can tell you nothing there, nor admit your right to interrogate me. My answer, therefore, must be disheartening to the Poles, and the Emperor may perhaps think it a matter of dignity to postpone what he intends to do."
Lord Palmerston, in reply, informed Lord Clarendon that Her Majesty's Government entirely approved the manner in which the subject had been treated by him, both in bringing the question under discussion with Count Orloff, and in abstaining from mooting the matter before the Congress. It was in the early part of 1856 that this conversation took place with Count Orloff. In May, 1856, the Emperor Alexander II. visited Poland, and having assembled round him the Polish marshals, senators, and clergy, addressed them in these terms—
"I am resolved that the order established by my father shall be maintained. Therefore, gentlemen, above all things let there be no dreams— no dreams. The welfare of Poland depends upon her entire absorption into Russia. What my father did was therefore well done. I will uphold it. My reign shall be a continuation of his."
This was the language held one short month after peace had been secured. Since then, from 1856 to 1864:, the Poles had exhibited the greatest moderation and the greatest heroism. Lord Wodehouse, formerly Minister Plenipotentiary at St. Petersburg, bore testimony to this in his place in Par-

645
liament, and the same testimony had been reiterated in the course of their debates. But in 1863 the Russians, in violation of their own laws, enforced the conscription, with the avowed object of carrying off from the country every man possessed of public spirit. Under that conscription, University students and artisans were taken who were exempt from the conscription under the Russian law itself. That was done in the early part of 1863, and it caused the Polish war of 1863–4. Every Member of the House was as familiar as himself with what had since taken place in Poland. The Poles had maintained the unequal contest with greater success and for a longer time than in 1831, The Russian funds had declined from day to day, and were now lower than at any period during the Crimean War. It had been necessary to send hundreds and thousands of Russian troops into Poland, and even the Russian Guards, who had not been sent into the Crimea, had been marched against the Poles. The war had now been going on for thirteen months, and what had England done? Earl Russell had written a great many despatches. In the Christmas pantomime at one of the theatres a large box on the stage was labelled "England's aid to Poland." At the touch of a wand the front of the box fell down and discovered a very small ink-bottle and a very large pen. That was "England's aid to Poland." England, however, had promised to do much, and might have done a great deal. Earl Russell in his despatches showed that Russia had broken engagements to which England was a party, and he denounced Russia for violating public, international, and moral law. At one period of the negotiations Baron Brunnow came to Earl Russell in great alarm, and inquired whether the intentions of Her Majesty's Government were peaceful. Earl Russell published his reply in a despatch which was shown to the Ministers of France and Austria. The noble Earl said, in effect, that the intentions of his Government were peaceful, but that he must not deceive the Russian Government. The Emperor of Russia might reject the proposal he then made, as he had formerly rejected others, but the insurrection would probably continue, and conflicts and difficulties might arise, which all Would deplore. The meaning attached to those words in Vienna and Paris was that the British Government had made up their minds that the engagements of England were to be preserved. The Emperor of
646
Russia rejected the proposal, however, like the rest. The House rose for the recess, and Earl Russell wrote a despatch to Prince Gortschakoff. It was a very long one, and was not worth much, but the three last paragraphs had some sense in them, and struck every one as not having been written by Earl Russell. The question then arose, "Who wrote them?" He would give the House some information on this subject. The Governments of Great Britain, France, and Austria were then all acting together, and when Prince Gortschakoff's rebuff was received the Emperor of the French made a proposal to the Cabinets of London and Vienna, that an identical note in reply to Prince Gortschakoff should be drawn up by Count Rechberg and sent to Russia by the three Governments. The Emperor of the French at the same time represented that Austria was within a few hours march of an enormous Russian army. England and France were remote from such a danger, and it was therefore desirable to enter into a compact guaranteeing to Austria the assistance of the two Powers in the event of any attack by Russia. That was an extremely fair and reasonable proposal. It was worthy of remark that the Government had not given the House the correspondence with the Cabinets of the Tuileries and Vienna on the subject of this identical note. It was, however, of great importance, because, as the note was not sent and no joint action took place, the question arose how Parliament was to know which of the three Powers refused to take this joint action. A paragraph, which appeared to come from an official source, appeared during the recess in The Times newspaper on the 15th of August, 1863. It was as follows:—
"Russia and Poland.—The three despatches in reply to Prince Gortschakoff from Austria, France, and Great Britain will probably reach St. Petersburg this day, and will be presented at once to Prince Gortschakoff. England and Austria objected to an identical note, as proposed by France, because they considered it would too much resemble a menace to Russia. As it is, each Power has contented itself with replying to the arguments addressed to it by Russia."
Beyond this statement the House of Commons had not received the least information as to this identical note, although it was the turning point of the whole negotiation. It was supposed from the statement in The Times that the identical note was refused both by Austria and England. This, however, was not correct. The fact was that the identical note was drawn up

647
by Count Rechberg, and was then submitted to the Governments of France and England. The latter Government refused to agree to the identical note, or to enter into any further combinations, and Earl Russell expressed his intention to pursue in future an isolated policy. On the 3rd of August, in last year, M. Drouyn de Lhuys, writing to the French Ambassador, the Due de Grammont, at Vienna, said—
"I do not propose to recur to-day to the considerations which pleaded in favour of a complete identity of language in the replies of the three Courts to the communications of Russia. Our reasons—I have pleasure in saying so—have been thoroughly appreciated at Vienna; and I consider it my duty to acknowledge that it is not the fault of the Austrian Government that our proposition was not adopted. It was inspired, not only by the desire of augmenting the authority of our proceedings in giving to the Russian Cabinet a proof of the unity of views, which it has seemed to doubt, but, also, by the sentiment of the peculiar situation of Austria, to whom we thought it right to guarantee that we intended to share with her the consequences of a common policy. Our proposition not having been accepted in London, I have prepared the separate despatch, which our Ambassador at St. Petersburg will be instructed to deliver to Prince Gortschakoff. I enclose it herein, with the English draft, which has been communicated to me by Lord Cowley. The conclusion of these two documents reproduces the last paragraphs of the draft originally proposed by the Vienna Cabinet. We desire that at least this partial identity may be maintained."
The Foreign Minister of France, writing to the French Chargé d'Affaires in London, on the 22nd of September, 1863, said—
"We have not changed our opinion concerning the European character of the Polish question, and concerning the rights which the general interest and treaties confer upon us. We deplore the circumstances that three Powers like England, Austria, and France, have not resolved on giving to their proceedings all the efficacy desirable, and the responsibility of assuring to their opinion the irresistible authority of a collective resolution does not rest on our shoulders."
Neither the Emperor of the French nor the Emperor of Austria was therefore to blame for the failure of the diplomacy of the Western Governments. He could not say thus much: of the diplomacy of Austria without also adverting to the conduct of the Austrian Executive at the present moment. While the diplomacy of Austria, following the Foreign policy of Lord Castlereagh, desired the independence of Poland, the Austrian Executive in Galicia imitated the cruelties of Mouravieiff. Ladies whom he had himself seen tending the sick and wounded Poles in Cracow, were now in prison. One of these ladies was kept
648
in solitary confinement, and her letters were not allowed to reach her. The Austrian Government punished these ladies for having assisted the sick and wounded Poles, but their sympathies were naturally with the insurgents. The noble Viscount was to blame for a good deal that had happened in the history of Poland. Since 1831, whenever Poland had had a chance, the noble Viscount had been in office, and had not done as much for her as he ought and could. One cause of this was the disregard he had always shown for public law. His maiden speech in this House, delivered on the 3rd of February, 1808, was against Denmark and in defence of the bombardment of Copenhagen by the British fleet, and he then laid down a principle of policy which had run more or less through his whole career as Foreign Minister. "There are times," he said, "when the Law of Nations must be broken." Now, he (Mr. Hennessy) maintained that the Law of Nations must always be upheld, and, if this had been done, Poland would not have been in her present deplorable condition. At Blairgowrie, Earl Russell, referring to the partition of Poland as an event which was a scandal to Europe and a reproach to the Three Powers who were parties to it, said that,. by the Treaty of Vienna, Europe had given a retrospective sanction to the partition, and had become accessary after the fact; but, as Russia had not fulfilled the conditions under which her title was recognized, we were no longer bound to recognize her sovereignty in Poland. This was the substance of the Resolutions before the House. But the noble Earl was not satisfied with his declaration at Blairgowrie. Eight days before he made it, he was in communication with the French Government on the subject, and they were must desirous that the declaration should be made. Accordingly, in September, Earl Russell wrote a despatch to Russia, which was dated October 20, 1863, and embodied the Blairgowrie declaration. Lord Napier privately communicated its contents to Prince Gortschakoff, who said it was a very serious matter to declare before Europe that Russia had forfeited her sovereignty in Poland. Lord Napier telegraphed home Prince Gortsehakoff's opinion, and, at the same time, Count Bismark actually threatened to make it a casus belli if the despatch were read. The very day the English despatch was written, the French Government wrote to their Minister at St. Petersburg referring to it, stating that they were

649
in accord with every word of it, and directed him to support it. But, after this despatch had received the approval of the Queen and Cabinet, Earl Russell recalled it, struck out the last sentence, which was the only one of importance, and it was afterwards delivered to the Russian Government. So bungling was the noble Earl's surgery that the scar could still be seen—the premisses were there, but he had removed the conclusion. The value of such a declaration, had it been made, could hardly be overrated, and the Poles looked for it with anxiety. It did not mean war. Count Bismark, indeed, might threaten war; but, though he had made war on a weak Power, it was doubtful whether Count Bismark would make war on England. The noble Viscount had stated, on a former occasion, that to tell any country that we did not recognize her sovereignty where she was de facto sovereign, though there might be insurgents there, would occasion war. But, in the case of Circassia, the British Government had distinctly refused to recognize the sovereignty of Russia; and before Greece became independent, Count Nesselrode proposed that the British and the Russian Governments should jointly declare to Turkey that they did not recognize Turkish rule in Greece. Remembering these precedents, and looking at what England had done and omitted to do in Poland, the least which the House of Commons could ask was that the declaration made by the Foreign Minister and inserted in a despatch should be made by the Government. Diplomatically, the Blairgowrie declaration possessed no value. Foreign Governments were not bound to know anything about it, But not so the subjects of the Queen, who, when the Foreign Minister stated in public that Russia had forfeited her title to sovereignty in Poland, were bound to look upon that forfeiture as having been declared with authority. Poland of to-day was Poland within the limits of 1772; and there was something more which made this question a practical one. What were the influences, and who were the parties, that determined the future destinies of Europe? From time almost immemorial, the destinies of Europe had been swayed by two great parties—the revolutionary and what, without reference to the political divisions of parties in this country, might be called the Conservative party. There was a third influence which had modified these two on the Continent of Europe. A house or fa-
650
mily—at one time the House of Hapsburg, at another the House of Bourbon. For the latter we had now the House of Napoleon. And what was the attitude of those three great parties? The revolutionary party, as represented by a disinterested soldier who had recently received an enthusiastic reception in this country, had declared that Poland must be revived. The Conservative party at the other end of Europe had made a similar declaration; and, judging by the information which was in the possession of the public at large, he thought he was entitled to say that the Emperor of the French also was in favour of Poland. The growing greatness of Spain, which the Chancellor of the Exchequer had spoken of as one of the great facts of the day, the kingdom of Italy, and the establishment of the Empire of Mexico, were each of them owing to the combined action of some two of the three parties to whom he had alluded. Keeping the fact in view, remembering what were the sentiments of all three as regarded Poland, and having regard to the fact that every man of intelligence, education, and property in that country was in favour of its independence, certainly he did not despair of Poland. After the insurrection of 1831, the Emperor Nicholas tried the effect of banishments to Siberia, and issued ukases under which male children were taken from their country to be reared up in Russia; and yet, notwithstanding all that, the insurrection of 1831 was in the present day vindicated by a generation then unborn. The consistency with which the men of Poland had resisted foreign oppression was due to the heroism of her daughters. At an historic place near this metropolis, the beauty and rank of England were gathered round tables on which the jewels of the women of Poland were displayed for sale at a fancy fair held in aid of their country. On those tables were to be seen the tiaras of princesses, the diamonds of noble ladies, and the less costly ornaments of humble, but not less heroic and patriotic women. The inscriptions on many of those articles told their own tale:—"A birthday gift from a brother;" "A wedding present from a father." And there were memorials even more touching and instructive than all those diamonds. There were the offerings of women who, having sold their jewels to equip their husbands for the field, now, when those husbands had fallen, parted with the last memento of their married life, and sent their

651
wedding rings here to be sold for the benefit of the wounded. It was creditable to the leaders of fashion in England that, when the great ladies of the land were gathered around those tables, and when they looked at those wedding rings, tears started from the eyes of many of them. The women of England had paid that tribute—that tribute in kind to the sorrows of the women of Poland. When would the statesmen and soldiers of Europe pay a tribute in kind to the statesmen and soldiers of Poland? The Emperor Napoleon, Edmund Burke, Metternich, Talleyrand, Lord Castlereagh, and other eminent statesmen, had all declared an independent Poland to be inevitable. The records of the opinions of such men were full of hope; but there were also in favour of that nation less perishable records—records written in the hearts of the people of Europe; and as long as he believed in the existence of a sense of public right in the heart of man, he should refuse to despair of Poland. The hon. and learned Member concluded by moving his first Resolution.
Amendment proposed,
To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "the negotiations of Her Majesty's Government respecting Poland have not terminated in a satisfactory manner,"—(Mr. Hennessy,)
—instead thereof.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: Sir, though there are certainly many things in the speech of the hon. Gentleman in which I agree, yet I cannot concur with him in the conclusion at which he arrived; and I certainly shall vote for the Motion for going into Supply, instead of for the hon. Member's Resolution. I shall not follow the hon. Member through the historical details of the earlier history of the Polish nation. I agree with him in the condemnation he has passed on that great European crime, the partition of Poland; and it is almost needless to say that I concur in the censure and condemnation which he has passed on the conduct of Russia throughout the whole of her connection with Poland. On that part of his speech I might make a well known remark, but inverting the sentiment, Quis vituperavit Herculem? — and say, who has excused, palliated, or justified the conduct of the Russian Government? But that is not the question on which the House this evening is called to give an opinion. The hon. Gentleman condemns
652
the conduct of Her Majesty's Government in their recent transactions with regard to Poland. I do not intend to revert to those former periods to which the hon. Gentleman has referred, because they have in reality nothing to do with the question at issue. Though I agree with what the hon. Gentleman says in his Resolution— that the efforts which Her Majesty's Government have made in behalf of Poland have not been successful—yet I am at a loss to understand from the hon. Gentleman what it is that we have not done which he thinks we ought to have done. He says it is our fault that we have not been more successful in regard to Poland; but I appeal to the memory of the hon. Gentleman himself to say whether, in the course of last year and the year before, when he was urging us to exert the influence of Great Britain in favour of Poland, he did not repeatedly say that he did not ask for war, that he did not ask for the display of arms, he wanted only diplomatic assistance, and especially, he said, he wished that the diplomatic influence of England should be exerted to obtain from all the principal Powers of Europe a concurrent opinion with ourselves as to the duty which Russia owed towards Poland, and as to the violation of her engagements at the Treaty of Vienna. Well, we did all that the hon. Gentleman asked us to do— we went to the utmost extent and length of diplomatic exertions. We did succeed in getting most of the leading Powers of Europe to concur with us in urging at St. Petersburg the manner in which Russia had failed to perform her engagements contained in the Treaty of 1815, and in exhorting her to fulfil those engagements, and to deal in a different manner with the Poles. What was the next step then which we had to take? Only two things remained to be done. One was to cease those representations which, however respectable and powerful the quarters from which they came, had not been attended with success; and the other was to do what the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire (Mr. Disraeli) said would have been an act of insanity—to go to war with Russia on account of Poland. We were not insane, and we did not at any moment contemplate going to war with Russia for the sake of Poland. My noble Friend the Secretary for Foreign Affairs stated that from his place in Parliament on more than one occasion. There are many reasons why it would have

653
been an act of madness to venture on such a war. The hon. Gentleman said that on one occasion we declined the cooperation of Austria and France in favour of Poland, Why, Sir, he afterwards mentioned with condemnation the conduct which Austria is now pursuing with regard to the Poles in Galicia. Is it likely, Sir, that Austria having Galicia, and Prussia I having Posen, both of which are occupied by fragments of the Polish nation, would have concurred in attacking Russia, and compelling her to perform engagements which, in point of fact, they had no great interest in asserting on behalf of the Poles, Sir, it would have been impossible. Then, with regard to France. For many years the French Legislature passed annually resolutions somewhat similar to that which the hon. Gentleman now proposes to us to pass, but at last they felt that they were placing themselves in an undignified position by expressing opinions which were not to be followed up by any practical acts on the part of the executive Government, and they therefore abstained from doing so. If the hon. Gentleman asks me whether in my opinion Russia has, in point of fact, not forfeited the right which by the Treaty of Vienna she obtained to Poland, because she has not fulfilled the corresponding engagements imposed on her by that treaty, I should be very much disposed to agree with the hon. Gentleman. But I say it would be undignified for this House formally to pronounce such an opinion unless this House was prepared to follow it up by an address to the Crown to give effect to the declaration which they had made. If we were prepared to go to war to-morrow and to follow up the sentence of forfeiture by execution, either singly or in conjunction with any other Power; if we were ready to go to Poland and say to Russia, "Not only have you forfeited your right to Poland, but we mean to take away from you that territory to which you no longer have a European right,"—I could understand the propriety of coming to such a decision, if the House were convinced that it was founded on justice and right. But to pronounce such an opinion without being prepared to act up to it would be placing this House not only in an undignified, but I will say a ridiculous position. But has this country a right to deal singly with this matter? Does Russia possess Poland simply by a treaty concluded between England and Russia? By no means. The Treaty of Vienna, by which
654
the Duchy of Warsaw was given to Russia, was signed by eight European Powers— not only by England, but by France, Austria, Prussia, Spain, Portugal, and Sweden. England alone has no right to abrogate any part of that treaty which she thinks may have been broken by one of the Powers parties to it. A declaration, therefore, by England alone would not have any validity to put an end to the right of Russia, independently of the circumstances that it would be most undignified on the part of this House to pronounce an opinion of that sort, unless we were prepared to give effect to it in some practical way. The hon. Gentleman says the Poles are most anxious that this House should pronounce such an opinion. If that be so, then I must say the Poles are very shortsighted with regard to their own interests. What happened after the insurrection of 1832? That insurrection was suppressed by the arms of Russia and by the passive co-operation of Prussia. We remonstrated with the Russian Government for abolishing the Constitution which the Emperor Alexander had granted to Poland. What was the reply of the Emperor of that day? He said, "You have no right to appeal to the Treaty of Vienna. I don't hold Poland in virtue of that treaty; I hold Poland by the sword. I have conquered it: it is mine, not by treaty, but by the right of conquest; it revolted and I subdued it; and you have no more right to talk of my treatment of the inhabitants of Poland than of any other part of my dominions." We gained a step—a considerable step, I think, in our recent negotiations, when, in deference to the collective opinion of Europe, the Russian Government admitted that they held Poland by virtue of the Treaty of Vienna, and that they were bound by the engagements which Russia took towards Poland under the stipulations of that treaty. They said, "We acknowledge that we are bound by those engagements; we cannot fulfil them while this insurrection lasts; but when order and tranquillity are restored we will do that which we admit we are bound to do under the Treaty of Vienna." That is a much better position for the Poles to be in than if we were to say to Russia, "We will not accept your admission; we go back to your declaration of 1832; we say that you hold Poland by conquest independent of any treaty; and we leave you therefore at liberty to deal with it as you please—we give the Poles up to your tender mercies,

655
to be treated in such a manner as you may think fit."To the well-understood interests of the Poles such a declaration as the hon. Gentleman asks this House to make would be as injurious as anything this House could do with respect to the Polish question at the present moment. I hope, therefore, that, not with standing the hon. Gentleman's eloquence, not with standing all the statements he has made, and justly made, as to the wrongs which Poland has sustained at all times, and particularly as to the cruel injuries recently inflicted on her by the agents of the Russian Government, this House will not be led away by their feelings, and will not, in a manner which their better reason would forbid, take away from the Poles the only remaining diplomatic protection which the Treaty of Vienna gives them, which, good or bad, effective or not, is still a diplomatic shelter, and throw them back into the condition the Russian Government asserted they were in after the close of the rebellion or the war, I may more properly call it, of 1831–2. The hon. Gentleman has said, and has said truly, that the Poles have manifested a degree of national feeling, of attachment to their country, powers of endurance, and a courage and intrepidity, almost unexampled in the history of any other nation. But the more, in my opinion, we admire the Poles the less disposed ought we to be to agree to these Resolutions; the more we think them deserving the sympathy of Europe the less ought we to deprive them of that diplomatic and political protection which I maintain the Treaty of Vienna still affords them, and the force of which we are entitled to expect the Russian Government will, at some future period at all events, in some degree acknowledge by its conduct. I concur with the hon. Gentleman, as I am sure all who heard him must do, in the opinions which he has expressed in reference to the conduct of Russia, but then I cannot agree with him in the conclusions at which he has arrived. He mentioned two instances in support of his Motion: the one being the declaration which we made to Russia that we did not acknowledge her sovereignty in Circassia; the other the representation which we made to Turkey, to the effect that we did not acknowledge her dominion over Greece. Now, I would ask with respect to the first of those instances, What is the position of Circassia now? Has our declaration saved Circassia from being conquered by Russia? Are there not at this
656
moment hundreds of thousands of Circassians who have been expelled from their country by Russia, receiving refuge in Turkey, and exposed to every possible misery and privation? Has not actual dominion over Circassia been established by the success of Russian arms? Does the hon. Gentleman think it desirable that the same consequences should follow a similar declaration in the case of Poland? Are we now to tell Russia that we do not acknowledge her dominion in that country, and are we to look on while she extends that dominion with the same firmness as in Circassia? The example of Circassia does not, I confess, seem to me to be a very encouraging one for this House to act upon, while, with respect to the case of Greece, I would observe that if Poland were as accessible to England and France as Greece was to England and Russia and France, and if England and France had the same means of rescuing Poland from Russia that England and Russia and France had of rescuing Greece from Turkey, there then might be some force in the hon. Gentleman's illustration, and a declaration of forfeiture might be easily followed by execution. The case of Poland, however, is entirely different from that of Greece, and, therefore, the example which the hon. Gentleman has given us seems to me to have no bearing on the conclusion at which he has arrived. I would, in conclusion, entreat the House, both out of regard for its own dignity and character, as well as for the sake of the best interests of the Poles themselves, of whose cause the hon. Gentleman is so able and consistent an advocate, to agree to the Motion for going into Committee of Supply, and not to give its assent to his Amendment.
MR. GRANT DUFFsaid, that the Question which was submitted to-night did not turn upon the past history of Poland. It was simply whether the House should or should not agree to the Resolutions which the hon. Gentleman had put upon the paper. With regard to the Resolutions, they might agree as individuals that they were correct; but it was another question whether the House of Commons would do wisely in giving them their solemn sanction. He could not see what good could emanate from the passing of those Resolutions. He was told on his visit even by Polish authorities, that the insurrection was extinguished, and every day it was attempted to be excited only gave Russia

657
additional opportunity of intensifying the subjugation and misery of Poland. He thought the time would come when Poland would have free institutions given her by the Liberal party who were now growing up in Russia.
SIR FRANCIS GOLDSMIDsaid, the argument used by the noble Lord, that great injury would be done to the Poles if they were deprived of the diplomatic protection afforded by the Treaty of Vienna had been refuted a thousand times by every act of cruelty which the Russian Government, not withstanding all remonstrances, inflicted on Poland. The Russian Government had shown in the plainest manner by their conduct that that protection was utterly worthless in their eyes.
MR. SCULLYsaid, that while standing below the Bar of that House he had heard a statement which had brought him back to his place. He was told that there was to be no division upon the Motion, but he took occasion to say that he should certainly have a division. He, like other hon. Members, had received a circular asking him to attend the House for a certain division. He had given up every engagement in order that he might be present, and he thought that they ought to have a division. if division there could be upon such absolute truisms as were expressed in those Resolutions.
MR. SEYMOUR FITZGERALDsaid, he hoped that the House would allow him to offer a few observations, because the noble Lord at the head of the Government had made a speech which, though in some respects satisfactory, in others deserved and claimed the notice of the House. His hon. Friend the Member for the King's County (Mr. Hennessy) had made statements and referred to documents respecting which the noble Lord, addressing the House upon this important subject, had preserved the most studied silence. One statement was that in 1861 the noble Lord was asked whether, at the time of the Crimean war, any Correspondence passed between the French or Austrian Governments and Her Majesty's Government with reference to the re-constitution of the Kingdom of Poland, and the noble Lord distinctly stated in the face of the Commons of England that there was no such Correspondence. The hon. Member had that evening referred to despatches which then passed.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: French despatches.
MR. SEYMOUR FITZGERALD: French despatches addressed to this country.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: To the French Ambassador, not to the Government.
MR. SEYMOUR FITZGERALD: But quoting the opinions of Her Majesty's Government, and quoting statements made by the representative of Her Majesty in Paris. The hon. Member for the King's County had quoted those despatches, and yet the noble Lord did not for a moment attempt to explain how it was that in 1861 he made a statement which the despatches which the hon. Gentleman had now read proved to have been inaccurate. [Viscount PALMERSTON: Not at all,] The noble Lord represented the question as being whether there were any despatches from Her Majesty's Government. The question was this — and a most important question it was—whether at the time of the Crimean war any propositions were made by France and Austria, or any communication addressed to Her Majesty's Government, upon the subject of the reconstruction of the Kingdom of Poland. In 1861 the noble Lord distinctly denied that; and, as far as the House could judge at that moment, that statement of the noble Lord was not accurate. That was a matter which deserved notice and required explanation, from some other Member of the Government. But there was another point to which the hon. Member for the King's County had referred. He had stated that after the speech made by the noble Earl at the head of the Foreign Office, in the course of last autumn, at Blairgowrie, a despatch was written by him, and forwarded to Paris, to Vienna, and even to St. Petersburg, and was in the hands of our Minister there, which contained the very declaration which the hon. Member now wished to have repeated by the House of Commons, but that it was withdrawn because our Ambassador was told that the consequences of its presentation might be serious. Surely such a statement was not one to be passed over in silence by the head of the Government. A declaration made upon the authority of the Cabinet, with the assent of the Sovereign, communicated to the other Powers of Europe, and then withdrawn because our Government was informed that the consequences might be serious! Was the statement of such a fact to be made in the House of Commons, in the presence of the

659
noble Lord, and to be passed over in silence? Having pointed out those two circumstances, which he thought ought to be explained by some Member of the Cabinet, he wished to draw the attention of the House to one or two other observations of the noble Lord. The noble Lord said that the speech of the hon. Member for the King's County admitted that the Government had done everything that they could, except that they did not go to war, which, said the noble Lord, was never suggested by any one, and certainly would not have met with the support of the House. That was not the statement of the hon. Member for the King's County. The statement of the hon. Gentleman was that the Government did not do all that they could; and, more than that, that when the Governments of Austria and Prussia were prepared to take another position, their action was paralyzed by the refusal of Her Majesty's Government to concur with them. The hon. Gentleman had pointed out—and the noble Lord made no reference to that part of his speech—that it was proposed by the Government of France that an identical note should be addressed by the three Governments to Russia, that that course was assented to by Austria, and the note prepared by her Minister, but its adoption was prevented by the refusal of England. When, therefore, the noble Lord said that the Government had done everything that they could have done, it was shown that he was endeavouring to throw dust in the eyes of the House, and to make them forget the statements of the hon. Member for the King's County. He offered no explanation why it was that, when there was this combined action on the part of the Continental Powers, when Austria herself was willing to take that course, he and his Government paralyzed the action of those Powers, and prevented that interference on behalf of Poland which but for their resistance would have taken place. Even as far as that declaration was concerned the noble Lord's Government did not do all that they could. It was true that they sent it to St. Petersburg, but they brought it back again, and, as far as the House knew from the documents which were published, the very declaration which was described by M. Drouyn de Lhuys as being in his opinion, and that of the Government of the Emperor, the most important step that could be taken by the Governments of Europe in this question was prevented by the noble Lord and his
660
Government. The noble Lord said that it would be very unbecoming and injurious for this country to assent to such a declaration of forfeiture as this. But surely if the arguments of the noble Lord against such a declaration being made by a Resolution of that House were good, they applied with far more force to that declaration to which the noble Lord consented, which was made upon the authority of the Government and assented to by the Sovereign. Surely if it was now against the interest of the Poles to deprive them of the protection— the protection, forsooth—of the Treaty of Vienna—much protection it had been to them during the late unhappy months— the same objection would apply with still more force to the declaration made by the noble Lord and his Cabinet. But when the noble Lord told the House of Commons that it was contrary to the dignity of this country to hold language which we were not prepared to follow up by energetic measures, he would ask the noble Lord to consider what the Government had been doing in the case of Denmark for the last six or seven months. Talk of strong language—talk of menaces of war, and that it was contrary to the dignity of this country to hold such language unless we were prepared to support it! The last Minister who ought to make such a declaration was the noble Lord himself, who was at the head of a Government which had been using bullying language. ["No, no!" and "Hear, hear!"] The noble Lord might jeer; but if that expressed his opinion it did not express the opinions of the people of England or of the Members of that House. He said that a Government which had been holding the language which the noble Lord's Government had to the Governments of Germany for the last six months was the last that ought to make the statement that it was contrary to the honour and dignity of this country to use language which we were not prepared to support by force. He understood that it was not the intention of his hon. Friend to take a division upon the Resolutions which he had placed before the House, resting satisfied with the declaration which had been obtained from the noble Lord in his place in Parliament, and speaking as Prime Minister, in corroboration of the statement made by the noble Lord his Colleague in Scotland in the month of September last. His hon. Friend might well rest satisfied with having urged upon the Government the rights and the claims

661
of Poland when his arguments had received the cordial and sympathetic assent of the House.
MR. LAYARDsaid, he would not detain the House many minutes, but he wished to set hon. Members right on one or two matters of fact. The hon. Gentleman opposite had used very strong language, but it was easy to do so when speaking without any sense of responsibility. If he were asked to point out what the Government ought to have done, or what he would have done himself in the same position, he doubted very much whether the hon. Gentleman would have carried his views to the extent of going to war with Russia on account of Poland.
MR. SEYMOUR FITZGERALDdesired to say that he had never contemplated anything of the kind.
MR. LAYARDsaid, there was no other meaning to be deduced from his arguments. Except to take up arms on behalf of Poland, there was nothing the Government had not done. Over and over again, in the case of Denmark, of Poland, and of Italy, the Government had been twitted with not going to war in support of their views. The Government, on the contrary, believed that the country was not prepared for war, and did not wish for it; and the country, he was sure, gave the Government credit for keeping them out of war. As regarded the despatch so much relied on, it was perfectly true that England, France, and Austria had been acting together in the matter of Poland, and that the joint despatch was prepared which had been read by the hon. Gentleman; but though the French Government agreed to that despatch, the hon. Gentleman was completely mistaken in stating that the Austrian Government had ever agreed to it.
MR. HENNESSY: I must beg to disclaim the statement. I stated that the joint despatch was agreed to, supported by the French Government, and sent to St. Petersburg.
MR. LAYARDsaid, the hon. Gentleman opposite undoubtedly stated that Austria was one of the three parties agreeing to the despatch. But, in point of fact, it was Austria, and not England, which objected to a particular passage. The hon. Gentleman twitted him, over and over again, with failing to produce the despatch. But it was not in his power to produce a despatch which had never been acted upon nor communicated to the Russian Government, and which had been cancelled, and
662
consequently had no existence. The hon. Gentleman knew that it was a very common practice, in order to save time, to send on a despatch which was not delivered till all the parties concerned had agreed upon it. If afterwards the despatch was not agreed to, it was simply cancelled. The cancelled despatch, which was never delivered, had no existence, but the despatch actually presented to the Russian Government was included in the Correspondence laid before Parliament. The hon. Gentleman objected to the last paragraph of that despatch as differing materially from the one originally contemplated, but for his part he thought it conveyed almost as much as the hon. Gentleman alleged to have been left out. The inference to be drawn from the statement that the rights of Poland were contained in the same instrument which conferred the Emperor's title to be King of Poland plainly was, that if Russia violated the engagements and duties imposed on her by that document she forfeited her title to rule over the nation. As regarded identity of communication, the House must recollect the meaning of the term. First of all, it was very difficult to get several persons to agree to a precise form of words, but when the words were agreed upon in a communication of such a solemn and important character, if their representations were not attended to, it threw upon the Powers who combined for this purpose the responsibility of taking measures to enforce attention to their views. The British Government thought it better not to make such a communication, but to make separate representations which, though not identical in language, should be identical in effect. The despatch to which the hon. Gentleman had so frequently alluded had, in fact, no existence; it had been cancelled; and the despatch laid on the table was that which had been communicated to the Russian Government, That was the whole history of the despatch of which so much had been made, and the House would see how entirely hon. Gentlemen had been misinformed.
MR. HENNESSYsaid that, after what had passed, he did not wish to press the Motion to a division.
Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question," put, and agreed to.

MISCELLANEOUS CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES.
MR. AUGUSTUS SMITHsaid, he had been long of opinion that the present system of dealing with the Estimates, especially those of the Civil Service, was most unsatisfactory. The number of hon. Members attending when those Estimates were under discussion was always limited, and still fewer took any part in the discussions upon them. It was too late to move that the Estimates generally for the present year be referred to a Select Committee, which would be the most satisfactory method of investigating them; but there were one or two special classes as to which an exceptional course might and ought to be taken. It should be remembered that whatever increase took place on the annual Estimates, except with regard to exceptional items like the Prince of Wales's marriage, or the monument to the Prince Consort, became a permanent source of increase. That increase had jumped up £50,000 during the present year. It was very desirable that the various items should undergo preliminary examination by a Select Committee. He confidently felt that the time had come when the House ought to adopt a different system than the present for the examination of the Estimates. A Committee of the Whole House scarcely ever carried a reduction in the Estimates, though he believed that they did much good in discussing the Estimates generally, yet it was very difficult to follow up such in minute particulars in a large assembly. If a Select Committee were appointed to examine Class No. 2, they might in the meantime in Committee of the Whole House proceed with the other classes. It might be objected that such a Committee would diminish Ministerial responsibility, but that responsibility was a perfect myth, because under the present system, as soon as the House adopted the Estimates, the responsibility of the Government was at an end. He should conclude by moving—
"That the Miscellaneous Civil Service Estimates, Class 2, laid upon the table of the House, be referred to a Select Committee to examine the same in reference to the past expenditure for the Civil Services, and to report to the House any reductions, better arrangement, or other particulars connected with that branch of the Public Expenditure which in their opinion deserve the attention of the House when the said Estimates are under their consideration.
SIR JOHN SHELLEYbegged to second the Motion. He thought that every
664
hon. Gentleman must agree that nothing could be more unsatisfactory than the present manner of examining the Estimates, and he believed that if the Motion of his hon. Friend were agreed to, it would be productive of great good. The recommendations of the Select Committee of 1860 had in many respects been carried into effect, and much good had resulted there from. He did not see that the responsibility of the Ministers would be one jot lessened whether the Estimates were examined by a Select Committee or by a Committee of the Whole House. He firmly believed that the more the accounts were examined the better the works would be executed.
MR. SPEAKERsaid, he must remind the hon. Member that the House having negatived the Amendment, and having affirmed that "the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question," there was no room for the Motion of the hon. Member. The Question before the House at present was that he "do now leave the Chair."
MR. PEELsaid, he could not help thinking that the House was likely to be disappointed if it expected any results from the Committee proposed by the hon. Member. The Committee of 1860 examined the most vulnerable of those Estimates—Class 1. They took evidence, but they were unable to agree upon any other recommendation than that the First Commissioner of Works should be a permanent officer of the Civil Service. In 1848 a Committee sat on the subject of miscellaneous expenditure, and they came to the conclusion that the best security for economy was the existence of a Government honestly bent on retrenchment and reduction. Any proposal, however, to refer the Estimates of the current year to a Committee was a step in the wrong direction, because the Committee, and not the Government, would in that case be regarded as responsible for the Estimates. The hon. Gentleman had not got over the difficulty as to time by limiting his proposal to the Votes comprised in Class 2. That class embraced all the Civil Departments of the Government, and if a Committee upstairs were to direct its attention to the reductions which should be made in those establishments, it was obvious that the inquiry could not be terminated before it would be necessary to pass the Estimates. He thought the hon. Gentleman ought to acknowledge that there was a reduction in the Estimates of this year, and that it was

665
satisfactory as far as it went. That reduction was not to be explained away by saying that it was due to the omission of the extraordinary expenses which appeared in the Estimates of previous years. There was an average amount of extraordinary expenses included in the present Estimates. There were, for example, the charges for the building of the new Foreign Office and the Record Office. As to the increase of £56,000, to which the hon. Gentleman had alluded, it could easily be accounted for without imputing extravagance to the Government; £16,000 of it was a merely nominal charge for postages, which went back into the Exchequer; another £16,000 was required for the registry of births and deaths in Ireland, and £10,000 more was required for the inspectorate of fisheries in Ireland, the last two items constituting an increased charge for two new establishments created by Acts of Parliament passed in the last Session. After deducting those sums from the £56,000, they had a residue of £14,000, which was not more than the amount of the ordinary annual increment in the salaries of the different public offices.
MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, he thought the reason given for not submitting those Estimates to a Select Committee was most incorrect as regarded the responsibility of the Government, because when the Estimates were agreed to, that responsibility was taken away. He hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would turn his attention to the subject, and direct that the Estimates should be laid before the House before the 1st of April in each year. He begged to call attention to the great inconvenience of voting money on account.

NAVY — SUPERANNUATION IN THE DOCKYARDS.—QUESTION.
MR. FERRANDsaid, he wished, before Mr. Speaker left the Chair, to put a question to the noble Lord the Secretary to the Admiralty. A short time ago certain rules and regulations were issued for the control and management of the dockyards. One of those rules referred to the superannuation of officers over sixty years of age. It was reported that that rule was to be stringently applied in the dockyard at Devonport, and that all officers there over sixty would have to retire, whereas at Ports mouth, Chatham, and, he believed, other dockyards, a certain number of officers over sixty were to be retained. He wished
666
to ask, Whether the rule is really to be applied stringently to all the dockyards, or whether any of them are to be excepted?
LORD CLARENCE PAGETsaid, that by the Act of Parliament of 1859 all persons above the age of sixty were superannuated without any medical certificate; therefore, it was implied that persons above the age of sixty, unless reported to be still fully equal to the performance of their duties, were all liable to be superannuated. In the case of the dockyards, there had of late years been great stagnation owing to the establishments being so full, and there being so few vacancies amongst them, that there was scarcely an opportunity for the hired men getting on in the establishments. It was also felt very desirable in the dockyards that, in order to insure the great works being carried on with vigour and economy, that after a certain age all persons of the artificer class, no matter how worthy, should be superannuated, and the Admiralty decided that after the age of sixty all inferior officers and all artificers and labourers in Her Majesty's naval establishments should be superannuated, unless they were specially recommended by the superintendents as being men of very active habits and still thoroughly able to their work; but on arriving at the age of sixty-five they would be superannuated as a matter of course. This rule had been applied, not to Devonport alone, but to all the dockyards without any exception; and he could assure the hon. Gentleman that wherever superintendents of yards had stated that certain individuals were of peculiarly active habits, and were still able to do a-good day's work, if they were under sixty-five, they had had an extended time in the service; but in all cases all persons on arriving at the age of sixty-five were superannuated as a matter of course.
MR. FERRANDbegged to ask whether an order had not been recently issued and sent down to Devonport, directing that all the men above sixty, without any exception, should be superannuated? He had been told that several men, between the age of sixty and sixty-five, although well able to perform their duties, would be superannuated.
LORD CLARENCE PAGET: That is not so.
Main Question put, and agreed to.

SUPPLY—SUPPLEMENTARY NAVY ESTIMATES.
SUPPLY considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
LORD CLARENCE PAGET: Sir, in moving the supplementary Estimate for the pay of the navy, I need preface the proposal with but very few remarks. Hon. Gentlemen are, I believe, aware that from time to time there have been very strong representations made, both in this House and out of doors, as to the fact that the pay of the officers and seamen of some classes in the navy is not so generous or so adequate as it ought to be. Sir, we know that the navy have of late years had fewer opportunities for distinguishing themselves and enriching themselves with prize money than they had during the great European war; and from that circumstance, the general rewards which fall to the lot of the navy are certainly very inferior to what they used to be in the days of our forefathers. There are two sources of emolument which are almost wholly lost to the navy in modern days. The one is, as I have said, prize money; the other is the freight that was formerly received on the carriage of gold. In former times, we all took our turns on the principal foreign stations of carrying freights, by which a considerable addition was made to our incomes, but that system has now almost wholly disappeared. It is true we still get a certain amount of advantage occasionally from the capture of pirates and slavers, but, generally speaking, as appeared from the evidence taken before the Committee on Promotion and Retirement last year, the emoluments of the navy are very inferior to what they were in the days of our forefathers. This matter has not been wholly overlooked. From time to time we have made considerable additions to the pay of various classes, but still I believe I am only expressing the opinion of the Committee to which I have referred, when I say that the pay of many branches of the navy is not adequate. The Committee was not permitted by the order of reference to make any statement of that nature to the House, but every one of its members felt that this subject would again be brought under the notice of Parliament. Among the recommendations of the Committee was one for reducing the number of certain classes of officers. That recommendation we are now prepared to carry into
668
effect, and I shall refer at length to this part of our scheme presently. Meanwhile, I wish to direct attention to the first Vote I have to propose, amounting to £55,266, being a proposed addition to the pay and allowances of certain classes of officers and others, to begin on the first of July next. The first thing I have to state is, that the proposed addition will extend to that valuable and magnificent body of men —the petty officers of the navy, who, at present, are not paid so highly as the same class of men in the merchant service. It is not intended to increase the pay of flag officers, but merely to make an addition to their allowances. In the case of flag officers and commodores of the first class commanding-in-chief on foreign stations, we propose to increase the allowances by £547 10 s. per annum. Flag officers, not serving under the orders of a senior officer, and in charge of separate stations or squadrons, are to have their allowances increased by £365. Flag officers serving under the orders of a senior officer are to receive when at home an increase of £182 10 s., and when on foreign stations £365. Flag officers superintending dockyards are to get an addition when at home of £547, and when abroad £182 10 s. Commodores of the second class are to have an increase at home of £182 10 s., and abroad £365. I now come to the pay and allowances of captains. Officers in command of ships now-a-days are put to great expense. They are often in company with foreign squadrons, and I must say that the naval officers of most foreign nations are better off than ours in the way of allowances. We have carefully looked into this matter, and we propose to increase the pay and allowances of captains commanding in the way I am about to explain. There are three distinct classes of captains in command of ships, who are entitled to different rates of pay. There are likewise different rates and allowances according to the class of ship commanded. I believe the existing system in that respect is generally approved in the navy; the only question is as to the amount. We propose, then, that captains of the first class commanding sea-going ships will receive an addition to their pay and allowances, ranging from £99 to £162. The same class of captains commanding harbour ships will receive an increase of £53. Captains of the second class in seagoing ships will have an addition of from £89 to £153, and in harbour ships of £44; captains of the

669
third class in seagoing ships from £80 to £144, and in harbour ships of £34. One of the strongest points brought before us in the Committee last year was that commanders in command had insufficient pay; and, accordingly, we propose that they should receive an addition of £86 in seagoing and £63 in harbour ships; and likewise that commanders, as second in command in line-of-battle ships and large frigates, and commanders in the Coastguard, should have a similar addition of £63. It was further stated that lieutenants in command were also underpaid, and to them we mean to give an increase of £50 a year in seagoing and £27 in bar-hour ships. The senior lieutenants of rated ships and troopships without commanders and of ships commanded by commanders are also to have a rise of £27. The gunnery lieutenants will by this scheme be divided into three classes. The first class are to have £45 additional, the second £27, and the third £9. As to the other lieutenants, there was no evidence, I think, to show that their pay was inadequate. I come now to a proposal to create a new class of officers, in distinct accordance with the recommendation of the Committee. The warrant officers complained that when they had got their warrants they had nothing further to look for, and that they could not become officers in a higher grade, such us lieutenants or commanders. It appeared, therefore, to the Committee that a superior class of warrant officers ought to be created; and in carrying out that recommendation, our object is to establish a rank to be attained not by mere seniority, but by energy, activity, and meritorious service on the part of warrant officers. These new officers are to be commissioned officers, and to be styled chief gunners, boatswains, and carpenters, and are to receive £164 per annum. We propose to make twelve altogether among each of the three classes. That is a boon, the Committee will understand, not merely to the warrant officers, but generally to the seamen of the fleet from whom they are selected. We propose also to increase the pay of the warrant officers of the first class by £7, of the second by £6, and of the third by £4, in seagoing ships. In harbour ships the addition will be—first class £7, second class £12, and third class £9. I find I omitted to mention the sub-lieutenants. Their additional pay will be £24 a year. Then the inspectors of ma-
670
chinery are to have an increase of £36. In the full pay of the paymasters we propose an increase of £20; and also that effect should be given to the recommendation of the Committee, that these officers should rise in regard to half-pay by length of service, like other officers, and not, as hitherto, by classification. The assistant-paymasters in charge are to have an increase of £27, and the others an addition according to service, giving a mean of £18. We propose to give the naval instructors an increase of from £27 to £54, the mean being £41. The chief petty officers will have a rise of £3 per annum; the first class petty officers the same; and the third class £1 10 s. These are the details of the scheme which I have to submit in regard to the full pay of the navy; and here, properly, I ought to close my statement on this Vote. It may, however, be convenient that I should now advert to the items of the other Vote of £5,775 for additional charge for altering and improving the system of retirement of officers of the navy, and reducing the number on the active list. I quite admit that it is immensely inconvenient that we should have so many lists of retired officers, but after very earnest consideration of the subject, we found that there were so many circumstances and so many classes of officers to be dealt with under various Orders in Council, that any attempt to put them in one single category as retired officers was quite out of the question. All we could do was to see whether there were any officers who, by any arrangement of the Order in Council of 1860, had been damaged in their circumstances, and, if so, to endeavour to rectify the matter. This leads me to a subject often adverted to in this House. Of course, as a naval officer, I could not but sympathize with any class of naval officers really aggrieved; and I am now about to advert to a grievance which has been very loudly complained of by certain officers affected by the Order in Council of 1860. I will endeavour presently to explain that Order in Council, but what I now wish clearly and distinctly to state is, that in the scheme I am about to propose I do not interfere with or alter in any way any classes of retirements existing previous to the Order in Council of 1860. One reason why I wish to make that clear is, because there is a distinction between that Order in Council and any previous Order in Council, inasmuch as that was the first instance of any-

671
thing like compulsory retirement of captains. I will now explain what that Order in Council was. At the period when it was issued, our lists of superior officers in the navy were in a very unsatisfactory state. Promotion was almost stagnant, and our flag officers, though most gallant, were certainly not so efficient for active service as might have been wished. Consequently, it was then decided to place captains compulsorily on the retired list upon certain terms. Speaking now entirely of the half-pay active captains, I may here state that in the navy there are three classes of them. The first class receives 14 s. 6d. a day, the second 12 s. 6d., and the third 10 s. 6d. It was then decided, when the Order in Council of 1860 was issued, that captains arriving at the age of sixty should be retired compulsorily. Now, we excluded from that Order in Council the first class of captains entirely, because they were considered to be so near their flag that it was thought that it would be a matter of injustice to cut them off from the opportunity of arriving at it; but with regard to captains of the second and third classes the retirement was compulsory. They got an increase of pay, those receiving 12 s. 6d. having their pay immediately increased up to 20 s., and those receiving 10 s. 6d. having their pay increased to 18 s.; but still they felt the arrangement as a grievance, because, as the first class captains would rise to the half-pay of rear admiral, 25 s., they thought they might with equal justice rise to the same amount of pay likewise. They undoubtedly got an immediate rise in pay, but they lost the chance of a further ultimate rise. That circumstance had been often adverted to in this House, and it had been stated that the officers felt it as a grievance; and we now propose to issue an Order in Council by which captains of the second class who have not completed their sea service shall, on arriving at the age of sixty, be retired on 20 s. a day, as is the case at present, but that on arriving at their flag rank they shall receive 25 s. a day. That is the increase we propose with respect to them. The captains of the third class who have not completed their sea service will, on arriving at the age of sixty, be retired on 18 s. a day, as now, but on arriving at the flag list they will also receive 25 s. a day. This proposal only extends to captains on the captains' list before the date of the Order in Council of 1860, with regard to whom it was said that injustice had been
672
committed. In making this arrangement the Government thought that it would be unjust to withhold a boon from the commanders and lieutenants who, when retired compulsorily by the Order in Council of 1860, did not rise in pay. We propose that commanders and lieutenants, retired compulsorily under the Order in Council of 1860, are to rise in pay in their respective ranks as they would have done had they remained on the active lists of their ranks; and I trust that this will be considered satisfactory by those gallant officers. So much for the Order in Council of 1860; and now I have to propose a new scheme, with the view of carrying out the recommendations of the Committee to which I have referred—that the captains' list should be reduced to 300, and the commanders' list to 400. We propose to set about this in the following way. Those captains who have served one year at sea in their present rank, but who have not completed their term, may, on arriving at the age of fifty, with the consent of the Admiralty, and on arriving at the age of fifty-five may claim, and on arriving at the age of sixty must, under any circumstances, be retired on 20 s. a day, to be increased to 25 s. on arriving at the flag list. As soon, however, as the list is reduced to the number of 300, we do not propose to have the power of retiring officers at the age of fifty. With regard to the next class of captains, who have not served this one year, it is proposed that on arriving at the age of fifty they may with the consent of the Admiralty, and on arriving at the age of fifty-five they may on their claim, and on arriving at the age of sixty they must, under any circumstances, be retired at 18 s. a day, which will be increased to 20 s. on their arriving at the flag list. That, then, is the proposal which we have to lay before the Committee, with a view to the reduction of the captains' list from 350 to 300. And now I come to the last recommendation of the Committee— namely, that the commanders' list should be reduced from 450 to 400. The compulsory retirement of 1860 said this—that any officer who had not served within the last fifteen years should be included in that Order in Council. What we propose is that officers who have not served within ten years — which, of course, will include a greater number — shall be comprehended under that Order in Council. They will receive the rank of captains on reaching the age of sixty, or attaining fifteen

673
years' seniority as commanders without increased pay. In addition to this we propose that a limited number of commanders, on arriving at the age of forty-five, may with the consent of the Admiralty be retired, at fifty-five may claim to be retired, and at sixty must, under any circumstances, be retired upon the same terms as I have already adverted to, with pay in proportion to their length of service. There is another recommendation of the Committee which, I am sorry to say, we cannot carry out. It suggested that the lieutenants should not exceed 1,000, or, in other words, that our lieutenants' list should be kept up to 1,000. But I am sorry to say it is far short of that number. What we propose is, that the establishment of lieutenants shall not exceed 1,000, and also—not with a view to the reduction of the list, which is too small already, but as a matter which was brought before us by the Committee of last year — that if from any circumstance lieutenants should be unable to rise in the service they should, on arriving at the age of forty-five, and having seen certain service, be allowed to retire. We propose, therefore, that lieutenants of forty-five, who have had fifteen years' service, may claim to be retired with the rank of commander, under the conditions prescribed by Order in Council of 1860 — that is to say, their position as regards pay will depend, as with commanders, upon their length of service, I may state, likewise, that when they have been fifteen years on the lieutenants' list they may assume the rank of retired commanders, but that is not to carry with it any increase of pay. These are the proposals which I have to make to the Committee. There are two or three incidental matters which have been recommended by the Committee, to which I will now refer. We had evidence to the effect that the time served in the Coastguard had not received sufficient consideration. By the rules of the navy the time passed in the Coastguard counted only as one-third, and the Committee recommended that it should have a greater value. It is, therefore, proposed that in all calculations the time so passed shall count for one-half to officers retiring in future; and that, I think, will be found a considerable boon. There are various other recommendations, one of which, for instance, is that no officer should be promoted to the active flag rank who had not served three years at least in command of a bonâ fide
674
sea-going ship. That is a very proper recommendation, and will be embodied in an Order in Council. I think I have now adverted to the principal recommendations of the Committee, and I have only to add that I am quite convinced, if hon. Members will entertain these proposals, they will confer a great boon on the navy generally; and, although I do not admit that the hon. Member for Lambeth (Mr. W. Williams) is right in maintaining that the officers of the navy are overpaid, I trust, if these proposals are agreed to, they will be satisfied.
(3.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That a sum, not exceeding £55,266, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge for increasing the Full Pay of the Executive Officers, Paymasters and Assistant Paymasters, Naval Instructors, &c., and Petty Officers of the Royal Navy, which will come in course of payment during the nine months ending on the 31st day of March, 1865."
SIR LAWRENCE PALKsaid, he had listened with great attention to the speech of the noble Lord, and was filled with disappointment that no allusion had been made throughout the whole of that speech to a class of officers upon which the safety of the navy of England in a great measure depended, and who he had yet to learn had done anything to deprive them of the benefits which were to be conferred on their more fortunate brother officers—he alluded to the masters of the Royal Navy. That class of officers considered themselves very ill-used. In the year 1824 an Admiralty memorandum was issued authorizing the admission of second-class volunteers, and at the same time forming a new rating open to the merchant service; but instead of training those officers as seamen and navigators, every possible obstacle was, as a rule, thrown in their way, and they were sternly told that they were never to receive any higher pay than that of masters. That order remained in force seven or eight years, and brought many promising young men into the navy, but they soon retired in disgust. That was the first attempt at introducing a class of officers from the merchant service into the Royal Navy. In the Baltic campaigns of 1854 and 1855 the masters were again called into action, and before landing at Bomarsund a consultation of the masters serving in the fleet was held, and to their exertions our success was in a great measure due, as he had abundant evidence to prove. He did not wish to

675
puff unduly the services of any one class of officers, but he thought he might fairly ask, that when the services and requirements of other classes were under consideration, the services and requirements of the masters should not pass unnoticed. On the 30th of June, 1863, Her Majesty issued an Order in Council conferring upon the masters who had served fifteen years the title of staff commander, but that carried with it no additional pay or honour. It was true that under certain circumstances a staff commander might receive additional pay if there should be no warrant officer on board, but that happened so seldom that it was not worth taking into consideration. That order appeared to give rank, but by its last paragraph it placed the staff commanders, in all instances, junior to the lieutenants; and all persons must feel that a man who had served with credit for many years might naturally consider himself aggrieved to find himself suddenly placed under the command of perhaps a mere lad. Then, of all the ship's crew, the staff commanders and masters alone seemed to be disqualified from receiving marks of Royal approbation for distinguished services. In illustration he would refer to the case of Mr. William Roberts, a master in the Royal Navy, who, during the Crimean war, commanded the Cyclops when in action, and performed equally distinguished services with other commanders of steamers, but was passed over unnoticed. The difference of pay between the staff commanders and masters, and the paymasters and surgeons, formed a just ground of complaint. The staff commanders and masters received on promotion £182 per annum, while the surgeons received £273, and paymasters £249. After ten years' service the staff commanders and masters received £237, while the surgeons received £328, and paymasters £349. After twenty years' service the staff commanders and masters received £328, surgeons £401, and paymasters £600. In the half-pay the same difference existed. Now, when the noble Lord proposed to do justice to various classes in the navy, it was hard that those meritorious officers of whom he was speaking should be forgotten. If those officers were not of a meritorious and deserving class it would be far better to abolish such class altogether. The arguments used by the staff commanders and masters of the Royal Navy seemed to him to be founded on common sense, and he hoped that the
676
House of Commons on some future occasion would take their case into their consideration with a view to obtaining for them redress. They asked now that their pay should not be so disproportionate to that of the surgeons and other officers he had mentioned, that they should share in any increase of pay to be provided by the supplementary Estimate, that they should take seniority with lieutenants except when on active service, and should be as competent to receive marks of Royal approbation as any other class of officers in the navy. It appeared to him that it would be only fair play, and in accordance with the dictates of common sense, to remove the present injustice done them.
MR. FERRANDsaid, he wished to bring under the notice of the Committee the claims of the warrant officers. He had received an address, signed by a large number of warrant officers, complaining of the stinted amount of their salaries, and of the small increase proposed to be made to their pay. They also commented upon the manner in which the Lords of the Admiralty proposed to create twelve new warrant officers of each class.
LORD CLARENCE PAGET: We propose to create twelve chief warrant officers, twelve chief boatswains, and twelve chief carpenters; making altogether an addition of thirty-six chief warrant officers.
MR. FERRANDsaid, he was then to understand that there would be thirty-six new creations in a body of 1,200 warrant officers. What the warrant officers wished brought under the notice of the House was that they desired an increase of pay for increased services. They complained that at present an officer of twenty years in the first class received no more pay than one just promoted to that grade. They further complained of the maximum retiring pension, and prayed for increased pay instead, and also an increase in the widows' pensions of the first class, the present practice being that the widow who had been longest in the first class received no more than the widow of the third-class officer who had been promoted to a warrant officer. They requested him to place their claims before the Committee with due respect, believing that they were so moderate and reasonable that their justice would be admitted. He was delighted to hear the noble Lord say he had arrived at the conclusion that an increase of pay should be given to the officers of the navy, on account of the large increase of pay that had taken place

677
in the merchant service. Unless some such step were taken by the noble Lord it would be impossible to maintain the Royal Navy in a proper state of efficiency.
SIR JOHN HAYsaid, he must congratulate the noble Lord on having introduced this proposal to raise the amount of the allowances to officers, for the condition of naval officers up to the present time had been so impoverished that it was absolutely necessary that the House should take some means for making the service more remunerative. He did not concur with him, however, in thinking that the distribution of the additional £60,000 was the best that could be adopted. The scale of pay to the officers of the navy was a matter which must emanate from the Ministers of the Crown. It was not a constitutional course for an independent Member to move an increase of pay; but he concurred in what had fallen from the hon. Baronet the Member for Devonshire (Sir Lawrence Palk), with respect to the pay of the masters. The case of the masters had been inquired into by the Admiralty, and had been before a Committee of that House; and though the justice of their claim could not be denied, no allowance was made to them in the present arrangement. It would have been more satisfactory if the particulars of the pay and allowances to flag officers had been set out on the paper which was in the hands of hon. Members, The increase in the table allowances to flag officers on foreign stations would not in all cases be sufficient; and instead of being fixed at £547, it would have been better to apportion the amount of the addition to the expenditure on the particular station. There were three very expensive and at the same time very important stations—the Mediterranean, the East Indies, and the West Indies and North America. It must be for the interest of the country that the best men should be sent to those stations; and yet he knew that certain officers had been requested to accept those commands, and had declined to do so because the pay and allowances were insufficient. He had made that statement on a former occasion, and had been met with a contradiction. Technically he was wrong. He supposed there had been no case in which any one of those commands had been refused by an officer after receipt of the official letter offering him the command; but the custom was for the First Lord to ascertain through his private secretary the wishes of an officer whom he desired to appoint to a com-
678
mand, and it was to refusals made in answer to private letters that he alluded on the former occasion. The command in the Mediterranean was one usually held by an Admiral or a Vice Admiral. Some time ago, to his own knowledge, two Vice Admirals were asked privately whether they would take that command, and both refused to do so. A Rear Admiral, who was now a Vice Admiral, subsequently accepted the command, after four flag officers had declined it. The command in the East Indies and China had been declined in the same way. Sir James Hope, who had just returned from the command, told a Committee that he had been spending nearly £7,000 a year during the whole time he was on the East India station. His pay and allowances from the Admiralty amounted to £2,500, in addition to which he had the East India allowance of £3,000 a year—making £5,500, and as he was a man of considerable private fortune he was able to spend more. Vice Admiral Kuper, who succeeded him in that command, lost the £3,000, the East India allowance, so that he had only £2,500 a year to support the position which it had cost his predecessor nearly £7,000 a year to maintain. The additional allowance of £547 was not enough in such a case as that. On the West India and North American command the pay and emoluments of the Admiral in command amounted in the year 1834 to £14,000. They were now only £3,000, and a commander-in-chief on that station who had not a private fortune could not perform his duty in a manner acceptable to the country, and calculated to uphold good relations with the officers of foreign nations. The Governor of Malta had a salary of £5,000 a year, with allowances which brought his official income up to nearly £6,000, and yet, though his emoluments were greater, his position was no higher than that of the Commander-in-chief in the Mediterranean. The Governor of Gibraltar also had pay and allowances far exceeding those of the commander-in-chief. The discrepancy was still more marked in the East. He thought that instead of making a fixed allowance without reference to the station on which the admirals were to be employed, it would have been better if the Admiralty had taken into consideration the nature of the employment, and apportioned the allowance with reference to the demands likely to be made upon the officer. He hoped that during

679
the recess the Admiralty would consider the matter, and before the next Estimate was laid on the table would be ready with a plan which would give admirals commanding fleets a rate of pay commensurate with the duties they had to perform, with the demands on their means, and calculated according to the importance of the stations on which their flags were hoisted. With regard to the home ports, the commander-in-chief at Portsmouth ought certainly to have some addition to his pay. He had much greater demands on his means than the commanders at Plymouth and the Nore. The nearness of Portsmouth to town and to the neighbourhood in which the Court usually was, threw upon the commander-in-chief expenses which had often been felt to be a heavy tax. The estimated increase of £365 per annum for the commodores must be a mistake, because the five commodores already appeared to have 10 s. per day, so that the increase would only be £182 10 s. The increase to the captains appeared very considerable on paper, but in reality no one would get it. A captain must be in the first-class and must command a first-class ship; but there were only two first-class ships afloat which had not admirals on board, and these were commanded by second-class captains. He did not agree that this mode of paying captains would be agreeable to the service. Officers desired that their pay and command money should all be made into pay; for, though it was quite true that no one could command a ship without spending far more than the command money, yet a captain liked to feel that he was spending the money out of his own pocket, and not a sum of money intrusted to him to be filtered through his fingers for the public service. He regretted that the Admiralty had not considered the question of ships' bands, small though it might be. The bandsmen were paid as men, but the bandmaster was not paid. [Lord CLARENCE PAGET: He is rated.] Yes, but he was sure his noble Friend, who was very fond of music, and who had an excellent band on board the Princess Royal, had not got the services of his bandmaster for the ship's rating. When a ship was commissioned the captain had to put his hand into his pocket for about £300 for instruments, he had to put the band into uniform, and to find some £40 a year for the bandmaster. And all this was only for about three years, when the instruments were dispersed and the band broken up,
680
again to go through the same process in other ships. He hoped that some plan would be devised for the organization of bands, by which captains would be relieved from this heavy expense. He should be glad to hear how the gunnery lieutenants were to be divided into classes. If the first class was to be attained only through an examination so stringent that no one would pass it, then the advantages of this new plan were not likely to be very generally enjoyed. With regard to the increased pay to engineers, he believed there were only two chief engineers at present in a position to receive. Turning to the explanatory statement as to retired pay, he was glad to find that some few of the captains were at last to receive that consideration which was their due, and the plan for reducing the list would probably turn out to be a very fair one. He was also glad to hear that the case of the commanders and lieutenants was under the consideration of the Admiralty, while he regretted to find that no provision was made for any increase of half-pay. He would, in conclusion, appeal to his noble Friend to endeavour to procure during the recess the appointment of a Royal Commission to inquire into the subject of the pay of the navy, for he might be assured no Estimate such as that before the House could give complete satisfaction, seeing that whole classes of officers were overlooked. He could not, he might add, think that the proposal to give only half-time to officers serving in the Coastguard would be looked upon with favour, and he would suggest that, as had been recommended by a Committee of the House, the time should be raised to two-thirds. He would only say, further, that he concurred in much that had fallen from the hon. Member for Devonport (Mr. Ferrand) with respect to warrant officers.
MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, the Question before the Committee was the Vote of £55,256. He wished to know what necessity existed for the proposed increase of pay at a time when we were in a state of profound peace? As to the bands on board ship which had been mentioned, he believed they were totally unknown before the battles of the Nile and Trafalgar. All the increase was proposed to be for the officers, there was none for the hard-working sailor.
MR. CORRYsaid, it had been the constant effort of the various Departments for many years to make the Estimates as intelligible as possible, but that he never

681
saw Estimates which were less intelligible than those before the Committee. If it had not been for the lucid explanation of the "Explanatory Statement," which they had heard from the Secretary of the Admiralty, it would have been almost impossible to understand it, and in some respects it was inaccurate as well as obscure. He was not, however, disposed to "look a gift horse in the mouth," especially when he recollected that the noble Duke at the head of the Admiralty had not, in the memorandum of last year, held out much encouragement that any increase would be made in the enrolments of certain classes of officers. He quite concurred with his hon. Friend the Member for Devonport (Mr. Ferrand), and his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Wakefield (Sir John Hay), in almost everything which had fallen from them with respect to the warrant officers, and also with respect to i the emoluments of flag officers, both at home and abroad. Indeed, he considered it to be one of the greatest defects of the present scheme that it did not increase the allowances of the flag officers commanding in chief at the home ports, as well as those of flag officers on foreign stations. He had, on a previous occasion, stated that he knew a home port in which he believed no officer could hold a command without having a considerable private fortune. The station he had in his mind was Portsmouth, where the admiral was required, frequently by introductions from the Admiralty, to entertain foreigners and other persons of distinction, The same might be said in a lesser degree of Devonport, but Sheerness was a place to which nobody would go unless he was obliged, and which everyone left as soon as possible. He might state that he had, in order to test the accuracy of his own views on the subject, written to four distinguished admirals, friends of his, who; had held commands in chief both at home and abroad, and that the answers which he had received were as follows. One of those officers said—
"Speaking from my own experience (on a foreign station), I spent more than the naval pay and allowances every year of the whole period of my command. The Portsmouth command is very expensive, from the increasing number of persons of rank and position— foreigners and others—who look for some notice from the commander-in-chief, and who, in many instances, are introduced by letter or otherwise to him. I endeavoured to keep expenditure within reasonable limits, but during the year when I had the pay and allowances of vice-admiral, my naval receipts
682
were £2,697 18 s. 11 d., and my expenditure £3,384 3s., 0½d., or.£686 4s. 1½d., more. I have carefully rejected payments unconnected with the necessities of my position, and I limited myself to one pair of carriage horses."
Another admiral, who had held command both at home and abroad, said —
"You surprise me by telling me that the proposed addition to the table money of commanders-in-chief does not include any advantage to those serving at the ports at home, as I apprehend those are the very officers whose tables are necessarily the most expensive, although in India the article of consumption cost more."
And he then goes on to say that his expenses at a home port so greatly exceeded his naval pay and allowances that if he had been without private means he could not have retained the command. Another officer said—
"I think the intended increase of table money on foreign stations very necessary, and by no means too much; but if it be required there, it is much more called for at the ports, where it is impossible to get out of the way by going to sea, and where you are continually called on to exercise hospitality which is unavoidable, and more especially so at Portsmouth and Plymouth. While in command abroad my expenses during my three years exceeded my pay and allowances by £1,200."
He then added that his expenses while commanding at a home port exceeded his pay and allowances by a considerably larger amount. A fourth admiral wrote—
"I object altogether to the principle on which our commanders-in-chief are paid, and the most remarkable inconsistency is at Portsmouth. I was very unexpectedly nominated to that command, and although my duties, as well as what was expected of me, were precisely the same as if I had been a full admiral, and Royal and other personages were constantly sent to partake of my hospitality, yet, because I was only a vice-admiral nearly £500 a year, including allowances, was cut off my salary, and the result was that at the termination of my command, I was several thousand pounds out of pocket."
He hoped that the several points urged in the course of the discussion would be taken into consideration by his noble Friend, and that among others he would not overlook the inadequate remuneration given to the commanders-in-chief of the home ports. He thought, too, that the full pay of lieutenants and commanders ought to be in some degree proportioned to their half-pay. This would be only in accordance with the recommendation of the Commissioners of Naval and Military Inquiry in 1860, which was to the effect that, as an inducement to officers to seek active service, the amount of their full pay ought to be fixed in relation to that of their half-pay, but under the present arrangement, a lieutenant (unless entitled to an exceptional allow-

683
ance) of nine or ten years sea service, and on the half-pay list of 9s. a day, would receive no higher an amount of full pay than a lieutenant just promoted to that rank, and on the half-pay of 4s. a day. His noble Friend had stated that all the meritorious officers of long standing were either in command, or serving as first, or as gunnery lieutenants; but he (Mr. Corry) thought that was a very invidious remark, and he believed that there were many excellent officers of long standing who were not serving in any of those capacities. But even if it were otherwise, it would not meet his argument, because he thought that, in addition to their special allowances, first lieutenants and gunnery lieutenants ought also to receive full pay, having some relation to the position they had earned, by service on the half-pay list. In the case of captains their command money varied according to the complements of their ships, but the amount of their pay depended on their position on the half-pay list, and he thought that lieutenants had a special claim to be treated on the same principle, because while captains rose to the higher rates of half-pay by seniority, they did so by actual service at sea. He was glad to hear that the Admiralty had at last consented to do an act of justice to the captains affected by the Order in Council of 1860, and he hoped that the same spirit would guide the Admiralty in dealing with the various grievances which had been pointed out in the course of this discussion.
MR. C. P. BERKELEYsaid, he must complain that a small class of officers would receive no increase of pay by one of the arrangements proposed; but would, on the contrary, rather be deprived of a portion of what was already allotted to them. He alluded to the captains in the harbour ships, the Excellent, the Britannia, and the gunnery ships. At present the captain of the Excellent received £800 a year, and the captains of the Britannia and other harbour ships £700. It was, however, proposed that the salary of the former should vary from £691 to £819, and the latter from £591 to £719, so that although it was possible for them to receive an increase of £19, it was also possible that they might be deprived of £109. He regarded the arrangement proposed, with reference to captains on the retired and reserved lists, as a most extravagant one. It would really give some colour to the statement which had been made, that there
684
was no service where an officer could do so little and get so much, or do so much and get so little.
MR. R. W. DUFFsaid, he approved generally of the proposals of the Government, but regretted that they did not go far enough. He could not understand how the noble Lord had overlooked the case of the masters, and hoped that their services would still be recognized by the making of some addition to their pay. If a system of age retirement was adopted at all it ought to be fully carried out, and not confined to a single rank, so that while a captain should be retired at sixty an admiral might remain on the active list till he was a hundred. It would no doubt cost a considerable sum so to extend the system, but he believed that the money would be well spent. The hon. Member for Lambeth (Mr. Williams) said that if money was given to one service it ought to be given to all; but that argument would not apply until the pay of the navy had been raised to an equality with those of the army and the Civil Service, to both of which it was at present inferior.
SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONEsaid, he wished it to be distinctly understood that, although he should agree to the Vote, he did not approve the scheme which had been brought before the House, which he regarded as totally inadequate, delusive in itself, and, in fact, a complete and perfect sham. Since he had been in the House he had never seen a more awkwardly framed paper than that which had been laid upon the table to explain it, and nothing could more dispose him to regret the retirement of the hon. Member for Halifax (Mr. Stansfeld) from the Admiralty than the appearance of such a wretched attempt at exposition. When he, three years ago, carried against the Government the appointment of a Select Committee to investigate the claims of the navy, he was told that he had done a most unconstitutional act; but on the 9th of February, 1773, Viscount Howe presented a petition from captains in the navy, praying for a reasonable increase of their half-pay; and it was, by a majority of 154 to 45, referred to a Committee. Hon. Members on the Opposition side of the House had always contended that this question ought to be dealt with by the appointment of a Royal Commission; and the incongruities of this scheme were so numerous and so important, that such an inquiry could not long be refused. It was quite impossible that flag officers on foreign sta-

685
tions should exist upon their pay even with the addition which it was now proposed to make to it, and it was not seemly that officers should be called upon to contribute from their private means to the service of the State, A gallant admiral who had held the command of the China station told him that he could not exist upon less than £3,500 a year, and that to live like those with whom he associated would have cost him £5,000. There was not a clerk in any commercial establishment in China who was not better paid than a post captain, and there was not a man who went there who might not with prudence amass a largo fortune in a few years. It would not be unfair that a trifling percentage should be levied upon the trade in those, seas to remunerate the officers who wasted their lives and spent their fortunes in its protection. The flag in the East Indies was in exactly the same position. At present India enjoyed peace, unrestricted commerce, and other blessings, for which the Indian community was not called upon to pay one farthing, while the British taxpayer had to find the money, and the British officer was called upon to expend health, and even his private resources. The next subject was as to the lieutenants The service might get on without admirals or captains, but not without lieutenants, who were the real executive officers, and therefore were entitled to consideration. It was alleged that the pay of lieutenants for the first two or three years after appointment was adequate, but that certainly would not be the case upon the China, East India, and Pacific stations. The main body of the lieutenants, who could not look for promotion under an average of ten years, remained at the same rate of pay; and as sometimes lieutenants at the age of thirty unfortunately married, it was hard to conceive how they could manage to live upon £182 a year. The recommendation in respect to those officers was an increase of pay every three years. Coming to the warrant officers, who, next to the lieutenants, were most important to the service, he found that their number was 1,200, and the Admiralty proposition was to give to 12 warrant officers of each class a trifling increase of pay. Thus, 36 warrant officers out of 1,200 were to receive 5d. a day additional with the rank of chief of their class. He had to complain that there was not an equal treatment of warrant officers in the navy with non-commissioned officers in the army. Thus in the recent
686
New Zealand war a sergeant in the army and a captain's coxswain in the navy, a petty officer, each obtained the Victoria Cross. The sergeant soon after was appointed to an ensigncy, and the coxswain was offered a warrant, which he from prudential reasons declined, as his acceptance of the offer would have placed him in a worse position. From his own experience upon the Commission for Manning the Navy in 1860, he could say that the opinion of the Commission was that the status of the warrant officers ought to be improved. How was it possible that the men who were the backbone of the navy could be expected in time of war to exert themselves to recruit our navy when no encouragement was held out to them? With respect to the engineers, the complaint of the inspectors of machinery who had sometimes a large amount of horse-power and many engineers under their supervision, was that they only received a guinea a day, while men of the same standing in the commercial marine received £1,000 or £1,200 a year. In conclusion, he would only repeat that he wished to guard himself from approving the paper before the House until a Royal Commission could be obtained to decide upon the merits of the question, instead of the Admiralty, taking advantage of a few observations of a Committee not appointed to consider the subject, adopting their own notions upon it.
LORD CLARENCE PAGETsaid, he thought it scarcely consistent that in bringing forward so large a scheme as the present he should be taunted with wishing to stifle all the fair claims of the navy. He should be extremely happy if ever it fell to his lot to propose an increase of the pay of the navy, but at present he was doing all that lay in his power. His hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Wakefield (Sir John Hay), through misreading the paper which he had made the subject of comment, fell into two unintentional mistakes. The commanders of the second class, it was true, received 10 s. a day, which had reference to their captain's commandment, but; they also got £1 a day table money.
SIR JOHN HAYbegged to ask whether he was to understand that they received both allowances?
LORD CLARENCE PAGET: Yes; £1 abroad, and 10 s. at home. The additional allowance, moreover, to first lieutenants of ships commanded by commanders was 1s. 6d. a day, and not 6d., as had been represented. His hon. And

687
gallant Friend, he knew, was trusting to the statements of a very clever friend who prompted him on these occasions, but when he looked into the matter he would find that he had been misled. He admitted to his right hon. Friend the Member for Tyrone that Portsmouth was a very expensive station, but it must be borne in mind that flag officers in command at home were relieved from the necessity of keeping up double establishments, which formed the great tax upon officers engaged in active service abroad. He wished his right hon. Friend had not attributed to him an invidious remark with regard to lieutenants. As a matter of fact, more than half the lieutenants now employed were receiving extra allowances, either as senior lieutenants or as gunnery lieutenants, and that be thought was a very fair proportion. The invaluable class of officers on whose behalf the hon. Baronet the Member for Devonshire (Sir Lawrence Palk) had spoken, were not included in the present scheme, but questions affecting their rank and position had been very recently dealt with. It was an old moot point in the navy, whether the rank of master ought to be maintained or done away with, and the discussion attained such dimensions that the Admiralty appointed a Committee to take evidence and report. The masters themselves, with few exceptions, were in favour, not of an increase of pay, but of rank; but some grievance having been brought forward as to the widows' pensions, they were increased by a subsequent Order in Council, and likewise fifteen out-pensions were given to these officers in Greenwich Hospital. The rank of staff captain and that of staff commander had likewise been created; but the main difficulty remained, and, for all he could see, must continue, and that was that the officer of the watch must always be in command on deck. In all social matters masters took rank according to the dates of their commissions. There was nothing in the regulations that he knew of to prevent staff commanders from being decorated with the Companionship of the Bath, but these were points affecting the prerogative of the Sovereign, and not properly falling under the cognizance of that House. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Berkeley) complained that officers on the retired list were paid higher than officers of the same rank on the active list. That, however, was always the case. The Admiralty were obliged to give officers
688
some inducement to retire, and thus it happened that retired captains who could not be called upon for service were in certain cases receiving more than officers on the active list.
MR. C. P. BERKELEYsaid, that the noble Lord had either misunderstood him, or was not acquainted with the real state of the case. It was proposed that these particular captains when they became retired rear-admirals should receive the same pay as the active rear-admirals—namely, 25 s. a day. That was far more than they ever applied for, and was unjust to all the officers on the active list. He should move for the reduction of the sum voted for retirement,
LORD CLARENCE PAGETsaid, that the officers who had been placed on the retired list under the Order in Council of 1860 were the second and third class of captains. They received by the present proposal as much as rear-admirals on the active list, but the latter could rise to the rank of vice and full admiral with corresponding rise in pay which they were debarred from.
CAPTAIN TALBOTsaid, he thought it had been shown by his hon. and gallant Friend (Sir John Hay) that admirals who were formerly in the receipt of batta and prize money, &c., were now placed in an inferior position to that which they formerly occupied. Their position was also inferior to that of the admirals in other services. He lamented that the noble Lord had not proposed some increase of pay for the masters. The noble Lord said he looked upon them as an invaluable class of officers, but it was extraordinary that in raising the rank of those officers he did not place them in a position to enjoy the rank that was given to them. He trusted that the Admiralty would give their best consideration to this subject, and also to the recommendation of the Select Committee of last year, that the pay of a lieutenant on full pay should be increased with length of service. Look at the position in which lieutenants on full pay were now placed. The noble Lord said that if an officer had a love or zeal for the service he would become a gunnery lieutenant or first lieutenant. [Lord CLARENCE PAGET: I said they can get up to it.] But the number of gunnery lieutenants and first lieutenants was limited. The consequence of the full pay not increasing with length of service was, that senior lieutenants of long service would in very many instances be receiving

689
less emolument than junior gunnery lieutenants of very little service. Take an instance from a ship commanded by a captain with no commander. The first lieutenant with eleven years' service and the army rank of major received 10 s. a day pay and an allowance of 2s. 6d., making his total emolument 12 s. 6d. The second lieutenant with eight years' service and the rank of major was receiving 10 s. a day and no allowances; while the gunnery lieutenant with two years' service and the rank of captain was receiving 10 s. pay, and allowances varying according to class, and amounting altogether either to 11 s. 6d., 12 s. 6d., or 13 s. 6d. In another ease of a ship commanded by a captain with a commander, the gunnery lieutenant with the army rank of captain and only three years' service was receiving 13 s. 6d. a day against an officer of nine years' standing and with the rank of major, but who only received 10 s. a day. These instances showed that long service and rank were not considered in regard to emolument. The injustice. however, would be at once removed if the pay increased with service, as recommended in the scheme of his hon. and gallant Friend (Sir John Hay). He had received many communications on this subject. which he would assure the noble Lord was regarded with great interest by the lieutenants in the service. With respect to the active list, he considered it highly desirable that it should be reduced. If they expected officers to retire they must offer some inducement for them to do so; and the sum now proposed, among so large a number of officers, was totally insufficient for the purpose. The warrant officers of the navy were a most valuable class. Their services were most valuable, and their position should be made as good as possible. That was the goal to which sailors were encouraged to look, and he had over and over again known blue jackets to refuse a warrant when offered to them because they knew their position would not be improved. The pittance which was now offered to thirty-six warrant officers out of 1,200 was almost worthy of ridicule. There was another point which was viewed with great interest in the service — he meant the question of leave. When an officer came home, after being perhaps four years on an unhealthy foreign station, it was not too much that he should be allowed a few months' leave on full pay—he would say one month for every year of foreign service. That was already the case with
690
regard to seamen. They had six weeks or two months' leave, and it was essential to the happiness of officers that they should know a little of shore life. These questions were regarded with great interest in the service; and, acting in a spirit of fairness, he believed the intention of the Committee was to benefit the position of naval officers.
MR. LINDSAYsaid, he had no objection to the Vote, but was decidedly opposed to the mode in which it was proposed to apply it. The masters were a most valuable class, whose claims he had repeatedly urged on the attention of the Government; but although he had always been promised that their case would be considered, they were now passed over entirely. Paymasters, who had charge only of accounts and provisions, received double the pay of masters, who were responsible for the safe navigation of the ship; yet the former were by this scheme to receive additional pay, while the latter were passed over in silence. He begged to move that the Chairman report Progress, in order that the scheme might be reconsidered, and he hoped when next it I was produced they would find it embraced the case of the masters and other points that had been urged in the course of the debate.
MR. CORRYbegged to explain that his meaning, when he spoke, was that all classes of lieutenants should be paid according to their service.
COLONEL EDWARDSconsidered that the reserved captains had been treated with great injustice, and he hoped they would yet be placed in the position they deserved.
MR. FERRANDsaid, there were many widows of warrant officers living in the poorhouse of Devonport Union. If those persons had the pensions which they enjoyed formerly restored to them, that disgrace would be removed from the country.
MR. BAILLIE COCHRANEhoped that some explanation would be afforded in regard to the case of the reserved captains referred to by the hon. and gallant Member for Beverley (Colonel Edwards).
LORD CLARENCE PAGETsaid, the case of those officers had been disposed of. The boon had been granted to them.
COLONEL EDWARDSmust say he was under a very different impression to that. He did not understand that redress had been given to those reserved captains, otherwise he should not have alluded to their case. Perhaps the noble Lord would

691
state what were the further advantages which had been conceded to them.
LORD CLARENCE PAGETsaid, he could only repeat that they had granted them the boon. The officers now in question were those who retired under the Order in Council of 1860.
CAPTAIN TALBOT: The reserved captains on the "F.G." list.
COLONEL EDWARDSdid not know what the list was called, but he referred to a meritorious class of officers who were put upon the reserved list a few years ago, and not allowed to rise to their flag as other officers did. They were excluded from attaining the rank which they otherwise would have attained in consideration of some paltry remuneration that they would never have accepted if the matter had been fairly left to them.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, he hoped that, as they had been discussing this question for several hours, they would now come to a vote upon it.
MR. LINDSAYsaid, he would withdraw his Motion for reporting Progress if a pledge were given that justice would be done to the masters.
SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONEsaid, the "F.G." list had not been dealt with at all, and formed a question that must be raised again. The grievance of the lieutenants in respect to leave, demanded attention. Those officers asked for a month's leave in every year, which was a small boon. They were now practically isolated from their friends, even when on the home station.
Motion made, and Question, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again,— (Mr. Lindsay,)—put, and negatived.
Original Question put, and agreed to.
(4.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That a sum, not exceeding £5,776, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the additional Charge for altering and improving the system of Retirement of Officers of the Royal Navy, and reducing the number of Officers on the Active List of the Navy, which will come in course of payment during the nine months ending on the 31st day of March, 1865."
MR. C. P. BERKELEYsaid, that if the Admiralty would examine that matter, and take into consideration the other officers who were nearly in the same position as those concerned in this Vote, it would see that it could not stop there, but must go a good deal further.
LORD CLARENCE PAGETbegged to point out the clear distinction which existed between the case of those captains whose retirement on the reserved list was voluntary, and those whose retirement was compulsory.
Motion made, and Question, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again,"—(Mr. Charles Berkeley.)—put, and negatived.
Original Question put, and agreed to.
House resumed.
Resolutions to be reported To-morrow;
Committee to sit again To-morrow.

HIGHWAYS ACT AMENDMENT BILL.

  [BILL 113.] SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Sir George Grey.)
  SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, he rose to move the second reading of the Bill. It comprised a great many details which would require to be considered in a Select Committee, and the discussion could then be taken on the Report. He thought, therefore, that discussion on its details should he waived for the present.
  MR. LIDDELLsaid, he wished to know what would be the scope of the inquiry before the Committee. The Bill was very important, as it proposed to confer great additional powers on justices of the peace, and to diminish the powers of the ratepayers. The Act had not worked well in that part of the country with which he was connected, and he was anxious to know whether the Select Committee would be empowered to take any evidence.
  MR. THOMPSONsaid, he hoped the right hon. Baronet would not press the second reading of the Bill at that late hour, as it would involve very important questions.
  MR. GATHORNE HARDYsaid, there was no general principle to be discussed at that stage, and he trusted, therefore, that the second reading would be agreed to. If the Act had not been successful in the quarter referred to by his hon. Friend the Member for South Northumberland (Mr. Liddell), it was because too large districts had been created.
  SIR MATTHEW RIDLEYsaid, the Bill would require very mature consideration. He thought that it would be satis-

  693
  factory for the Bill to undergo discussion in a Committee upstairs.
  Motion agreed to.
  Bill read 2o.
  SIR GEORGE GREYbegged to move that the Bill be referred to a Select Committee. It would be desirable not to instruct the Committee to take evidence, because the Committee could, if they thought it necessary, apply to the House for permission to hear witnesses with respect to any particular provision.
  Bill committed to a Select Committee.

BEERHOUSES (IRELAND) BILL.

  [BILL 109.] COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read.
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.
  Clause 3 (Excise Officers not to grant a Licence or Renewal Licence without Certificate of Justices.)
  SIR COLMAN O'LOGHLENsaid, he thought the object of the Bill, which was to impose some restrictions on the low class of beer-houses in Ireland, a proper one; but he conceived that the present clause went too far, for it would compel not only ordinary beer-house keepers, but brewers and the vendors of table beer, who could now sell beer not to be drunk on the premises, under an Excise licence, to apply to the magistrates for a licence.
  SIR ROBERT PEELsaid, it was impossible to make any distinction between respectable and disreputable brewers. He understood that there was no such class in Dublin as vendors of table beer at three halfpence a quart. If that clause were not adopted, it was the opinion of tin police that the Bill would be perfectly valueless.
  MR. HENNESSYbegged to ask the right hon. Baronet whether the Bill did not include brewers?
  SIR ROBERT PEELsaid it did. It was meant to apply to all persons selling beer not to be drunk on the premises. He could not suppose that a respectable brewer would have any objection to send his clerk to the magistrates to obtain such a licence.
  SIR EDWARD GROGANsaid, there was no licence of the kind in England, and he hoped Irish Members would resist its introduction into Ireland.
  SIR PATRICK O'BRIENbegged to suggest that the beer-houses should he placed under strict police regulations and surveillance, so that if those regulations were violated the licence could be taken away. That would be found sufficient for every purpose. He objected to placing in the hands of a few justices the power of preventing persons carrying on what might be considered legitimate trade.
  MR. HENNESSYsaid, the clause would apply to brewers, which, in his opinion, would be very vexatious to such men as Messrs, Guinness and other respectable brewers. He bogged to move a proviso to the effect that nothing contained in the clause should apply to any person holding a brewer's licence. He felt convinced that there could be no intention of applying the vexatious penalties and prohibitions provided by the clause to the trade of brewing.
  MR. HASSARDsaid, the evil against which the Bill was directed arose only in the case of beer-house keepers, and could not apply to brewers.
  COLONEL DICKSONsaid, he must object, to proceeding at that late hour of the night with the Bill, and, therefore, he would beg to move that the Chairman do report Progress.
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, he objected to the measure on the ground that it would establish a different law between the two countries.
  SIR PATRICK O'BRIENsaid, he understood that the object of the Bill was to place under police surveillance those houses which, under the plea of selling beer, retailed spirits, and that was a purpose which Irish Members would be most ready to support. That clause, however, went further than that, and he was of opinion that it would improve the Bill to strike out the clause altogether.
  SIR ROBERT PEELsaid, the subject had been well considered by the Government and he must adhere to the clause as it stood. No doubt the clause would apply to such establishments as the Messrs. Guinness's, but it was impossible to draw a distinction between one class of traders and another.
  SIR EDWARD GROGANsaid, that the hon. Baronet had, in his opinion, wholly failed to show a sufficient reason for the enactment of that clause.
  COLONEL WILLIAM STUARTsaid, he could not see any reason why a law should be enacted for Ireland differing from that which existed in England. The beer-houses

  695
  in Ireland could be placed under the supervision of the police without such a clause as that proposed.
  MR. NEWDBGATEconsidered that some restriction ought to be placed on the granting of beer licences, but was unable to say how far the clause would apply to brewers.
  MR. GATHORNE HARDYbegged to suggest that the words of the English Act should he adopted. The Bill ought clearly to be confined to common brewers who sold beer by retail.
  MR. LONGFIELDsaid, he very much questioned whether the Act applied to brewers at all. It only extended, he thought, to licensed beer-houses.
  MR. O'HAGANsaid, he had never considered that the penalties under the clause could apply to the great brewers.
  LORD NAASsaid, that if a brewer's licence allowed the selling of beer by retail it would apply to him; but that was a point on which the Committee were not informed.
  SIR ROBERT PEELsaid, he thought it right to tell the Committee that the Bill did apply to such brewers as Messrs. Guinness. If the Committee were of opinion that it ought not to apply to the great brewers that would be another question.
  MR. LYGONsaid, there appeared to be a startling discrepancy of opinion between the right hon. Baronet and the Attorney General for Ireland, and that was a good reason for reporting Progress, in order that those two right hon. Gentlemen might come to some accord as to the real effect of the clause.
  MR. MAGUIREbegged to suggest the postponement of the clause, but as the Bill was very much wanted in Ireland he hoped it would be proceeded with. He did not think the great brewers should be treated with any indignity.
  COLONEL DICKSONsaid, he thought the Bill a very inadequate, a very useless, and, in some clauses, a very objectionable one. He should persevere with his Motion to report Progress.
  House resumed.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again on Tuesday next.

LIFE ANNUITIES AND LIFE ASSUR ANCES.— [DEFICIENCY OF ASSETS, &c.]

  COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read.
  (In the Committee.)
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERbegged to move a Resolution au-
  696
  thorizing any deficiency in the assets of the Commissioners for the reduction of the National Debt in connection with Deferred Annuities and Life Assurance, to be made a charge on the Consolidated Fund.
  Resolved,
  That it is expedient to empower the Commissioners of the Treasury to issue out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland such sums as may be requisite to make good any deficiency that may arise in the Assets of the Commissioners for the Reduction of the National Debt applicable to the Payment of Deferred Life Annuities, and to Payments to be made on Death, and also to empower the Commissioners of the Treasury to convert certain Capital Stocks of Annuities into an equivalent amount of Annuities for a Term of years.
  House resumed.
  Resolution to be reported this day.

LIMITED PENALTIES BILL— [BILL 94.]

  THIRD READING.
  Order for Third Reading read.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read the third time."—(The Solicitor General.)
  THE SOLICITOR GENERALbegged to explain the objects of the Bill. One of the Militia Acts contained a clause that every deserter should be punished by a fine of 40 s., or by imprisonment. A deserter was brought before the magistrates of Newcastle-on-Tyne, and they took upon themselves to reduce the penalty from 40 s. to half-a-crown. They did so in consequence of a clause introduced into a Gas Act for Newcastle-on-Tyne. It was thought very improper that a Gas Act or any local Act should confer power on the justices to abrogate altogether the general public legislation of the country. It was proposed by the Bill to prevent the application of any similar clause in any other Gas Act. It was not prospective, it was only retrospective; therefore they should be more cautious in allowing such a proviso to be introduced.
  Bill read 3o, and passed.

  WEIGHING OF GRAIN (PORT OF LONDON) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. CRAWFORD, Bill to regulate the Weighing of Grain in the Port of London, ordered to be brought in by Mr. CRAWFORD, Mr. GOSCHEN, Mr. THOMAS BARING, and Mr. HUBBARD.
  Bill presented, and read 1o. [Bill 119.]

  BANKING CO-PARTNERSHIPS BILL.
  Bill to enable certain Banking Co-partnerships which shall discontinue the issue of their own Bank Notes to sue and be sued by their public officer; presented, and read 1o. [Bill 118.]
  House adjourned at half after One o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading— Ecclesiastical Courts and Registries (Ireland)* (No. 96).
Second Reading—Scottish Episcopal Clergy Disabilities Removal (No. 79), and referred to a Select Committee; Divorce and Matrimonial Causes Amendment* (No. 75).
Committee — Mortgage Debentures* (No. 55), reported.

DENMARK AND GERMANY—THE PRUSSIANS IN JUTLAND.—QUESTION.
THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGH: My Lords, I rise to put a Question to the noble Earl at the head of the Foreign Office, of which I gave him notice on Monday last. As the Conference, after a somewhat long adjournment, will meet on the 28th, it is important that we should know how far the engagements entered into by the belligerent powers on the 9th have been fulfilled; for if we should find that, in point of fact, these engagements have not been faithfully performed, we shall have but little confidence in any future promises that may be made. If I am not misinformed, the engagements entered into by the belligerent Powers on the 9th were to this effect—that they would not; interfere with the commerce or with the communications of the country which they occupy, not interfere with the existing civil administration—that they would not levy any war contributions, and that they would pay for everything that their troops received. Now, unless I am greatly misinformed, it can hardly be said that any one of these five engagements has been thoroughly performed. The commerce of

607
the country has been interrupted by impounding and placing under lock and seal large quantities of valuable goods intended for commercial purposes. The communications of the country by road are dependent entirely upon the caprice of the officers in command. The communication by telegraph has been broken entirely by the removal of the wires. I do not know for certain that any new war contributions have been imposed, but rations for men and horses have been exacted without payment, and those for the soldiers of the most extravagant kind. It was stipulated that, on the contrary, so far from exacting contributions, everything should be paid for. I understand that on the 12th an order was given for the delivery of rations, and that not one word was said about payment; and the contributions not having been delivered on the 13th, an order was given for their immediate delivery, with a threat that if the delivery did not take place, those who did not comply should be placed upon bread and water. That, I understand, is the state of things at this moment. There may have been some cases of payment, but I am informed the payments have not been made in money. The payment has only been in receipts for goods delivered, acknowledgments of indebtedness on the part of the Prussian Government; documents which, of course, are of no market value whatever. It is possible that subsequent orders may have been issued from Berlin. That may have been in consequence of the representations of the noble Earl or of the other Powers on the Continent, or in consequence of the evidently rising indignation of the people of this country. But certainly the Prussian Government did not commence the armistice by acting according to the stipulations they had agreed upon. Of that I apprehend there can he no doubt whatever. They contracted at the Conference, not with the Danish Government alone, but with all the Powers assisting in the Conference; and, therefore, in departing from their engagements, they have committed an offence, not against Denmark alone, but against every one of the contracting Powers, each of which is justified in resenting that offence by the blockade of the ports of the belligerents, or by any other suitable measure. I hope that a better state of things may now have commenced. But it is impossible for me not to feel that this state of things could not have happened had the
608
influence of this country been what it once was. I cannot conceal from myself that there prevails in Germany an impression that, do what they may, say what we may, we shall not lift our arm for the purpose of arresting the progress of their wrong doing. My Lords, I am very ready to acknowledge the zeal, the earnestness, and the great ability of the noble Earl at the head of the Foreign Department. I think that the position of the noble Earl has been beset by difficulties of an unusual character, which, under any circumstances, would have been embarrassing; but I cannot abstain from declaring my opinion that these difficulties have been greatly increased by the conduct of the noble Earl himself. My Lords, last year, the premature and inconsiderate declaration, that under no circumstances would this country go to war for the sake of the establishment of a better state of things in Poland, deprived our diplomacy of all its efficacy, of all hope of success in the negotiations that were then being carried on. It is a vain idea indeed—it is a perfect dream—to hope that mere moral opinion can produce any effect whatever in diplomacy. The strength of diplomacy resides altogether in the force by which it is supported, and in the belief that, under the circumstances which may arise, that force may be employed for the purpose of maintaining its rightful demands. If you take away that supposition, the despatches of the Foreign Secretary can have no more weight than that which would attach to the collective opinion of any twelve or fifteen respectable gentlemen meeting in Downing Street to discuss any public matter; authority it can have none. This was the state of things so far as it affected Poland. This year what have we done? This year the noble Earl has most distinctly expressed his opinion upon the policy to be pursued. Substantially and in effect what the noble Earl said was this—
"Hear Mr. Gladstone—'look around, see the vast progress of our prosperity and the enormous amount of our commerce. It would be a sin to risk for the defence of innocence and of weakness, and for the protection of right against might—the might of the wrong doer—any portion of that wealth which Providence has bestowed upon us for our own especial enjoyment.' "
My Lords, I differ altogether from those who can entertain that opinion. I do not hold that power, and strength, and wealth are given to a state, any more than they are given to an individual, for his own personal enjoyment and satisfaction. The

609
State and the individual stand under the same circumstances of responsibility. They are each subject to the obligation of doing good and of preventing evil; and we have done neither. My Lords, I cannot help feeling at the same time that there is another difficulty beyond that which has arisen out of the conduct of Her Majesty's Government. There is another difficulty of the greatest magnitude which has materially affected the influence of this country with Foreign Powers. I cannot but think there is a strong impression on the Continent, and especially in Germany — an impression which it would be contrary to constitutional principle to admit to have any real foundation—but which certainly does exist on the Continent, and is gradually pervading society in this country, that in all public questions relating to Germany Her Majesty's Ministers have as much difficulty in carrying out a purely English policy as was experienced in former times, as history teaches us, in the reigns of the two first sovereigns of the House of Hanover, When George III. came to the throne, and first met his Parliament, he declared, in his own words, that born and educated in this country, he gloried in the name of Briton. By that declaration he won the hearts and obtained the confidence of his people. He at once relieved his Government from that unpopularity and weakness which had attached to the Governments of his predecessors, from the persuasion that they were swayed by German partialities. The people believed him to be an Englishman and nothing but an Englishman—to be one of themselves—to feel as they did —to be identified in all respects with the English people. That feeling inspired the loyalty which enabled him to go through without danger the difficulties of the revolution with which he had to contend, I do trust that in this question of Denmark, Her Majesty's Ministers will so act as to show to Germany and the whole world that the policy and feelings of George III.—those truly English feelings which regarded only English objects—still animate the Government of this country, and that they will succeed in overcoming that impression which is now extending itself on the Continent, and overspreading this country, and in restoring to our diplomacy the authority and influence which it has now lost. I will ask the noble Earl whether the proceedings of the Prussians in Jutland, since
610
the armistice has commenced, have been conformable with the engagements entered into in the Conference?
EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, the noble Earl certainly gave me notice a few days ago that he should make some inquiries as to the manner in which the engagements entered into in the Conference for the suspension of arms had been carried out in Jutland; but the noble Earl did not give me notice that he meant at the same time to make observations upon the conduct of the Government in relation to foreign affairs in matters extending far beyond Jutland— beyond the question, large, difficult, and intricate as it is—the question between Germany and Denmark—extending even to the question of Poland. I think it would have been fair—I think it would have been more in conformity with the course usually practised in Parliament, and certainly practised in that House in which I have spent the greater part of my political life—if the noble Earl, intending to make this attack, had given me notice that he meant to do so. As to the Questions which he has asked of me, I will answer, in the first place, with respect to the manner in which the agreement for the suspension of arms has been carried out in Jutland, The Danish Government have stated that it is their intention to collect in as accurate a form as possible all the facts, and when they are in possession of those facts, and can rely upon them, then only they will lay a statement—containing, at all events, an accurate statement of facts, before the Powers with whom they have agreed to negotiate. I consider that to be a prudent and wise mode of proceeding; and until they have done so it is not for us to assume that mere rumours or statements in newspapers or private letters are perfectly accurate and true. But with regard to the assertions which have been made here and elsewhere, the Prussian Government was applied to and they have made this statement upon that subject. I am about to give your: Lordships, as well as I can, the statement made by the Prussian Government, without at all attempting to defend their conduct or making myself responsible for the statement. The Prussian Government say that they thought fit, I think on the 28th of April, to make an estimate of the value of the ships captured by the Danish cruisers, and finding that estimate to amount to £50,000 for Prussian ships, and £40,000 as the value of other German ships, they

611
directed Marshal Wrangel to levy contributions in Jutland to the amount of £90,000. I believe that proceeding to be in itself a novelty in the history of war; but be that as it may, their answer is, "We are at war, and we believe this to be one of our belligerent rights." A part of this amount was raised; but the Prussian Government say that immediately the King had sanctioned the agreement for a suspension of arms, orders were sent to Marshal Wrangel not to levy any further contributions; and that if contributions had been levied since the 11th, the persons who had paid the contributions should be reimbursed the sums received from them. The account we have received from our Ambassador is that orders were sent from Berlin on the 10th, and he thinks it probable, and it appears to me very likely, that although the orders might have reached Marshal Wrangel on the 12th, yet they were not in the hands of all officers commanding corps or divisions of regiments upon the morning of that day. It appears from some accounts which have reached us, that demands were made on that day. There is a Danish statement that upon the night of the 11th the Prussian seals were placed upon several magazines and stores of private merchants and manufacturers, as security for the payment of contributions. The seals were afterwards taken off from some, but I cannot say whether they were taken off from all. That is the Danish statement, although it does not come from the Danish Government. With respect to provisions, it appears that orders were certainly given that all demands for provisions and rations for the troops should be paid for. It is probable from what we have heard that the payments have not been made in specie, but it is asserted that payments are made in the shape of acknowledgments. I do not know whether care has been taken to avoid making further requisition, or whether, if any further requisitions have been made, they have been paid for in money. The Prussian Government are bound by the terms they have made for a suspension of arms, which the noble Earl has correctly represented; they are bound to see that no further contributions should be levied; and if further demands of provisions should be made, then that they should be fully paid for. We all have in our recollection the terms upon which the suspension of arms took place; but we have thought it
612
bteter, however, to wait for the statement of the Danish Government rather than to rely upon mere rumours. The noble Earl (the Earl of Ellenborough) went on to say that all this had been done because it was not expected that Her Majesty's Government would have recourse to force to prevent them. But the noble Earl must recollect that in this instance the engagements were made, not with the British Government alone, but with the Governments of France, Great Britain, Russia, and Sweden, who were all represented in the Conference; and if these things were done—if the suspension of arms was set at defiance—the Prussian Government is liable to be called to account by all the Governments for the violations of their engagements which they have committed. It cannot be said that such conduct is a wanton indignity or insult to the British Government alone; what has taken place is an indignity and an insult to all the Powers who were represented at the Conference. The noble Earl, not satisfied with putting his Question, has spoken of the general course which Her Majesty's Government have pursued in regard to foreign policy. I must say, with reference to this particular Question, as I told a noble Friend of mine who raised the point some time back, that while this country is bound to defend its honour and any paramount interest it may have in any part of the world, it is not alone responsible for maintaining the balance of power in Europe. I think in the engagements which this country has made—whether the engagements of 1852 or those of a more ancient date — whenever the question of this general balance of power in Europe has arisen, the obligation has been one, not of this country alone, but of this country along with several other Powers, bound, whenever the case arose, to consult those Powers as to what the obligations were, and what ought to be done in the circumstances. If I may advert to the conduct of the person whom I consider to have been the great founder of the foreign policy of England in modern times — namely, King William III. — he always sought out for allies on the continent of Europe, and acted with those allies to the great benefit of Europe and to the reputation and glory of England. I certainly stated on a former occasion, that the flourishing condition of our finances and trade is a reason not lightly to imperil such a

613
state of things. I might have stated also this other ground—that no country can really keep up its character for strength, and its power of asserting its position in Europe, unless its finances are in a satisfactory condition. I reminded you how the Peace of Amiens—the most disastrous peace we ever made, by which France was left in possession of the greater part of Europe after an unavailing contest—was brought about by the distressed and disordered state of our finances; and I implored you to take care, lest when your honour or interests may be attacked, it may be impossible to assert that honour and give effect to those interests if your finances are disordered by useless and unnecessary wars. The noble Earl referred also to the case of Poland. When that question arose Her Majesty's Government, following the example set by the Government of Earl Grey, made remonstrances to Russia, founded on the Treaty of Vienna. An answer was given to those remonstrances, addressed to England, France, and Austria. A reply was sent and further representations made; but the general answer was that, when tranquillity was restored, the condition of Poland should receive the consideration of the Russian Government. That, in fact, closed what may be called the negotiations, although there was much subsequent argument. But when I made the statement in this House that I could not advise this country to go to war to re-establish Poland, I considered that negotiation with Russia, so far as it could have influence on Russia, was at an end, and there was nothing to do but to resolve whether, in that state of circumstances, you would go to war for Poland or not. Now, of all the wild, imprudent, and extravagant wars that were ever engaged in, a war to establish Poland would have been the most wild, the most imprudent, and the most extravagant. When you consider that no Government had been established by the insurgents, and that even the insurrection had not raised its head with effect—when you look to the vast extent of the country to be re-established, and consider that it would have amounted to nothing less than the dismemberment of the Russian Empire, which everybody who had the conduct of affairs in that empire was bound to resist to the utmost — to have gone to war then for the re-establishment of the Polish Government, however much the Poles by their bravery, generosity, and conduct had merited the sympathy
614
of Europe, would have been most unjustifiable. Well, but what was I to do? I have always considered that if you do not mean to go to war for a nation in a state of insurrection, nothing can be more immoral, more perfidious, more destructive of confidence, than to hold out hopes to men which must afterwards be disappointed. Therefore I was between these two conditions—either I must speak in favour of the Poles and go to war in their favour, or I must tell them plainly that it was not the intention of Her Majesty's Government to go to war. Well, the latter was the course I took. I proclaimed here, and proclaiming here I proclaimed it to the world, that it was not our intention to go to war for Poland; and from that moment no Pole could with authority or reason say that he relied on British support, and was betrayed by the want of it. I cannot but think it is a source of satisfaction to me that, in the first place, I did not advise war for Poland; and, in the next place, not advising it, that I did not hold out to the Poles that we were about to do that for them which we did not intend to do. The noble Earl may think that we ought to have gone to war for Poland; he may have thought—though I hardly believe it—that not intending to go to war for Poland we should have endeavoured to impose on the Government of Russia the belief that we were about to make great sacrifices to rush into a war without any definite object in view, and by so doing to sacrifice the lives of men as brave, as generous, and as patriotic as ever lived. My Lords, my resolution was to do neither the one nor the other. The question of going to war is a serious matter, not to be lightly talked of. The noble Earl has referred to the example of George III.—a most patriotic Sovereign, with every feeling in his heart that prompted him to defend the honour of his Crown, and the welfare of the country over which he reigned. But as to his views of policy and the Ministers by whom he was advised, it is not to he forgotten that in this House a Member of that Cabinet, on entering into a war for the purpose of subduing insurrection in America, declared that the Americans were a parcel of cowards, and that this country would easily get the better of them, and suppress the revolt. In the course of that enterprise you spent £100,000,000 and lost thirteen provinces. On another occasion a great revolution took place in France—France changed her Government; and the Govern-

615
ment of George III. must go to war to change republicanism in France to monarchy, and bring back the Bourbons to the throne. In that enterprise there was £550,000,000 spent, and oceans of blood were shed. I consider these two wars two of the most unwise—two of the most unjustifiable wars in which this nation ever engaged. The noble Earl has referred to other matters which I think he might have spared. He has referred to the advice which Her Majesty's Ministers hare given to their Sovereign. All I can say is this, and I say it with perfect truth—that however much Her Majesty may have, as other Princes have, their private affections—connected as she may have been by marriage with a Prince who derived his birth from Germany—much as she is connected by the alliance of her daughter with German families—Her Majesty's great object has been to maintain intact the honour, to maintain high the reputation, to maintain the interests of this country. And however much Her Majesty may desire that every step, whether relating to Germany, or Denmark, or any other subject, should be carefully weighed by her advisers, there has been no one occasion on which, when those advisers have deliberated and have given the result of that deliberation to Her Majesty, Her Majesty has not wholly followed their counsels, and adopted the Resolutions to which they had come. Therefore, my Lords, having stated this, I need hardly state that which follows, that if the interests of this country have been deserted— if there is any stain on its honour—if there has been any abandonment of those great interests which we are bound to preserve— if there has been any abandonment of the interests of Europe, which we with others are bound to look to—it is upon the heads of Her Majesty's advisers that the responsibility must rest. Let that responsibility be as great and as heavy as it may be, we can transfer it to no other quarter; we must take it all upon ourselves—and, for my part, I am perfectly willing to be held responsible for the course we have adopted.
LORD BROUGHAMdid not wish to prolong that discussion, but his noble Friend near him having referred to the indignation of the people of this country in regard to the acts of plunder committed in Jutland, he must say he never yet knew so unanimous an opinion or so strong a feeling to exist among all classes, all ranks, and all parties in this country on any ques-
616
tion, either of foreign or domestic policy, as now prevailed in favour of Denmark and against Prussia. By saying against Prussia he meant against the Government of Prussia, whose frauds and cruelties and wrongful deeds had not brought them the least glory. They had pillaged and oppressed the weak; they had gained a certain accession of territory and taken a considerable booty; but glory they had gained none. But these were the acts of the Government alone; the people of Prussia were not at all responsible. Their case was very different from that of the people of America, who were responsible as a people for the violence and bloodshed unhappily desolating their country. But, as regarded Prussia, the responsibility was confined to the Government.
EARL GREY: My Lords, I cannot allow what was said by my noble Friend at the head of the Foreign Office, as to what took place in 1831 with reference to Russia and Poland, to pass altogether unnoticed. I deny that my noble Friend can draw any justification or defence for his recent policy with regard to Poland from what occurred in 1831. Speaking on the spur of the moment, without having any opportunity of referring to papers relating to transactions that took place so long ago, I cannot, of course, trust my memory as far as details are concerned. But I can say, with the most perfect recollection of the fact, that the whole tone and effect of the correspondence on the part of this country with Russia at that time was totally different from that of the recent despatches of my noble Friend on the subject of Poland, Your Lordships will allow me further to explain, as one of those who objected to my noble Friend's policy with respect to Poland, that I never did object to it because it had not plunged this country into war. I never did object to his openly declaring that he intended to avoid war on that question. I agree with him that as it was clear that this country ought not to enter into such a war, it was but fair and just to the Poles that that determination should have been made known to them. But what I think may be most legitimately found fault with is this—that, being determined not to go to war, and that determination being made publicly known, the noble Earl should have thought fit to engage in an irritating correspondence with Russia on the subject of Poland, which could not but be most impolitic and injurious to the character of this country.

617
Where was the wisdom or advantage of bringing forward impracticable proposals to which he called on Russia to agree, or; of holding aggravating language about the iniquity of her conduct, and then laying before Parliament all those scolding despatches, which might have been very good; as school boys' themes, but which, as they, were to lead to nothing, were unworthy of statesmen sitting in a Cabinet? A great country certainly ought not lightly to engage in war; and it is not for us to be the general redressers of the world's grievances. But, on the other hand, I hope the rule is not to he laid down, that England is to remain an indifferent spectator in all cases of any amount of wrong committed among nations, and that, because other States think fit to shrink from the common duty of defending the weak against the strong, when there is a favourable opportunity, and we have the power to do it, we are to abstain from doing so. I say that there are cases in which the power of this country ought to be exerted to prevent wrong being done. But when you satisfy yourself that a case is not one for your interference, and that you clearly ought not to take up arms in regard to it, I say it is not for the credit, the character, or the dignity of this country that its Government should address to another Government scolding language, like an impotent; old woman. That is the opinion I have always entertained, and the results of the course taken by the noble Lord have only confirmed me more strongly in it than ever I do not, however, mean to enter into this question now. We have already partially discussed it, and perhaps a future opportunity may arise of further discussing it even in the present Session. But considering my relationship to the person who was at the head of the Government in 1831, I could not sit by and hear my noble Friend defend his policy with respect to Poland by comparing it with the policy then adopted.

SCOTTISH EPISCOPAL CLERGY DISA BILITIES REMOVAL BILL— [H.L.]

  [No, 79.] SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH, after presenting several petitions in favour of the Bill, proceeded to move its second reading, and in so doing said: My Lords, I will state, as shortly as possible, the necessity
  618
  which exists for a measure of this description. I have no doubt that many of your Lordships are not in the least aware that there are any disabilities affecting the Scotch Episcopal Church. I have heard persons say that they did not know that there was an Episcopal Church in Scotland at all; and from conversations which I have had with some of your Lordships and others, I have found that a deplorable ignorance exists on this subject both out of doors and within the walls of this House. The Episcopal Church in Scotland has existed ever since the Reformation. At that time most, if not all, of the Bishops in Scotland remained of the same religion as before. Bishops, however, were appointed to the vacant Sees, but they were not consecrated though they sat in Parliament in virtue of their Sees. This went on until, I believe, there was only one of the original or genuine Scottish Bishops remaining alive, namely, Beaton, Archbishop of Glasgow, who died in 1603. When King James came to the English throne, he determined to re-establish the Episcopal Order in Scotland. This was in the year 1610. At that time the Archbishop of Glasgow (Spottiswoode), Bishop Lamb of Brechin, and Bishop Hamilton of Galloway, who were previously titular Bishops of those Sees, came up to London to be consecrated. The Bishop of Ely objected to their ordination, but Archbishop Bancroft of Canterbury moved that they be consecrated on their Scottish Orders as being perfectly good. The Episcopal Church went on in Scotland as the Established Church till 1638. In that year a General Assembly was held at Glasgow, which not only deposed the Bishops, but excommunicated them, and at that time excommunication carried with it grave civil consequences. During the time of the Commonwealth, the Episcopal Church in Scotland almost entirely disappeared, but at the Restoration, King Charles the Second determined again to restore it. For this purpose, Dr. James Sharp, Mr. Fairfowl, Mr. Hamilton, and Mr. Leighton, all in Presbyterian Orders, came to London, where, after being ordained Deacons and Priests, they were consecrated Bishops by the Bishop of Winchester, with the assistance of two other Prelates. Dr. Sharp was named Archbishop of St. Andrews, Mr. Fairfowl, Archbishop of Glasgow, and two others were appointed Bishops of Galloway and Dunblane, They went down to

  619
  Scotland and consecrated the remaining ten Bishops. At the Revolution in 1688, James the Second was driven from the throne. I should have mentioned that the State had restored the temporalities of Bishops, and the civil status of the clergy. But in 1689–90, the Episcopal Church was again dis-established, and the Presbyterian form was re-established. The State again took away from the Episcopal Church that which alone it had the power of giving it— its civil status and its temporalities, but it did not take away its spiritual status, because it had not the power of doing so. That remained as it was in 1661, and the spiritual status remained unmolested from that time down to the present, the Episcopal Order being continued, so that the present Bishops of the Episcopal Church in Scotland derive their Orders and status from the same source as the right rev. Prelates who sit in this House. I mention this at the present time, because some persons are under the erroneous impression that this is an attempt for the first time to bring the Episcopal Church into close communion with the Church of England. It has never been otherwise. Archbishop Tillotson, when he first held a benefice in England, had Scottish orders, having been ordained in England during the time of the Commonwealth, by Dr. Sydserf, Bishop of Galloway; and the Rev, James Greenshields, who was ordained by the Bishop of Ross in Scotland after 1690, was admitted to a curacy in the diocese of Down, and afterwards to a curacy in the diocese of Armagh, which he held till 1704, when he returned to Scotland. The validity of his Orders, which had been unquestioned in Ireland, was now questioned in the Scottish capital; but the judgment of the Civil Courts, which had called them in question, were on appeal reversed by a judgment in the House of Lords in 1710. Then the well-known Dr. Burnet, who had been minister of Salton in East Lothian, was consecrated Bishop of Salisbury on his Scotch Orders. There were several others I might mention. There was one case in the reign of William III., when Dr. Alexander Cairncross, who had been Archbishop of Glasgow from 1684 to 1687, was appointed Bishop of Raphoe in Ireland. There are several other cases of clergymen of the Scottish Episcopal Church being appointed to benefices in Ireland, who were ordained after 1600, when the old Episcopal Church ceased to be the Established Church. I only allude to these instances for the pur-
  620
  pose of showing your Lordships the intimate connection there has always been between the two Churches—the Church of England and the Episcopal Church in Scotland. But with regard to the present position of the clergy in the Episcopal Church in Scotland, an Act of Toleration was passed in the reign of Queen Anne, relieving them from some of the disabilities which they then laboured under. The Bishops of the Scotch Episcopal Church were still recognized by their ecclesiastical titles, Queen Anne, on two separate occasions, in 1704 and 1706, having, by Royal Warrant, directed donations of £100 to each of the Bishops of Edinburgh, Aberdeen, Moray, and Dunblane. From the time of the succession of the House of Hanover to the Throne, the persecution of the clergy of the Scottish Episcopal Church commenced. They were, in fact, non-jurors and partisans of the House of Stuart, and after the rebellions of 1715 and 1745, most stringent and most cruel enactments were passed against them. They continued subject to these persecutions till 1788, at which time the last male descendant of the Stuarts died. In 1792, a Bill was introduced into this House by the Earl of Kellie for the purpose of removing certain disabilities affecting the clergy and laity of the Episcopal Church in Scotland. Its second reading was moved by the Earl of Elgin. The Bill was from the first very strongly opposed by Lord Chancellor Thurlow; and amongst other things, whilst the Act professed to remove all disabilities, he introduced a clause imposing new disabilities upon the Scottish Episcopal clergy which they had not been subject to before, namely—
  "Provided also, and be it further enacted, that no person exercising the function or assuming the office and character of a pastor or minister of any order in the Episcopal Communion in Scotland as aforesaid, shall be capable of taking any benefice, curacy, or other spiritual promotion within the part of Great Britain called England, the dominion of Wales, or town of Berwick-upon-Tweed, or of officiating in any church or chapel within the same where the liturgy of the Church of England as now by law established is used, unless he shall have been lawfully ordained by some Bishop of the Church of England or of Ireland."
  The Bill was warmly supported by Dr. Horsley, Bishop of St. David's, who answered the Lord Chancellor's objections, also by Lord Stormont and the Earl of Kinnoull. The clause thus inserted in the Act of 1792 had the effect of preventing any person who had been ordained in Scotland from holding any benefice, or

  621
  even from officiating in England. These provisions were relaxed to a certain extent by an Act passed in 1840, which enacted that any Bishop in England or Ireland, on the application of any Bishop of the Episcopal Church in Scotland, or of any Priest of such Church, might grant written permission to such Bishop or Priest to perform Divine service, and administer the sacraments for any one day or two days, but not more, in any church or chapel within his diocese. So that here are Bishops having the same descent as those of the Church of England, and clergymen holding the same office — subscribing to the same articles of religion—incapable of holding any benefice, or even officiating in England or Ireland. And mark the contrast. Any person, whether a native or a naturalized British subject, ordained by a Roman Catholic Bishop in England, Scotland, or Ireland, or abroad, is eligible to hold a living in England or Ireland, and it is nothing but the civil disabilities inflicted upon Scottish Episcopal clergy by the civil law that prevents them from doing so also. It is not an ecclesiastical disqualification, but purely a civil disqualification imposed by Act of Parliament. All that I seek to effect by this Bill, and all that is sought for by those persons who have petitioned so strongly in its favour, is that the Bishops and clergy of the Scottish Episcopal Communion ordained in Scotland, shall no longer be debarred by Act of Parliament from taking any benefice, curacy, or spiritual promotion, or from officiating in England and Ireland. The petitions which I have presented, signed by both clergy and laity in Scotland, have all the same prayer. They are quite willing to recognize the rights of the Bishop in England to satisfy himself in the amplest manner of the doctrine and character of the person he is asked to licence. Now, with regard to the ordination of any person in Scotland, he must have a clear title in the diocese from which he comes; he must also take the oath of allegiance and supremacy, and sign the Thirty-nine Articles, and the ordination is exactly the same and exactly in the same words as the ordination of clergymen in the Church of England. The Prayer Book and Liturgy of the Church of England is the authorized Liturgy of the Episcopal Church in Scotland. I know that it is objected that there is another Communion Office authorized in Scotland. But that is no longer so. The only authorized canonical version is that
  622
  contained in the Book of Common Prayer. There is no doubt that in some of the older congregations in Scotland they have been in use to celebrate the Holy Communion in a particular form, and these are permitted still to do so, but it is mainly in the northern counties where that obtains, and for myself, who have lived in Scotland all my life, I have never once heard that form used. It is becoming more rare. These congregations have handed the form down from father to son, and it is the feeling amongst them that it should still continue, but at the present moment, in all the new congregations, the form of the Church of England is the only one used, unless there should be a large majority of the congregation who request the Bishop of the diocese to allow the older form to be used. But I know it is the general feeling in Scotland that the English version only shall be used. My Lords, this is a matter in which I feel the greatest possible interest, both as a Scotchman and as regards the Church of England. I have as strong a feeling in favour of the maintenance of the integrity of the Church of England as any one of your Lordships, and if I thought that the Bill would, directly or indirectly, affect the Church of England in. an injurious manner, I should be the last person to offer such a measure to your Lordships' consideration. But the object of the Bill is to remove a reproach and a stigma which, to a certain extent, rests upon the Scottish Episcopal Church. I may state that of the 161 clergymen of the Scottish Episcopal Church only seventy-nine have Scotch orders. The rest are all in English orders, and one reason of that is, that many of them, although Scotchmen by birth, came to England to be ordained, because they knew that if they were ordained in Scotland they would be under this unjust bane, which would prevent them from holding any benefice in England, or from even officiating in this country. The result is, that with regard to the qualification to be borne, it is found much more difficult to pass the examination for ordination in Scotland than it is in England. I will not detain your Lordships longer, but will now move the second reading of the Bill.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a. —(The Duke of Buccleuch.)
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, the noble Duke had made a very interesting statement, but he doubted whether their Lord-

  623
  ships were sufficiently informed on the subject to come to a definite conclusion regarding it. The Church of England was connected with the State; but the Episcopal Church of Scotland was a perfectly independent body, which was free to adopt its own forms, and which differed in regard to some of them from the Church of England. He should like to hear what the right rev. Bench had to say on the matter. It would require, he felt, careful consideration to decide whether these disabilities could be removed, and, if so, what restrictions should be imposed in their stead. Under these circumstances, their Lordships would probably agree with him in thinking that the best course would be to consent to the second reading, on the understanding that the Bill should then go to a Select Committee.
  THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURYsaid, he did not mean to offer any opposition to the second reading of the measure. He did not think they possessed sufficient information in regard to it, but there were, certainly, reasons why they should not at once reject it. The number of distinguished members of the Episcopal Bench who had received orders in the North, and the close intercommunion which had existed from 1741 to 1792 between the Church of England and the Episcopal Church of Scotland, ought to secure due consideration for the proposal of the noble Duke. The great difficulty of admitting to the English Church ordained ministers of the Scotch Episcopal Church was that it would create a double allegiance. Pie gladly accepted the suggestion of the noble Earl to refer the Bill to a Select Committee, and hoped the noble Duke would agree to it.
  THE BISHOP OF DURHAMsaid, there were grave objections even to the second reading of such a Bill. He held that the title of the Bill did not properly describe it. The word "disabilities" and the expressions of the noble Duke were scarcely applicable to a body which was altogether free and independent of the English Church, and which differed from it both in doctrine and government. Nevertheless, by this Bill it was proposed that the clergy ordained by the Scotch Church, differing, as it did, in some particulars in doctrine from the Church of England, should be admitted to the benefices of that church. The Bill would be more truly described as one for diverting the endowments of the Church of England from those within to those
  624
  without her pale. At first sight there might appear some hardship in admitting a Roman Catholic clergyman to the Church of England without re-ordination, and refusing that privilege to a minister of the Episcopal Church of Scotland; but it should be remembered that in the former case the clergyman renounced the Romish Church altogether. There had been some misapprehension as to Lord Chancellor Thurlow's position with regard to the Act of 1792. Whatever might be the Chancellor's theology, he had no doubt that, as an acute lawyer, he regarded the question as affecting the Royal supremacy. Bishop Horsley had also been referred to; but that prelate insisted on the clause for the protection of the Church of England. Bishop Skinner, the Scotch Episcopalian Bishop, who was in London at the time of the passing of that Act, and was in constant communication with the clergy of that period, stated that the words which had been referred to were not inserted by the caprice or humour of any single individual, but were the result of the decided judgment of a body of men who thought it their duty to secure the temporal emoluments of the Church of England to the clergy of that Church, and to them alone; and it was the feeling of the Scotch Bishops and clergy at that period that such a view of the case was not unreasonable. He added that had any Scotch clergyman been so ambitious as to aspire to the cure of souls in England, the Bishop of the diocese might very properly have said to him, "I make no doubt of the authority of the Scotch Bishops in their own Church, but neither the law of England nor of Scotland recognizes any such Bishop here; his orders cannot be put as a legal qualification, nor can they have any civil effect within the Church of England." It certainly appeared to him reasonable that the Church of England should be protected from having clergymen brought into it who had not been ordained, and whose qualifications had not been ascertained, by a Bishop of the Church England. It seemed to him that a most important principle would be asserted by the second reading of the Bill. When the union between the Church in England and the Church in Ireland took place, the condition was, that the doctrine, service, and government of those two Churches should ever afterwards be one and the same. But in none of these respects was the Scotch Episcopalian Church one with the Church of England. The former Church had a service,

  625
  which he believed all the present Bishops of that Church had pledged themselves to defend, and which only last year had been declared to be of final authority, but which was entirely antagonistic to the teaching of the Communion Service of the Church of England. He would not say that the Scotch Episcopalian service was derived from the Church of Rome, because he should be told that it was taken from the Greek Church; but any one observing the language of the Scotch Episcopalian service in reference to the consecration of the elements would come to the conclusion that it was founded on doctrine of the Church of Rome. He would not discuss that language—he would only state to their Lordships that two months ago one of the most learned and devout Bishops of the Scotch Church, speaking in the Synod of that Church, said—
  "If the language of the Scotch Service-book had been the language of the Church of England after the Reformation, Latimer, Cranmer, and Ridley need not have been burnt."
  When it was proposed at a meeting of the Synod of the Scotch Episcopalian Church a few months ago, that for the future in respect to old congregations the majority of the members should decide whether they would have the old service, but that with respect to new congregations, the service of the Church of England should be substituted; that proposal was rejected, and it was determined that every congregation should decide whether they would have the service of the Scotch Episcopalian Church or the service of the Church of England. Another difficulty was this, that the Church of Scotland was governed by a Synod, consisting of twenty-one members, and the majority of that body could at any time change the service of the Church. The changes had, in fact, been numerous. This body could also, in times of excitement, ordain any number of deacons and priests to circulate their views. With regard to the endowment of the Scotch Episcopalian clergy, there was a more obvious and fair way of effecting that object, and that was by the members of the Scotch Episcopalian community endowing the Scotch benefices which existed. He understood that the Chancellor of the Exchequer suggested to a deputation who waited on him that they might follow the example of the Free Church of Scotland, and liberally endow the Scotch benefices. There was no want of zeal or liberality on the part of the
  626
  members of the Scotch Episcopalian community; but the reason that they did not take that step was because, unlike the Free Church, the governing body of the Scotch Episcopalian Church had not the confidence of the laity, and therefore it was that the laity did not contribute towards the sufficient endowment of their clergy. There seemed, moreover, to exist in the Episcopal Church of Scotland a considerable degree of intolerance towards other communions. Looking, then, to the past history and to the present state of the Episcopalian Church of Scotland, he had no hope. There seemed to be upon it a blight of internal division and of intolerance towards those without. When he read of Bishops using a little while ago language like this—that to suppose that the sacraments could be administered by Presbyterians descended from Presbyterians so as to be valid was an article not only the most mischievous, but the most rightly excommunicable; and when he found the Primus of the Scotch Episcopal Church, who, if not greatly changed from the time when he knew him, was a conciliatory and generous man, declaring that when there was set before the Presbyterians the light of the Episcopal Church, those who refused to join it were guilty of a sad and grievous sin, he had no hopes of that Church being productive of much good. He heartily felt that Episcopacy was a great blessing to our English Church. The more he read the more he was confirmed in that opinion; and he also felt deeply that he ought to be most careful how he excluded from the ministry of Christ's Church those who, agreeing with him in doctrine, differed from him in discipline. It was a fact, that those who entered the Church in Scotland were of inferior attainments to those of the same class in England. He could not but look upon it as one of the greatest perils threatening the Church of England, that they were compelled to admit into the Church men of inferior learning and attainments compared with the men admitted in times past. If, as the lower classes were increasing in intelligence and information, the clergy of the Church of England were to fall off in knowledge and education, the days of the Church of England would soon be numbered. Therefore, as he was obliged to admit to the ministry in his present diocese a far lower class of persons than he had done in Gloucester, so, as the standard became lower and lower as they went north, the Bishops of the Episcopal

  627
  Church of Scotland were obliged to admit candidates of an inferior class still, and he deprecated being compelled to open his diocese to the invasion of a number of clergymen less educated than those who were already admitted. He was speaking once to a Scotch Bishop, who told him that his examination questions would bear comparison with those of any Bishop of the Church of England. But that was not the point. The difference was not in the questions, but in the number answered, and the fulness of the answers. He deprecated exceedingly the opening of his diocese to a number of men worse educated than his own, and thus deteriorating the position and influence of the Church in his own diocese, and generally in England. Looking at it, therefore, whether as a question of justice to the clergymen of the Church of England, by taking from them the livings to which they were legally entitled, or as a question of doctrine which the Church of England had distinctly condemned, or to the mischief likely to result to his own and other dioceses from the passing of the Bill, he felt bound, however reluctantly, to move that the Bill be read a second time on that clay three months.
  Amendment moved, to leave out ("now") and insert ("this Day Three Months.")— (The Bishop of Durham.)
  THE ARCHBISHOP OF YORKsaid, as there was a very strong feeling against the Bill among the Bishops of his province, he thought he should hardly be doing his duty if he did not address a few words to their Lordships expressing his views upon the subject. He could not deny, in the first place, that the Bill appeared intended to remedy a real grievance; for a clergyman ordained in Scotland was in a worse position than even a Nonconformist minister, for the latter upon change of opinions might be ordained in England. But, at the same time, he confessed he did in some degree share the alarm which had been expressed. This question of the Scotch office was a very important one, and the Bill, if passed as it now stood, would undoubtedly be regarded as a theological triumph. He could not go further than this—namely, that if the Bill received any support from him it was to be distinctly understood that he did not regard that support as in any way sanctioning the Scotch office. He believed the Scotch Church would have done well when the
  628
  subject was under consideration if they had excluded the use of the Scotch Communion Service. The Bishops of the Church of England had no guarantee for the permanence of the Scotch canons, because the Church of Scotland could by her representatives alter them at the shortest notice, and might adopt this or that doctrinal error. Here was a Church which might change its whole foundation in a few years; and then, if the Bill passed, the Bishops of the Church of England would be practically bound to receive from the Scotch Church candidates for their livings. Then there was another question which arose concerning the curates of the Church of England. Those gentlemen were entitled to look forward with reasonable hope to a share in the benefices of the Church of England, and the effect of the Bill would be to admit a large and influential class to a share of an absolutely limited number of the rewards in the Church. The body of the Church of England knew nothing of this Bill; the general public knew nothing of it. For these reasons he viewed it with very great distrust; but, at the same time, he should venture to consent to the second reading, provided the noble Duke would be willing, as suggested by the noble Earl (Earl Granville), to refer the Bill to a Select Committee, on this understanding, that that course committed them to nothing more than this—that they admitted that the Scotch Episcopal clergy were subjected to an evil from which they ought to be relieved.
  LORD KINNAIRDsaid, that he was willing to assent to the second reading of the Bill on the understanding that it should be afterwards referred to a Select Committee.
  THE BISHOP OF LONDONsaid, he desired to state in a few words why he thought the present Bill Was worthy of their Lordships' support. He would be the last to advocate intercommunion or near association with the Scottish Episcopal Church as proposed by the noble Duke, if he believed that his right rev. Brother (the Bishop of Durham) had correctly represented that body, or if he thought that any danger would ensue to the learning or doctrines of the Church of England. In reference to this proposal, he thought, however, they had also to consider the bearing of the Bill on the northern division of the United Kingdom. He did not believe that there was any

  629
  possibility of satisfying the large number of persons who were attached to the liturgy and doctrines of the Church of England, and who now lived in Scotland, without cementing the union between the two churches. The Scottish Episcopal Church, whatever else might be said of it, was the only distinct representative in Scotland of the doctrines which they, as members of the Church of England, professed; and was the only body which afforded to those persons the opportunity of worshipping God according to the forms of the Church of England; for the congregations which represented the old qualified Episcopalians, and claimed to be independent of the Scottish Bishops, were too few to be of much importance, His right rev. Brother appeared to dread an invasion of illiterate persons from Scotland into the Church of England, as the result of the measure proposed by the noble Duke. On that point it was interesting to know the practice pursued, He held in his hand a letter from a person who had been ordained in Scotland, who laboured under the disability complained of, and who desired, if possible, to officiate in England. This gentleman stated, that no person could be ordained by a Scotch Bishop unless he possessed an University degree, or a theological degree from the College of Glenalmond; and that out of seven persons who presented themselves at Glenalmond for matriculation, at the same time with himself, three were rejected, and that these three afterwards, before he had completed his college course, received ordination in the Church of England within either the dioceses of Durham or Carlisle. He granted that their case was an exceptional one. But it might help to dispel his right rev. Brother's alarm, as to the comparative qualifications of Scottish and English clergy in matters of literature. The most important point was undoubtedly the matter of doctrine, and he did most sincerely regret that the authorities of the Scottish Episcopal Church did not see their way last year entirely to rid themselves of the Scottish office. He was not quite sure, however, that it was the Scottish members of the Scottish Episcopal Church, after all, who maintained this Scottish office. There were a good many eminent and distinguished scholars who held high office in the Scottish Episcopal Church, but it had also been the habit for persons very troublesome in the Church of England
  630
  to take refuge in Scotland where they could obtain more of their own way. It was for the very purpose of breaking up this small clique that he desired there should be more free intercommunion with the Church of England. He believed that if they could see their way to such an arrangement as that proposed by this measure after it had been well ventilated, the result would probably be that the Scottish Episcopal Church would give up its eccentricities of doctrine. At any rate he thought the subject deserved to be thoroughly investigated, and he earnestly trusted that the noble Duke would accede to the request, and that the Bill would be read a second time on the distinct understanding that it would be submitted to a Select Committee.
  THE EARL OF AIRLIEwas understood to express pleasure at the fact that the majority of the Episcopal bench did not intend to oppose the Bill.
  THE BISHOP OF CARLISLEsaid, that one of the consequences of this measure would be to give the sanction and authority of the Legislature and of the Church of England to an extreme party in the Scottish Episcopal Church. What possible security had they that if this Bill passed things would remain on the comparatively moderate basis which at present existed? He feared that further alterations would be demanded. Since 1811 the canons of the Scottish Episcopal Church had undergone five alterations. If they threw the whole weight of the Legislature into the scale in favour of the extreme party in the Scottish Episcopal Church, they would be giving great discouragement to a numerous body of men in Scotland who would gladly put themselves under the control of that Church if they did not consider its doctrines unsound. He was afraid that the passing of the present Bill would inundate the Church of England with a class of men different in many respects from the present clergy of that Church. In his own diocese he had 103 livings worth less than £100 a year each—how would the working clergy of the Church of England be placed if a flood of fresh candidates for these benefices should be admitted. In the name of the working clergy of England he protested against the Bill.
  THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCHsaid, he felt that it was impossible to dispose of a measure of this kind by a debate in that House, and he would therefore accept the

  631
  suggestion of his noble Friend the Lord President.
  THE EARL OF HARROWBYsaid, that by assenting upon the present occasion to the second reading of the Bill, they would not be pledging themselves to the adoption of its principle; and there were many considerations connected with the measure which could only be discussed in a Select Committee.
  THE BISHOP OF OXFORDsaid, he could not sympathize with the views which had been taken by some of his right rev. Brethren. The tone in which the measure had been opposed by some of them far exceeded what was necessary for guarding the ranks of the clergy of the Church of England from possible injury. He thought this Bill did require such guards, and he trusted that in Committee they would be introduced; but, at the same time, he had not the slightest apprehension of the inundation and flood of unenlightened men from the North which had so frightened his right rev. Brethren. His right rev. Brother who presided over the diocese of London gave an amusing turn to the argument, and the best proof that there was no danger of an invasion of extreme ignorance was that of a man who, failing a Scotch bishopric, obtained an English one. It was important that Bishop Horsley's words should not be misunderstood. That prelate declared that we had no right to interfere with the Scottish people, and therefore we had no right to ordain a Scottish chaplain against the will of a Scottish bishop. He could not sympathize with the narrow objection that had been raised as affecting the endowments of the Church of England. These endowments were certainly the patrimony of the Church, and what they wanted was that they should have the best furnished ministers of Christ to minister to Christ's people. It was not by keeping the endowments of each particular province to the clergy of it, and preventing the circulation of well-prepared men, that the Church of England would be made strong. As to the doctrinal point, he had himself a particular objection to the office spoken of; but he believed that, so far from tending to Rome, it was more remote from Rome than our own. An intimate friend of his, who was particularly learned in such matters, objected to our fraternising with the Scottish Episcopal Church, because her position in that matter was so ultra-Protestant that it would be attended with a danger of our injuring the
  632
  Catholic feeling of the Church of England. The critical point of the doctrine of transubstantiation was that by the use of the prayer of consecration an essential change took place in the elements. But if such a change took place it would be a contradiction in terms to pray afterwards for the descent of the Spirit in order to accomplish that result. He believed that one great danger to the Church of England arose from the narrowing effect of her insular position; and if the sacred deposit of Divine truth could be guided undefiled he should be glad to see her welcoming on every side sister Christian Churches with sisterly affection.
  Amendment (by Leave of the House) withdrawn: then the original Motion agreed to: Bill read 2a accordingly, and referred to a Select Committee.
  And, on May 30, the Lords following were named of the Committee; the Committee to meet on Thursday, June 2, at Four o'clock; and to appoint their own Chairman:—
  L. Abp. Canterbury, Ld. Chancellor, L. Abp. York, L. Abp. Armagh, Ld. President, D. Richmond, D. Devonshire, D. Marlborough, E. Derby, E. Doncaster, E. Shaftesbury, E. Airlie, E. Carnarvon, E. Wicklow, E. Powis, E. Nelson, L. Bp. London, L. Bp. Durham, L. Bp. Oxford, L. Lyttelton, L. Redesdale, L. Rossie, L. Overstone, L. Cranworth.

  ECCLESIASTICAL COURTS AND REGISTRIES (IRELAND) BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill for the Union of the Diocesan Courts and Registries in Ireland, for the Regulation of the Mode of Procedure therein and also in the Metropolitan Courts of Armagh and Dublin, and for Appeals therefrom — Was presented by The ARCHBISHOP of ARMAGH; and read 1a. (No. 96).
  House adjourned at a quarter before Eight o'clock, till To-morrow, half past Ten o'clock.