Sitting of 7 August 1866

METROPOLIS—RIOTS IN HYDE PARK.

  QUESTION.
  MR. P. A. TAYLORsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been called to a report of a decision by Mr. Knox at Marlborough Street in a case of violence proved to have been exercised by a policeman against a person not inside,
  2134
  nor seeking to enter, the Park; the summons having been discharged with these words—
  "Do not blame the constable who has given you a chance blow, but blame those who turned loose the scum and refuse of the town on the peaceable inhabitants."
  MR. WALPOLE,in reply, said, his attention had not been called to that particular case until the hon. Gentleman put his Notice on the Paper; but that day he had inquired into the matter, and had read the whole of the report of the case. The question which the hon. Member had put to him would convey a false impression as to what had actually taken place. What took place on that occasion was not, as the question would seem to imply, that the person referred to was not mixed up with the riot at the time, but the magistrate gave a very clear exposition of the law, quoting the highest authority, and pointing out that it was the duty of the police when any riotous proceedings occurred to put them down, and to use force for that purpose if necessary. The observations with which the question closed would, he thought, bear a very different aspect from that which it seemed to bear as it stood, if it were taken in connection with the preceding remarks of the magistrate, who said—
  "With reference to the evidence given by the defendant, I think it completely contradicts the evidence given by the witnesses for the prosecution. There was a tumultuous mob which the constable was engaged in dispersing. He was in the execution of his duty, and the summons must be discharged. He would say to the prosecutor before he left the Court, should he find himself in the position of being present where riotous proceedings were going on—don't blame the constable who has given you a chance blow, but blame those who turned loose the scum and refuse of the town on the peaceable inhabitants."

  ARMY—CAVALRY BARRACKS NOTTINGHAM.—QUESTION.
  MR. OSBORNEsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, If he is about to take any steps for the erection of new Cavalry Barracks at Nottingham?
  GENERAL PEEL: Sir, it was decided some three or four years ago to give up Nottingham as a station for cavalry. The intention of building barracks there, for which a site was purchased and the plans prepared, has consequently been abandoned.

IMPURE STATE OF THE RIVER LEA.

  QUESTION.
  MR. MONKsaid, he wished to ask the

  2135
  Vice President of the Privy Council, Whether his attention has been called to the alleged impure state of the River Lea, whence the principal supply of water is drawn by the East London Waterworks Company for the inhabitants of Bow and Stratford; and, if so, whether he has taken, or is prepared to take, any measures to prevent the pollution of the river above the source of such supply?
  MR. CORRY,in reply, said, there was no reason to suppose that the water of the River Lea above Enfield was more impure than that of other rivers from which the supply of water for London was derived. From the Report of Mr. Rawlinson, the eminent engineer, who had been appointed by the Privy Council to investigate the condition of the waterworks of the Company at Enfield, it appeared that the water was not exposed to any noxious influence, after passing through the filtering beds of the Company, until its discharge into the private cisterns. The last analysis, he might add, showed that the water was as free from organic matter as that of other Companies. In consequence of complaints which had been made of the insufficient supply of water furnished by the East London Waterworks Company, a letter had been written from the Privy Council Office, calling the attention of the secretary of the Company to the matter, and suggesting that the times of service should be longer and more frequent. But the Privy Council have no power to enforce obedience to these suggestions on such subjects.

  SOUTH AMERICAN MEAT.—QUESTION.
  MR. OLIPHANTsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether the diplomatic agents in South America have made any reports on the various schemes which are understood to be in progress for curing meat for the British Market; and if such reports have been made, whether copies of the same will be laid before Parliament?
  LORD STANLEY: I have, Sir, one report from Buenos Ayres, which was no doubt written with the intention that it should be made public. I shall have no objection to lay it, or any other similar report which I may receive, on the table.

  METROPOLIS—SHOREDITCH WORK-HOUSE.—QUESTION.
  MR. OLIPHANTsaid, he wished to ask the President of the Poor Law Board,
  2136
  Whether there would be any objection to lay before the House Copies of the Correspondence between Mr. Hart and the Poor Law Board, and the Poor Law Board and the Shoreditch Guardians, as to the complaints of Edward Wynne, an inmate, concerning cruelty alleged to have been committed in the infirmary of the Shore-ditch Workhouse; and also, whether he proposes to hold an official inquiry touching those complaints, seeing that no satisfactory investigation has been made into them by the Board of Guardians?
  MR. GATHORNE HARDYsaid, with reference to the subject to which the hon. Gentleman called his attention, the correspondence was in progress at the time he (Mr. Hardy) came to the Poor Law Board. As he thought the House would like to hear the circumstances of the cases involved, he would state them as briefly as he could. It appeared that a pauper, whilst an inmate of the workhouse, wrote a letter to a local paper in Shoreditch, which letter contained an account of three cases of alleged cruelty which had taken place in the workhouse. The one was the case of a woman who, it was stated, had been left suffering from the pains of labour, standing for an unreasonable time at the door before she was taken into the ward. The second was the case of a man who was described as being left with insufficient clothing, and kept sitting up at a time when he ought to have been in bed. The third appeared to be the most serious case of any. It was that of a man who it was alleged had been exceedingly ill-used and struck by a stick by the wardsman on account of his filthy habits. Immediately after the publication of this letter it appeared that Mr. Hart called the attention of the Poor Law Board to the statements contained therein. A letter was accordingly written to the Poor Law Guardians requesting them to institute inquiries into the truth of these allegations. The Guardians did institute such inquiry, and had Edward Wynne brought before them. On being asked certain questions regarding his statements, Wynne appeared to a certain extent to decline giving information as to some of those cases. In respect to the woman referred to, as the matter occurred two years ago, it was found impossible to identify the case. In respect to the man said to have been kept sitting up in a chair without proper clothing, it was proved that the medical officers had recommended that particular treatment in order to prevent

  2137
  him getting bed sores; and that he had a rug on his shoulders which had accidently fallen off, and was seen lying beside him. In respect to the third case, the circumstances were somewhat different. When his (Mr. Hardy's) attention was first called to it he directed an inquiry to take place respecting it. He had seen the evidence that morning, and it seemed to him, upon the admission of the wards-man himself, that he did use harsh treatment to the man in question, being provoked to do so by his extremely filthy habits. He (Mr. Hardy), therefore, thought it is duty to write a letter to the Guardians, calling their attention to his conduct, and expressing the opinion that he was not a fit person to be intrusted with the care of others. With respect to the question of the hon. Gentleman as to whether lie (Mr. Hardy) proposed to hold an official inquiry touching those complaints, it should be recollected that the circumstances alluded to took place in 1864, when the Guardians had themselves inquired into them, but had experienced great difficulty in identifying those transactions. There had been no complaint made by the supposed injured parties, and it was only in consequence of the publication of the letter of the man Wynne that the attention of the authorities had been called to those transactions. It must be also borne in mind that the Guardians who were in office two years ago were not the Guardians now in office. It seemed to him therefore that an official investigation into the cases would now be wholly unnecessary. With respect to the papers asked for, if the hon. Gentleman thought them worth having they would be produced. At the same time, he (Mr. Hardy) did not think that it would be wise to load the table with a correspondence which would lead to no useful result.

METROPOLIS—ST. PAUL'S CATHEDRAL.

  QUESTION.
  CAPTAIN GRIDLEYsaid, he wished to ask the First Commissioner of Works, If he will direct his attention to the mutilated condition of some of the public Monuments in St. Paul's Cathedral (particularly those of Admiral Lord Rodney, General Sir William Ponsonby, and General Hay), with the view to their reparation?
  LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, in reply, that the Question of the hon. and gallant Gentleman assumed that the public monuments in St. Paul's Cathedral were
  2138
  under the charge of the Office of Works. He had made inquiries, but he had not been able to find anything in the archives of the Office which would show that such was the case. He would, however, make further inquiry, and if it should turn out that the monuments in St. Paul's Cathedral were under the charge of the Office of Works, undoubtedly he should direct his attention to those monuments which were so far mutilated as to require reparation.
  CAPTAIN GRIDLEYsaid, he would beg to ask the noble Lord, whether, in the event of its appearing that this was a matter not within the jurisdiction of the First Commissioner of Works, he would call the attention of the Dean and Chapter of St. Paul's to the state of those monuments, which were a national disgrace?
  LORD JOHN MANNERSwas understood to say that he did not think it was for him to call upon the Dean and Chapter. He could not give an answer to that question.

  CATTLE PLAGUE—LOSSES FROM THE RINDERPEST.—QUESTION.
  MR. BIDDULPHsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If he can state definitely whether any measure is likely to be introduced for the purpose of compensating those persons who incurred losses from the Rinderpest before the Compensation Act was passed?
  MR. WALPOLEreplied that the Returns on the subject were not yet completed. He had, however, been in communication with his noble Friend the President of the Council, and they concurred in the opinion that the Returns were so far completed that they might, before the close of the Session, be in a position to state their views generally with respect to it.

NAVY—NAVAL COAST VOLUNTEERS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. H. BERKELEY,in rising to put a question to the Government with reference to the Royal Naval Coast Volunteers, said, that as he wanted to make a short statement, he would place himself in order by concluding with a Motion. The Force from which the navy was supplied, was derived from three sources — the Continuous Service Men, the Naval Reserve, generally able-bodied seamen, and the Naval Coast Volunteers, who were for the most part fishermen and were employed in the coasting trade, who, though not in the first class of able seamen, were consi-

  2139
  dered to be a most efficient body of men, who lived on the sea shore, and might be said to fringe the coast all round Great Britain and Ireland. The Royal Naval Volunteers were established by the late Sir James Graham. There was one particular clause in the Act, regulating the force, which made the service extremely popular not only to the men, but to the families of those engaged in it. By that clause it was made a condition that the Royal Naval Coast Volunteers should not be sent on foreign service, or, in other words, should not be sent beyond 300 miles from the coast of Great Britain and Ireland. The force was so popular that its ranks filled admirably, and it seemed likely to fulfil its destined purpose; but in the last Session of Parliament the Duke of Somerset and Lord Clarence Paget came down to Parliament for the purpose of repealing that clause, which was the very spirit of the Act. As to the effect of that proceeding, he was content to take the declaration made by Lord Clarence Paget, who, in the course of the present year, stated that the Force was entirely ruined by the removal of the clause referred to.
  MR. SPEAKERintimated that the hon. Member was out of order in referring to a debate which had taken place during the present Session.
  MR. H. BERKELEYsaid, he would beg to explain that he was not stating where Lord Clarence Paget made the declaration; but, nevertheless, such a declaration was made by that noble Lord, and the reason assigned for the removal of the clause was that if one of Her Majesty's ships with these Volunteers on board chased an enemy's cruiser, that ship dared not, under the clause, chase such cruiser beyond 300 miles from the coast. Now, he thought it manifested very little knowledge of the character of English seamen to suppose that if those men saw an enemy's ship of war which they had a chance of fighting and making a prize of they would not chase her 3,000 miles if called upon without raising any difficulty. Still, the Force was constituted for the defence of the coast, and the Admiralty would do wrong, unless on the first intimation of war they recalled these Volunteers, and placed them where they were intended to be for the defence of the coast, in flotillas and harbour vessels or floating batteries, as might be deemed best. Under these circumstances, he wished to know, Whether the Admiralty would take this subject into their consideration?
  ADMIRAL SEYMOURsaid, the Force had for the last two or three years remained stationary—that of 5,000 men. The reason why they were less this year arose from more care being taken in the selection of the men. The subject, however, would have the consideration of the Board of Admiralty during the recess.

  CASE OF NEVILLE MASKELYNE TOOMER.—QUESTION.
  MR. NEATEsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he had received a Memorial respecting the case of the convict Toomer; and, if so, what course is intended to be pursued in consequence?
  MR. WALPOLEreplied, that he had received a memorial respecting the case, and having read it, and the evidence taken in Court, he felt it his duty to request the learned Judge who tried the prisoner to communicate a copy of his notes. Until those notes were sent he was not prepared to decide on the course to be taken.

  IMPERIAL GUARANTEES—TURKISH LOAN.—MOTION FOR A RETURN.
  MR. HUBBARD,in rising to move for a Return of Imperial Guarantees, showing the date and extent of each, the amount paid, and the amount for which the country is still liable (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 599, of Session 1860) and to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it is true, as reported, that the Turkish Government had failed to provide the interest and redemption fund due on the 1st of August upon the £5,000,000 loan contracted in 1855 under the conjoint guarantee of England and France; and, in the event of such default, in what manner Her Majesty's Government proposed to fulfil their guarantee, whether by the liquidation of the drawn bonds, or by reviving them as titles to the interest guaranteed by the two Powers, said: The House would recollect that in 1855, in the midst of the Crimean War, the Government of Lord Palmerston asked the consent of the House to a Resolution, and afterwards to an Act of Parliament, for guaranteeing a loan of £5,000,000 to the Turkish Government, with interest at the rate of 4 per cent, payable half yearly. In addition a sinking fund of 1 per cent per annum, together with interest on so much of the loan as should from time to time be redeemed, was to be applied in the redemption of the capital, and the loan

  2141
  was to be under the joint guarantee of the Governments of England and France. The subject was debated at considerable length. The Bill was passed, and the contract was taken, on the 20th August 1855, by the house of Rothschild and Sons. The terms were £102 12 s. 6d. for every £100 of the loan. The price was considered very high at the time, but, compared with the price of Government Securities and Consols, the bargain could not be supposed a very bad one for the contractors. From time to time capital and interest of the loan had been paid as stipulated, but the public had been informed by the ordinary channels of information, that on the 1st of August last, though the interest on the bonds was paid, the bonds which were drawn for redemption were not paid. Feeling a great interest in this loan as a Commissioner of the Royal Patriotic Fund, which was nearly the largest holder, he inquired particularly into the reason of this defalcation, and he found that the Turkish Government had provided neither for the payment of interest nor of capital, but that Her Majesty's Government had provided for the interest. Of course, this hesitation in the entire fulfilment of the engagements entered into was a source of considerable disquiet to those interested in the loan. According to the popular understanding of the terms of the loan it was believed, and such was the impression of the very eminent house who made the contract, and of those who had taken a portion of the loan when it was tendered for, that the Governments of England and France would, in the case of default, put themselves in the position of the borrower, and fulfil all the engagements made; but on referring to the documents issued on the occasion of the contract, he found passages therein which raised a doubt as to the way in which the guarantee of England and France was to be carried out. The 9th clause of the statement respecting the conditions of the loan ran thus—
  "The sinking fund will be applied from year to year, commencing on the 1st of August, 1859, either in the purchase of certificates of the loan in the public market, or, at the option of the Ottoman Government, in paying off at par such certificates as shall be drawn by lot in the presence of the chief cashier and chief accountant of the Bank of England, on some one day in the month of May next immediately preceding the 1st of August in each year. The interest on the certificates so drawn, together with the capital, will be payable on the 1st of August next following such drawing, after which day all interest on the certificates so drawn will cease altogether."
  2142
  The House would observe that the proposals issued by the Turkish Government, with perfect publicity, through the instrumentality of the Bank of England, must be considered decisive, and established the contract between that Government and the bondholders; and nothing was more distinct than the engagement with reference to the sinking fund. But the House would observe that the engagement of our own Government did not appear to refer to anything but the interest, and that view was certainly confirmed by the clauses of the Act itself, which was passed in August, 1855, notwithstanding the more comprehensive language of the Preamble. After reciting the Articles of the Convention, the Preamble ran thus—
  "Their Majesties the Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and the Emperor of the French, being desirous to save the Sublime Porte the expenses of remittance, consent to undertake to transmit to the Ottoman Government the proceeds of the above-mentioned loan of five millions sterling, to be raised under the conjoint guarantee of their Majesties."
  These words, reciting that the loan was to be raised under the conjoint guarantee, if taken alone would leave no doubt that the whole scope and compass of the loan was to be matter of conjoint guarantee. But in the clauses of the Act the guarantee seemed strictly limited to the interest. The first clause ran thus—
  "It shall be lawful for Her Majesty and she is hereby authorized to guarantee, jointly with His Majesty the Emperor of the French, and severally, the interest on the loan to be raised by His Imperial Majesty the Sultan, not exceeding interest at the rate of four pounds per centum per annum on a sum of five millions of pounds sterling, upon the terms and conditions set forth in the said convention."
  Therefore, while on the one hand nothing was more clear than that the guarantee was meant to apply to the whole obligation, on the other, when they came to the question of legislation, there was nothing to authorize the Government to issue money except as payment of the interest. This contrariety might be explained by reference to the discussions which preceded the Act. In introducing the loan to the House of Commons, Lord Palmerston said—
  "Her Majesty's Government engages to recommend to Parliament to guarantee one-half of that loan (£5,000,000), the other half to be guaranteed by France."—[3 Hansard, cxxxix. 674.]
  That was the original intention—this Government was to guarantee one-half, and the French Government the other; but, at the instance of the French Government, the guarantee was made common.

  2143
  Therefore, the noble Lord said afterwards, "it is to be a joint guarantee of the whole." In regard to the extent of the guarantee, Lord Granville said most explicitly and distinctly—
  "Undoubtedly this country will be responsible to the creditor for the whole sum (£5,000,000)." —[3 Hansard, cxxxix. 850.]
  Sir George Lewis, at that time Chancellor of the Exchequer, had the conduct of the Bill, and always insisted that we guaranteed, not the capital, but the interest. He said—
  "Is it likely that the French Government would have consented, in addition to the loan which they had advertised, to call for an addition of £2,500,000, in order to lend that money to the Turkish Government? Are we ourselves in a position now, after the engagements we made on contracting the loan in the spring, to go into the market to borrow £2,500,000, in order to advance it to Turkey?"—[3 Hansard, cxxxix. 1467.]
  In that respect Mr. Cardwell made the following reply:—
  "The Chancellor of the Exchequer said in reply, You imagine we have guaranteed the principal, but we have only guaranteed the interest.' I should like to know the difference between guaranteeing principal and interest and guaranteeing interminable annuity." — [3 Hansard, cxxxix. 1255.]
  And Mr. Gladstone, who took a very active part in the discussion, said—.
  "The financial mischief may be limited within the figure £5,000,000, which, great as it is, can well be borne by the gigantic resources of this country."—[3 Hansard, cxxxix. 1306.]
  He went on to say—
  "His first feeling was one of satisfaction that there was no guarantee of the sinking fund, which appeared to him an extension of what he regarded as an inexpedient and mischievous principle; but when he looked further, he found that guaranteeing the sinking fund was really a contraction of the mischief. They were going to guarantee interest at 4 per cent on £5,000,000, and that £5,000,000, which would cost them more than the price for which average English credit would obtain money in the market, might be paid off at a given rate through the sinking fund. Taking the average of times, this country could borrow at less than 4 per cent; and therefore it would be advantageous if we could relieve ourselves from an engagement to pay 4 per cent. It appeared to him plainly for the interest of the two Powers that the sinking fund also should be guaranteed."—[3 Hansard, cxxxix. 1493.]
  He did not find the name of a single Gentleman deserving the name of a statesman in favour of the Bill. Sir George Lewis supported it officially, and the hon. Gentleman the Member for Southwark (Mr. Layard) made an enthusiastic speech in its favour. The late Chancellor of the Exchequer and the present Chancellor of the Exchequer were both opposed to the
  2144
  scheme, and the words of prophecy uttered by the latter right hon. Gentleman had been fulfilled. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire (Mr. Disraeli) said on that occasion—
  "I look upon the proposed guarantee in this case as not merely an engagement to fulfil, but as one which we shall certainly be called upon to fulfil."—[3 Hansard, cxxxix. 1240.]
  The credit of the country once engaged, there should be no suspense on a matter of such moment, and the Government should, therefore, lose no time in deciding how they were going to fulfil their guarantee. There could be no doubt there had been indefensible carelessness in the official advisers of the Government in the drawing up of this Act of Parliament. This was the state of the case which he had to bring before the notice of the House and of the Government, and he need hardly remark that it added another to the many illustrations we had already had of the extreme inexpediency, he might indeed say the extreme folly, of this country going out of its way for an object which was by no means one of national interest, to involve ourselves in loans for foreign Powers in whose prosperity and stability we had no possible concern. In a previous Session, when he called the attention of the House to a most undesirable proceeding—the issue of a letter by Lord Russell commending the prosperity and good management of the Ottoman Empire as a reason why English capitalists should lend money for a new Turkish loan — Lord Palmerston met him, as was always his custom, with the assertion that it was the duty of this country to support our old and valued ally. He was satisfied, however, that if it were the wish of this country to support the Ottoman Empire, we could not have taken a more mischievous course than that of enabling it to borrow; for, just as a perfect savage was destroyed by being taught to drink, so a half-civilized savage was destroyed by being taught to borrow. This was what had been done in the case of Turkey, and no subsidies or advances that we could make would preserve the vitality of so corrupt an Empire. But, whatever might happen to the Ottoman Porte, the interest of English capitalists and the honour of the English Government had to be considered, and that honour was pledged to the fulfilment of the guarantee. Of course, France would have to be consulted, and he might remark that the

  2145
  clause in the bond inserted by France explicitly guaranteed the principal of the loan, whereas England guaranteed only the interest upon it. He had no wish to press Her Majesty's Government for a decision which they might yet be hardly in a position to announce, for it was a matter in which they could scarcely, with satisfaction to themselves or our ally, come to a resolution without conferring with France. He would, therefore, merely ask the Government to take an early opportunity of concerting with the Emperor of the French the mode in which the defalcation was to be met, either now or at any future time; and, in the meantime, to give an assurance that they would do all in their power speedily to remove from the bondholders the very disagreeable feeling of doubt and uncertainty which now hung over an investment which they had made under strong pressure by the English Government.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Sir, of course there will be no opposition to the Return which has been moved for by my hon. Friend, who has, with his usual perspicuity, brought before the House a rather complicated question. I think the House must fully understand, after my hon. Friend's statement, a matter which really on the surface is by no means clear. I will proceed to reply to the question of my hon. Friend, as far as I think it consistent with the public convenience to do so. It is quite true, as my hon. Friend well knows, that the Turkish Government have failed to provide the interest and redemption fund, due on the 1st of August, on the loan of £5,000,000, which was contracted by Turkey in 1855, under the joint guarantee of France and England; but I feel it my duty to add that we have had information from the Turkish Ambassador that he has received a telegraphic message from his Government, announcing that the sums necessary both for the interest and the sinking fund have been transmitted from Constantinople, and may be expected to arrive in this country in a few days. Of course that, as far as it goes, is satisfactory; but it does not dispose of the question which my hon. Friend has put, and I may state that when the default in the payment of the interest by the Porte was announced, Her Majesty's Government directed that the interest guaranteed by England, in conjunction with France, should be immediately paid. With regard to the second point which my hon. Friend
  2146
  has brought before the House—namely, whether, in the event of default, in what manner Her Majesty's Government propose to fulfil their guarantee, whether by the liquidation of the drawn bonds, or by receiving them as entitled to the interest guaranteed by the two Powers—my hon. Friend has anticipated, and very properly anticipated, my reply to that part of his inquiry. Of course it would not be becoming in me to give an opinion upon such a subject until Her Majesty's Government have had an opportunity of conferring with our ally. All that I can say, therefore, at present is that we shall take those steps which, under the circumstances, we deem expedient, and I will let my hon. Friend know what the result of our deliberations with our ally may be, and also what steps we shall take after that result has become known.
  Motion agreed to.
  Return ordered, "of Imperial Guarantees, showing the date and extent of each; the amount paid; and the amount for which the Country is still liable (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 599, of Session 1860)."—(Mr. Hubbard.)

NAVIGATION LAWS.

  MOTION FOR PAPERS.
  MR. AYRTON,who rose, pursuant to notice, to call the attention of the House to the negotiations for the abolition of the Navigation Laws in foreign countries, and to move for Papers relating thereto, remarked, that sixteen years ago Parliament took away all protection from the shipping interests of this country by the abolition of the Navigation Laws. Neighbouring States, however, could not at that time be induced to follow our example; and it was not till 1860 that Mr. Lindsay, then a Member of that House, proposed an Address to the Crown praying Her Majesty to negotiate with France for the modification of its Navigation Laws, and the repeal of the differential duties imposed on commodities imported in British ships. The Government accordingly communicated with our Ambassador at Paris, but Mr. Cobden, who was then in France negotiating the supplementary convention for carrying into effect the treaty which he had previously concluded, advised the Government, on being appealed to, not to pursue the subject any further. He stated that the opposition of the protective inte-

  2147
  rests in France already presented a formidable obstacle to a satisfactory settlement of the treaty, and that a proposal to abandon the existing restrictions on navigation would awaken hostility in quarters hitherto favourable. Owing to that advice no steps were taken in the matter, and Lord Cowley, when, at the end of the year Earl Russell again called his attention to it, replied that no advantage would arise from then pressing the French Government on the subject. Most men would have desisted after such discouragement, but Mr. Lindsay took the energetic step of going over to France, and, being very courteously seconded by Earl Russell, he had an interview with the Emperor, and placed before him the whole subject of the Navigation Laws of France, and their relations to the industry of that country. The result was that the Emperor became the first convert to the expediency of dealing with the question, and at his request a very able document was drawn up by Mr. Lindsay, and submitted by the Emperor to his Minister of Commerce, M. Rouher. The Minister, after frequent interviews with Mr. Lindsay during a period of sixteen months, recommended that a Commission should be appointed, and that Commission, being furnished by Mr. Lindsay and by other gentlemen in this country with evidence showing the advantages that would accrue from a modification or repeal of the Navigation Laws, reported in favour of such repeal. The French Legislature, he was informed, had consequently passed a measure abrogating those laws, and repealing or reducing to a nominal sum the duties hitherto imposed on ships constructed in foreign countries, and brought to France for the purpose of being registered as French vessels. They bad thus struck at the very root of the protective system, and very important results might be expected from such a step. The effect of the recent changes in the laws of France relating to shipping would be almost as advantageous to this country as was that of Mr. Cobden's treaty. It would be desirable that the French law effecting those changes should be laid upon the table, and therefore he moved for the production of papers relating to this question. The efforts of Mr. Lindsay to obtain some relaxation of the Navigation Laws in Spain and Portugal had not been properly followed up by our diplomatic representatives in those countries; neither had any steps been taken by the Foreign Office to give effect to the
  2148
  Address unanimously agreed to by the House in 1860. The noble Lord had a great opportunity before him for dealing with this subject, because it was probable that Spain and Portugal might be willing to follow the example of relaxing these laws that had been set them by France. He had referred particularly to the part taken by Mr. Lindsay in inducing the French Government to modify their Navigation Laws, because it was remarkable that in a case where diplomatic efforts had failed a private shipowner should, by merely bringing his intelligence to bear upon the subject, have carried it to a successful conclusion. He begged to move for Papers relating to the negotiations for the abolition of the Navigation Laws in foreign countries.
  MR. ALDERMAN LUSKseconded the Motion, and in doing so stated that the shipping owners of this country had many grievances to contend against; and he hoped the noble Lord would seriously turn his attention to the removal of them.
  LORD STANLEY: I quite agree with the hon. Gentleman as to the opinion he has expressed that it is desirable that the Navigation Laws throughout Europe should be relaxed, if not altogether abrogated. I think that is a point upon which no difference of opinion can exist in this country. The only question we have to determine is how that abrogation or relaxation is to be brought about, and to what extent diplomatic exertions are likely to be successful in inducing foreign Governments to assent to the changes in their laws that we desire to see effected. I do not myself attach much weight to negotiations upon this subject, as foreign countries would hardly repeal their Navigation Laws for the sake of pleasing us, and I think that the example of this country, and the success that has attended the abrogation of our Navigation Laws, afford an argument better than any we could direct our representatives to make use of. At the same time, there is no doubt that there is good in keeping the subject, from time to time, before the eye and before the mind of foreign Governments. I do not think that great activity has been shown during the last two or three years in reference to this question. As to France, I understand that what has been done is this—A provision has been made for the progressive reduction of differential duties, and, as I understand, after a certain time, they will be totally abolished.

  2149
  The decree by which that change is made comes into operation at the commencement of next year. As to the decree itself, it is a public document, and therefore there can be no objection to lay it upon the table of the House. With regard to the correspondence, the hon. Member will, I am sure, not misunderstand me when I say that I should like to look into it before I say whether or not it can be produced. The hon. Member has correctly stated that all attempts in a diplomatic way which have been made to obtain a reduction of the differential duties against foreign flags in Spain and Portugal have been unsuccessful. Nothing that I am aware of has been done by either of those countries. I quite agree with the hon. Gentleman that the example of France will, in all probability, carry very great weight with those countries, and I shall be glad if that be the case. It is desirable that every opportunity should be taken by our Ministers to urge upon foreign Governments the necessity for repealing their Navigation Laws; but there is some danger in pressing this matter too hard, for if we do so, foreign Governments might imagine that we were anxious to bring about that which would be to the advantage of England rather than that which would be to the general benefit. It is possible to lose a good bargain by showing too much anxiety for it. I have not much faith in the power of persuasion, but I have great faith in the power of example, and I think that the example of France in this matter will have a good effect upon the other Continental nations. I will take care that the attention of our diplomatic body is directed to this subject, and I trust that at no distant date some progress will be made in reference to this matter.
  Motion agreed to.
  Copy ordered, "of any Papers or Correspondence relative to the abolition of the Navigation Laws in Foreign Countries." —(Mr. Ayrton.)

  PUBLIC SCHOOLS BILL. [Lords.]
  [BILL 212.] SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  MR. GOSCHENsaid, it was with very considerable regret that he moved that the order for the second reading of this Bill be discharged. Considerable difference of
  2150
  opinion with regard to the Bill had been expressed in the other House, and it would be impossible in the brief remainder of the Session to pass it through that House. It would be recollected that a Commission which had been appointed to consider the question of the condition of Public Schools had made their Report in 1864—and that a Select Committee of the House of Lords had discussed the matter in the course of last year. The present Bill had then been introduced. With the exception of one Amendment proposed in the House of Lords, curtailing the powers given to the Executive Commission for reforming the Governing Bodies of schools, the Bill had been well received by all parties. Had the second reading of the Bill, however, been proceeded with, he should have moved in Committee the omission of the clause to which he had just referred, because he believed the clause would seriously injure the working of the Bill. The Bill dealt with many important matters, such as the foundations and endowments of public schools, the regulation of the studies and the appointment of the head masters, and every other subject of importance connected with the seven public schools which the Bill would have affected—namely, Eton, Winchester, Harrow, Rugby, Charterhouse, Westminster, and Shrewsbury. Some objection was urged against the Bill in the interests of each of these schools, and it would therefore have been unfair to have attempted, in the face of objections entitled to consideration, to hurry the Bill through Parliament at so late a period of the Session. In Eton, for example, there was a question as to interference with the Governing Body; in Harrow and Rugby the foundations feared that their privileges would be interfered with, and would most seriously have opposed the clauses which in their opinion effected that object. The hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets objected to Westminster and the Charterhouse being included in the Bill; and with respect to Shrewsbury, the question of patronage as regarded St. John's College would have been raised. Under these circumstances he withdrew the Bill, but the subject was one the importance of which could not be exaggerated, and he trusted it would receive the attention of Her Majesty's Government during the recess.
  MR. NEATEhad serious objections to the Bill, the further progress of which he should have opposed, because he believed

  2151
  it would have tended to deprive the middle classes of the few advantages which they were entitled to receive from the public schools of the country, instead of tending, as it ought to have done, to bring the schools more within the reach of those classes. He thought also, however he might shock some nerves by the avowal, that the time had at last come when they should consider whether Greek and Latin were indispensable elements of a useful education. He was of opinion that this subject should be considered in connection with the Report that might be soon expected to make its appearance upon middle class schools, and also in reference to the question of the administration of the Universities, and how far, generally speaking, our present system of education fulfils the purpose of the founders, and what was of greater importance, the wants of the present age.
  MR. AYRTONhad not objected to the insertion of Westminster and the Charter-house down in the Bill, his objection had been that no inquiry bad been made as to the connection which existed between those schools and the education of the metropolis. The go-by had been given completely to that subject, and so strongly had he felt the omission that he had communicated with a Member of the late Government, who had consented to the appointment of a Select Committee to inquire into this omitted topic in the Commissioners' Report. He objected to the whole system of the metropolitan schools, and he quite agreed with the hon. Member for Oxford that the time had come when they ought to consider whether the whole educational resources of the country were to be wasted in endeavouring to teach boys Greek and Latin—he said endeavouring, for as a matter of fact, we did not succeed in that object, whilst we neglected that technical education which was attended with such surprising results on the Continent. They saw what technical education had done for the Prussian army, and knew that it would be impossible for us to put an army in the field with similar advantages. He hoped that larger views of the question would be taken in the next attempt at legislation.
  Order discharged.

  METROPOLITAN COMMONS BILL.
  (Mr. Cowper, Mr. Childers.)

  [BILL 211.] LORDS' AMEMDMENTS.
  MR. COWPER,in moving that the
  2152
  Lords' Amendments to this Bill be considered and agreed to, said, that the effect of them would be to limit the operation of the measure to the metropolis. He regretted this, as he thought that it might usefully have been introduced to all parts of the kingdom.
  Lords Amendments to be considered forthwith.
  Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to, and several consequential Amendments made to the Bill.

  TURNPIKE ACTS CONTINUANCE BILL.
  (Mr. Secretary Walpole, Mr. Hunt.)

  [BILL 229.] LORDS' AMENDMENTS.
  MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, he could not help feeling that the House of Lords had struck out one clause relating to compensation to be paid to surveyors and other officers connected with the turnpike trusts without a full knowledge of the circumstances under which the clause was introduced. He trusted the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary would give the House some assurance that the subject should receive careful attention before the Act was put into operation.
  MR. WALPOLEsaid, the fullest consideration should be given to the subject. Undoubtedly some of the officers, such as surveyors, were entitled to compensation, but there was a question as to whether a distinction should not be drawn between those officers and others who were not placed in the same position or under the same circumstances.
  MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, that after the assurance he had received he should not attempt to oppose the Amendment.
  Lords Amendments to be considered forthwith.
  Lords Amendments agreed to.
  House adjourned at a quarter before Seven o'clock till Friday.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—Second Reading —Indemnity (284).
Committee—Habeas Corpus Suspension (Ireland) Act Continuance ٭(276); Patriotic Fund ٭ (277); Indemnity (284).
Report—Habeas Corpus Suspension (Ireland) Act Continuance ٭ (276); Patriotic Fund٭ (277).
Third Reading—Cattle Diseases Prevention Act Amendment (No. 2)٭ (262); Court of Session (Scotland)٭ (230); Turnpike Trusts Arrangements ٭ (247); Poor Law Amendment ٭ (248); Aberdeen Provisional Order Confirmation ٭ (234); Inclosure (No. 2)٭ (236); Public Libraries Act Amendment ٭ (279); Turnpike Acts Continuance٭ (280); Local Government Supplemental (No. 4) ٭ (254); Railways (Ireland) Temporary Advances ٭ (255); Bills of Sale Act (1854) Amendment٭ (256); Oysters Cultivation (Ireland)٭ (257); Naval Discipline٭ (258); Dockyard Extensions ٭ (259); Consolidated Fund (Appropriation)٭; Landed Estates Court, &c. (Ireland) ٭ (260); Now Zealand ٭
2126
(261); Prisons ٭ (263); Industrial Schools ٭ (282); Reformatory Schools ٭ (281); Common Law Courts (Fees and Salaries) ٭ (271); Expiring Laws Continuance ٭ (272); Constabulary Force (Ireland) ٭ (278); Indemnity (284), and passed.
Royal Assent— Public Health [29 &30 Vict. c. 90].

LONDON, CHATHAM, AND DOVER RAILWAY (NEW LINES, &c.) BILL.

  THIRD READING.
  LORD REDESDALE,in moving the third reading of this Bill, thought it necessary to make a few remarks upon a question which was of great public importance. A Notice of Motion for the suspension of the Standing Orders had been given by his noble Friend opposite (the Marquess of Clanricarde), with a view to the introduction of Amendments, the object of which was to create out of the existing income of the Company a separate fund upon which a loan of £1,000,000 was to be raised; and, as he understood, these clauses had received the approval of the Board of Trade. Now the income of the Company was insufficient to pay its existing debt, and the proceedings which had been taken in the Court of Chancery showed most distinctly that such was the case. Their Lordships would, therefore, see that it was impossible to listen to an application the effect of which would divert from its proper object the money which was now pledged to the payment of interest upon certain debentures already existing. In order to create a new fund an additional income should be raised and an additional burden thrown upon the Company. It would be impossible to carry on the affairs of companies with a just regard to the interest of their creditors if such a course of proceeding were allowed, and he therefore felt it his duty to decline to sanction the introduction of the Amendments to which he had referred.
  THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDE,in explanation, said, it had been represented to him that if the proposition to which his noble Friend the Chairman of Committees alluded were sanctioned by Parliament, it would be of the greatest use to the Company, and the opinion of the Board of Trade was that the object for which these clauses had been drawn up was desirable. Without knowing anything of the particulars of the case himself, or intending to take any Motion on the subject on his own account, he had

  2127
  thought that an opportunity ought to be afforded to any noble Lord who might think proper to do so of submitting the matter to the consideration of Parliament by moving the clauses which the Company desired to have introduced into the Bill. It was with that view that he had given notice for the suspension of the Standing Orders, which would be a necessary proceeding in such a case. He, however, quite agreed that the course proposed could not be permitted unless it received the sanction of all existing creditors. No such assent was alleged, and therefore he was not disposed to press the matter.
  Order for taking into Consideration the Standing Order No. 179. sect. 6 in order to its being dispensed with; read, and discharged; Bill read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

  INDEMNITY BILL—(No. 284.)
  (The Earl & Derby.)

  SECOND READING. THIRD READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  THE EARL OF DERBY: My Lords, I hope there will be no objection to the renewal of this Bill; but I hope also that this will be, if not the last, yet very nearly the last time, that such a Bill will be necessary. The whole question of oaths is at present under the consideration of a Commission, and I hope that the Report of that Commission will be such that no oaths need in future be imposed, except those which all persons may take conscientiously and without difficulty. It is not very creditable to our legislation that we should pass Acts requiring oaths to be taken, and then year after year pass other Acts dispensing with those oaths. Of course, however, at this present time several persons are still subject to penalties imposed by the existing law, and I hope therefore that your Lordships will assent to the passing of this Bill of Indemnity.
  Bill read 2a (according to Order); Committee negatived; Standing Orders Nos. 37 and 38 considered (according to Order) and dispensed with; Bill read 3a and passed.

PRIVATE BILLS.

  STANDING ORDERS AMENDED.
  The following Amendments made to the Standing Orders relating to railway companies:—
  "In Standing Order 184, see. 3, after ("£20,") add ("or for a sum which is not a multiple of £10,") that a clause be inserted in each Railway Bill in which, after the Fact of the Deposit having been made and the Amount paid as stated in the Schedule, it shall be enacted to the effect that the depositors may receive any interest from time to time paid on any securities while so deposited, and that so soon as it shall be proved to the satisfaction of the Board of Trade that the company has paid up such a sum as, together with the deposit, amounts to one-half of their authorized share capital, and has expended that amount on their undertaking, it shall be lawful for the company to withdraw the sum deposited for the purpose of the undertaking, and thereupon they shall issue shares to the contributors and their assigns to the amount represented by their respective contributions; that the above requirements shall not apply to any incorporated railway company seeking power to construct new works, provided that the new capital to be raised is not greater than the existing authorized capital of the company, and provided that the company is paying a dividend upon its ordinary stock. For companies so exempted the present £50 a day penalty shall be retained until the same shall amount to 8 per cent on the estimated cost of the works, together with interest at the rate of 5 per cent on the balance from time to time remaining unpaid from the date of the final payment.
  "In Standing Order No. 189, sec. 14, p. 45, after the word 'traffic' in line 7, insert or until the sum received in respect of such penalty shall amount to 8 per cent on the estimated cost of the works; together with interest at the rate of 5 per cent on the balance from time to time remaining unpaid from the date of the Act to the date of the final payment.'"—(The Chairman of Committees.)
  Motion agreed to:—Standing Orders amended accordingly.

  RITUALISM IN THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND.—QUESTION.
  THE MARQUESS OF WESTMEATII, who had given notice—
  "To inquire whether the Lord Bishop of London, having delivered an address on the 17th of February last alleging that certain persons had taken upon themselves to alter the whole appearance of the Lord's Supper, beginning with one indication and ending with another, which, if it meant anything, spoke of the idolatrous worship of the consecrated elements, and that it was not to be denied that some are engaged in a conspiracy to bring back our Church to the state in which it was before the Reformation, any proceedings are to be taken during the recess to test that conspiracy, and to bring the authors of it to justice,"

  2129
  said, that the proceedings of the Tractarian party had been already discussed in that House, but no steps having been taken to provide a remedy, he felt it his duty to give the notice which was on their Lordships' Minutes. His attention had been called to a remarkable document in the shape of a reply by the Bishop of London to an address presented to him by sixteen rural deans and 220 clergymen of the arch-deaconry of Middlesex, on the 17th of February last, in which he said that—
  "Certain persons have taken upon themselves so to alter the whole external appearance of the celebration of the Lord's Supper as to make it scarcely distinguishable from the Roman Mass, and they endeavour on all occasions to introduce into the other services some change of vestment or ornament quite alien to the established English usage of 300 years."
  The object of this was to make the transition easy, the step downward from the Church of England to the Church of Rome. The Lord Bishop further said—
  "I fear it cannot be denied that a few are engaged in a conspiracy to bring back our Church to the state in which it was before the Reformation."
  This was a serious charge, and, coming from one in the Bishop of London's high position, there could be no doubt that he had strong grounds for the accusation, and it should certainly be followed by action to preserve the people from the conspirators. He would ask their Lordships to consider the manner in which the working of this conspiracy was laid down by the Bishop, who used these words—
  "Beginning with the use of lighted candles during the daylight at the administration of the Holy Communion, some men have gone on to incense, and the distinctive Roman habits and prostrations which, if they mean anything, speak of an idolatrous worship of the consecrated elements."
  It surely was a reproach that this idolatrous worship should be allowed in the Reformed Church of England; but when the introducers of it were clergymen who were solemnly pledged to drive away all strange and erroneous doctrine, then the conspiracy became one of an alarming character, and all due means should have been taken for its repression. The sentiments contained in this reply of the Lord Bishop were soon afterwards reiterated in an address delivered by his Lordship in Convocation in the presence of several other Prelates. And here he could assure their Lordships that he felt it necessary to use the most precise and particular language when
  2130
  speaking of any one holding such a high office in the Church, and more especially in his absence, for he regretted that the Bishop was not in his place to give any explanations on the subject. That, however, was not his (the Marquess of Westmeath's) fault. He had given notice of the Question, and the Bishop was not present to supply their Lordships with information as to the conspiracy which he admitted was in existence. In the address delivered by the Bishop in Convocation, he said—
  "I have heard of a distinguished divine of very calm mind being present at one of the churches where these practices were resorted to with a view of satisfying himself as to what was going on, being so shocked that he felt he could not, without a compromise of all that was dear to him, partake of the Lord's Supper at the hands of the persons who were officiating, so like was it to the Roman fashion."
  Here, then, was another convincing token that the scheme to draw away the people to Roman Catholic rites was nothing less than a conspiracy. In another passage the Bishop pointed out the injurious consequences to the laity in these words—
  "If our attention is to be directed to such matters of dispute as we have now been considering, I fear our influence will be undermined, and that the laity will feel that they cannot worship in our parish churches without compromising their consciences."
  This was a peril so great that when matters had come to such a pass that the laity were in danger of alienation from the Church, the subject was well worthy their Lordships' attention. The Bishop further, addressing his brother Prelates, intimated that the proceedings carried on by the Puseyite clergy were so bad, that none of them dare be present at the Puseyite celebrations. These were his Lordship's words—
  "There is not one of your Lordships who would venture to take part in the administration in some of the churches where this extreme ritualism prevails. A clergyman in this position is estranged from his Bishop. He knows that he is doing that behind his Bishop's back which he could not do in his presence."
  From these remarks of the Bishop, who, doubtless, had good reasons for making them, it was plain that there was a mutiny in the camp; but instead of the chief officers in the Church putting the conspiracy down, they turned away, and allowed all the mischief to be done behind their backs. He would submit to their Lordships that if any excuse were required for referring to this most important subject, the words

  2131
  of the Bishop on the same occasion would be sufficient. The right rev. Prelate said—
  "But if I were a layman who felt my liberty infringed in this matter, I certainly should desire that ambiguous expressions in the present law should as soon as possible be rendered into intelligible language."
  That the law should be put in force against the conspirators was plainly the duty of some one, and the laity were waiting anxiously to see it done. It might be proper that he should submit to their Lordships some evidences that "the idolatrous worship of the consecrated elements," referred to by the Bishop, was openly taught in his Lordship's own diocese. He held in his hand a copy of a sermon by the Hon. and Rev. R. Liddell, Incumbent of St. Paul's, Knightsbridge, and preached in that church, and he would read one passage—
  "I will remind you "(said Mr. Liddell) " that the awful solemnity of the Christian churches culminating act of worship, in the celebration of the blessed Eucharist, consists in this, that we offer upon the Church's altars on earth the very counterpart of what Christ offers in the courts of heaven—that is, Himself. We believe that by consecration at the hands of His authorized priesthood, who in this act represent Him, the elements become in a mystery, yet not less really, what He pronounced them to be after his His own consecration—His own blessed body and blood."
  This was the doctrine preached publicly in London churches, and it was the doctrine of the Church of Rome, not of the Church of England; but nothing was done to call the preacher to account. He would now give their Lordships a later instance. He would quote from a sermon preached on the 5th of last month by the Rev. Warwick Wroth, Incumbent of St. Phillip's, Clerkenwell, and only just published, in which he says—
  "The great act we do, the Eucharistic oblation of the body and blood of Christ, is called our sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving."
  Their Lordships would observe the phrase, "oblation of the body and blood of Christ;" but there was no such oblation possible or recognized by the Church of England, and there were no altars or sacrificing priests. There was but one priest, and that the Great High Priest, who in the courts above made intercession for sinners. Therefore, all this was but a pretence to enable those Puseyite clergymen to pervert their flocks. He would now call attention to the language employed by Mr. Wroth with reference to "the Real Presence," the teaching of which doctrine was preliminary to
  2132
  the use of sacrificial vestments, which were presented and "offered on the altar" the following Sunday after the preaching of this sermon—
  "And it is on this account, dearly beloved, that now this congregation has been plainly taught the true Catholic faith regarding the Real Presence in the Holy Eucharist and the Eucharistic sacrifice, and I trust have all come to believe it, I think it right to comply with the request of many among you, and adopt on Sunday next those vestments which are ordered in the Rubric at the beginning of the Book of Common Prayer. I have exercised caution and waited long before adopting these vestments, though I believed them to be strictly legal, because until the true faith regarding the Holy Eucharist was believed, the meaning of vestments would not have been realized, and might have caused offence to many."
  Such was the ordinary language employed by several clergymen in the Bishop of London's own diocese, and the cases he had cited were proofs of a conspiracy to restore the doctrines of the Romish Mass. As Parliament was on the eve of adjourning he felt it his duty to inquire whether any, and what, steps were being taken to put down this treason in the Church of England?
  THE EARL OF DERBYagreed that as a notice of this kind had been given it might have been expected that the Bishop of London would have been present to explain the language which he had used. He was sure, however, that the noble Marquess would not expect him to follow him into the proceedings which had been referred to, and which were, if they answered the description given of them by the noble Marquess, certainly inconsistent with the simplicity of Protestant worship. At the same time, it must be recollected that great difficulty was felt by the Bishops in keeping the clergy within the bounds of moderation and discretion. He regretted the practices which had been alluded to, and which he believed were productive of a good deal of mischief; they alienated a great many from the Church, and gave rise to a great amount of dissension. The last time the matter was brought before their Lordships the Bishop of London, speaking for the right rev. Bench, stated that they had conferred upon the matter, and found that although some of these practices may be within the limits of the law there were others decidedly illegal, which could be put a stop to by legal process. They had made an intimation of that circumstance to the clergy, and informed them that it was their intention to

  2133
  call in the assistance of the law to enable them to put down the practices complained of; stating at the same time that they relied on the good sense and moderation of their subordinate clergy to relieve them from that responsibility. In the present case, he saw no reason for interference on the part of Her Majesty's Government unless some representation was made by the spiritual authorities that the case was one which absolutely called for intervention. He could not say more respecting the Question put by the noble Marquess, not expecting that he would be the person called upon to give an explanation on the subject.
  THE MARQUESS OF WESTMEATHobserved, that having ascertained that it would not be regular to address the question personally to the Bishop of London, he gave the notice in the terms entered on their Lordships' books; but as the right rev. Prelate had not thought fit to give the information required, he felt it his duty, previous to the adjournment of Parliament, to ascertain if any steps were to be taken to put down an admitted conspiracy, which was got up for no other purpose than to overthrow the Protestant religion. For his part, he considered that it was a case not to be dragged wearily through antiquated Ecclesiastical Courts, but settled by a proceeding at common law, which would submit the question to the decision of twelve honest jurymen. It was plain that something ought to be done, and it was from a sense of duty he brought the matter before their Lordships' House, and now the responsibility would rest on others.
  House adjourned at a quarter past Six o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter before Five o'clock.