Sitting of 11 June 1866

MINUTES.
NEW WRIT ISSUED—For Nottingham County (Southern Division), v. Lord Stanhope, now Earl of Chesterfield.
NEW MEMBER SWORN—John Esmonde, esquire, for Waterford County.
PUBLIC BILLS—Resolutions in Committee—Court of Chancery (Ireland) [Salary and Retired Allowances, &c.]
Ordered — British Columbia*; Church Rates Amendment.*
First Reading—British Columbia* [186]; Church Rates Amendment* [187].
Second Reading—Princess Mary of Cambridge's Annuity* [183]; Dogs* [181].
Committee—Representation of the People [68], and Re-distribution of Seats [138] [R.p.]; Reformatory Schools* [184]; Industrial Schools* [185].
Report—Reformatory Schools* [184]; Industrial Schools* [185].
Withdrawn—Curragh of Kildare [136].

IRELAND—POSTAL DELAYS—QUESTION
MR. W. ORMSBY GOREsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, Why the mails arrived at Carrigallen and Killgyar Post offices later now than they did last year; and whether there is any intention of accelerating them, so as to avoid the inconvenience to which the public in that neighbourhood are now put?
MR. CHILDERS: In reply, Sir, to the hon. Gentleman, I have to state that I have ascertained that the mails arrive in the morning at Carrigallen at 8 25 and at Killygar at 9, and leave Killygar in the afternoon at 3 50 and Carrigallen at 4 30. These appear to me very reasonable arrangements as things go. It is true that last year they arrived a little earlier in the morning, but since then the Derry mails have been sent from Dublin by the direct express line, viâ Portadown and Omagh; and all country gentlemen know that when a mail service is taken off a roundabout route and put on a new direct line, the small towns on the former line must lose some advantages.

NAVY—MEDICAL OFFICERS.

  QUESTION.
  SIR JOHN HAYsaid, he rose to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty, Whether there is still any difficulty in obtaining the services of good medical officers for Her Majesty's Navy; how many assistant surgeons had entered the service since the

  115
  1st day of January; and what steps, if any, have been taken to carry out the recommendations of the Committee presided over by Admiral Sir A. Milne?
  MR. BARINGsaid, he regretted to state that it was found very difficult to obtain the services of good medical officers for the navy, only three having entered the service since the 1st of January. He hoped soon to be able to state what course the Government intend to adopt respecting the recommendations of the Committee presided over by Admiral Milne.
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, he wished to ask if it is the intention of the Admiralty to carry out the recommendations of that Committee?
  MR. BARINGreplied that a measure on the subject would be introduced in the course of a few days, and therefore it was at present unnecessary for him to enter into any details on the subject.

  CATTLE DISEASE—PLEURO-PNEU MONIA.—QUESTION.
  SIR JERVOISE JERVOISEsaid, he wished to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education, Whether it is true, as stated in answer to question 4,325 (Cattle Plague Commission), that as many as twelve cases of pleuro-pneumonia existed in one Dairy within six weeks: Question 4,426, that the London Dairies are never free from pleuro-pneumonia for many weeks together: Question 4,519, that Lord Granville's sheds have never been a month without it in the last four years; and, if so, what special measures have been taken to stamp out or isolate a disease said to be little less dangerous than the Cattle Plague?
  MR. BRUCEsaid, in reply, that the Government had not any means of testing the accuracy of the evidence given by witnesses before the Cattle Plague Commission. The powers possessed by the Privy Council hitherto had always been held to apply to diseases of an epidemic or infectious character, and not to chronic diseases—the class to which pleuro-pneumonia belonged. It might be doubted, therefore whether the Privy Council possessed the power of ordering the cattle so affected to be killed, which was, he supposed, the process of "Stamping out" contemplated by his hon. Friend. No application to insolate any diseased district had been made to the Privy Council, and, taking into account how wide-spread the disease was,
  116
  it was doubtful whether any measure of the kind would be effectual.

CERTIFYING SURGEON AT BATLEY.

  QUESTION.
  MR. H. F. BEAUMONTsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Why the appointment of certifying surgeon under the Factory Acts for the Batley district, vacant by death on the 16th day of April last, was delayed by the Inspector for a period of three weeks, and then filled by the nomination of a non-resident stranger, without the usual regard to the wishes of the millowners and manufacturers of the district, who supported the claims of resident candidates?
  SIR GEORGE GREY,in reply, said, the appointment of certifying surgeon under the Factory Acts was placed by law in the hands of the Inspector of Factories, and not of the Secretary of State. Upon inquiry he had ascertained that the delay was occasioned by a doubt entertained in the first instance whether any fresh appointment was necessary, or whether there might not be a re-distribution of offices. The gentlemen selected from among nine or ten candidates had been a certified surgeon in another district, and might therefore be considered experienced in the discharge of his duty. If any dissatisfaction were felt with his decisions, power existed to call in another opinion; but in no case had this ever been done.

  THE CHOLERA CONFERENCE— CONSTANTINOPLE.—QUESTION.
  SIR JERVOISE JERVOISEsaid, he wished to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, What progress towards a settlement of the question has been made since the objection was taken by the English, Russian, Turkish, and Persian representatives at the Cholera Conference, Constantinople, to the proposal of the French representative for the stoppage of all sea communication between Arabia and Egypt, and for the presence of several vessels of War in the Red Sea in case of another epidemic?
  MR. LAYARDreplied, that a Conference proposed by the representatives of nearly all the European nations had assembled at Constantinople to take into consideration the spread of the cholera from the East. The conference had come to certain Resolutions, and when they were

  117
  reduced to a convention, Her Majesty's Government would consider them, and see how far they could adopt the recommendation of the conference, and what steps could be taken to carry them out. Her Majesty's Government were of opinion that great evils would arise from the prohibition of the departure of the pilgrims from Jeddo. So long as it was known that the cholera prevailed in Arabia, Her Majesty's Government had no objection to the Turkish regulations for enforcing quarantine in the Red Sea, but they strongly deprecated the application to the pilgrims of any measures of exceptional severity. From the information which he had received he was led to believe that since the Commissioners had been sent to Arabia a considerable improvement had taken place at Mecca, and that a number of the causes which had led to the propagation of cholera had been removed.

  STATE OF EUROPE.—QUESTION.
  MR. K1NGLAKE: I have some Questions to put to the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer respecting the aspect of affairs on the Continent of Europe; and desiring to preface my questions by some few remarks, I undertake to place myself in order by concluding with a Motion. I take the liberty of addressing these questions to the Chancellor of the Exchequer rather than to my hon. Friend the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs, not only because the questions are of so great importance that the House has a right to expect an answer from a Member of the Cabinet, but also, I may say, because one of the questions which I propose to address to the right hon. Gentleman—namely, that which relates to the advice tendered by Her Majesty's Government to some of the disputing States—has reference not only to advice which may have passed in the ordinary way through the Foreign Office, but also to advice, not necessarily of an official kind, which may have been given by some Cabinet Minister other than by Lord Clarendon. The last accounts that have been received—not, I think, by telegram but by letter—give us some reason for fearing that almost at this moment the peace of Europe may have been broken; because it appears that it was the intention of the Austrian Commander to convoke the Estates of Holstein not at the place originally intended, but at Altona, which is a suburb of Hamburg, and
  118
  apprehensions exist that the Prussian Commander will interfere with the assembling of the Estates, and prevent them from nominating, as it was supposed they would do if left to themselves, the Duke of Augustenburg. Now, Sir, in this condition of things I think it is right that the House of Commons should have an opportunity of expressing an opinion on the subject; but I shall take care, as far as I am concerned, that no word shall fall from me tending in the slightest degree to aggravate the feelings unfortunately now existing between the parties. The first thing that strikes one looking at this impending war is, that really there is not, as far as we know, anything which can be called a misunderstanding. On the part of Prussia—or rather I should say of Count Bismarck—there is an unveiled desire to obtain the annexation of the Elbe Duchies, and on the part of Italy there is an equally unveiled desire to appropriate the territory of Venetia. Each of those States has, so far, one merit—that is, of being free from all hypocrisy in the matter; and I own that up to the present moment—though we cannot tell what is passing to day—I have not thought the hope of maintaining peace was so desperate that the House of Commons should cease to take any interest in the negotiations preceding war, and be prepared to think only of the horrors which are to succeed those negotiations. There are several circumstances which I think might have enabled us to hope that what one may call the German quarrel, if it had stood alone, would now have been put an end to; because I think Count Bismarck must have found that he is encountered by the opinion of the whole of Germany—that he is encountered even by the opinion of the King's own subjects; and there have been symptoms of a similar feeling on the part of the troops; for, as the House must know, during the process of their being moved for the purposes of the war, the troops, when stopped on the march, have given indications of feelings strongly adverse to their own Government. In this state of circumstances Austria took the course of saying that she was willing to submit the whole question to the Bund. There is ground for supposing that the dispute might have been arranged if there were nothing but the German question to be settled, because, as far as that question was concerned, the two Powers were willing to go into a Conference. Prussia was willing and Austria was willing if there were nothing but the

  119
  German question; but another matter, which I am now approaching, has prevented the consideration of the German question by a Conference. It is a great mistake to suppose that a Conference or a Congress—for there is not much difference between the two—can do anything important in the way of depriving one State of territory and giving it to another. What a Congress or a Conference can do, is to arrange details. It would have been quite open to the Powers, if a Conference had assembled at Paris to come to such a determination on the mere question of the Duchies as would have put an end to the dispute. But, unfortunately, there was another element which entered into the discussion. The difficulty now is with regard to Venetia. I think it is most desirable for the House to understand the peculiar position in which Italy is placed at this moment. Italy, as a result of the Treaty of Villafranca, is placed in a position of peculiar impunity. She is enabled to threaten a Power greater than herself; because the frontier which divides her from that Power is one which was virtually guaranteed to her by France. The consequence is that Italy is so circumstanced as to have it in her power to act as a disturbing State in Europe, and to act in that way with impunity; because we all know that if Austria crosses the frontier into Lombardy she brings herself in contact with France. Well, in that state of things, Italy has to watch her opportunity. She has to watch her opportunity even when there is not a quarrel. There has been no quarrel, as far as I know, between Italy and Austria; but Italy awaits as her opportunity the moment when Austria shall be engaged in a conflict with some other Power. That moment seems to have arrived; and the result is—I think I am not too rash in making the statement—that Italy has signed a convention with Prussia involving an alliance, offensive and defensive, between those two Powers. This has taken place without any previous dispute between Italy and Austria, and therefore this singular result is presented—that in the event of a war between Austria and Italy it would be a war without a quarrel. Now I, for one, cannot say that I blame Italy for seizing this opportunity. We know that revolutions cannot be made with rosewater. Italy is engaged in an enter-prize; and forming a kingdom by taking provinces from other countries is an enter-prize
  120
  not to be executed without passing somewhat beyond the bounds of legality. I say, therefore, it is not for me, at all events, to blame Italy; but I think that refusing to blame Italy for seizing her opportunity is a very different thing from approving the conduct of other Powers which, from time to time, have encouraged her in taking a course which is now disturbing the peace of Europe. And when one comes to look at the extent to which these two aggressive Powers—if I may so call them—have been encouraged by bystanding Powers, I think we are enabled, as far as Her Majesty's Government is concerned, to be perfectly comfortable with regard to Prussia, at all events. I cannot imagine that any counsels other than those of a most pacific kind have ever been tendered to Prussia by Her Majesty's Government, and I believe there is no question that counsels of that kind have been tendered not merely in the ordinary way through the Foreign Office, but in the form which it was believed would be most likely to command the attention of the Prussian King. With regard to the extent of the encouragement which may have been given to Count Bismarck by the Government of France, very little has, as far as I know, transpired. What we do know is this, that Count Bismarck and the French Sovereign met, and that their meeting was not, I think, followed by any increase of aggressive activity on the part of Count Bismarck. At all events, it was not followed by any cessation of his enterprizes, and when we recollect what the declarations of the French Government have been we may perhaps conclude that nothing like a very careful engagement was necessary in the present state of the transactions on the Continent of Europe, because France has always frankly declared—and it is important for the House to bear this in mind—that in the event of any of the other Powers of Europe receiving aggrandizement of territory she then would deem herself entitled to redress the balance, and to take territory for herself. With regard to the encouragement given to Italy, all we know is, or all we believe is, that Italy has, at all events, been encouraged to arm and to remain armed by the Government of France. With respect to the encouragement given to Italy by England, I cannot believe that any direct encouragement to measures so directly tending to the disturbance of European peace could ever have been given by Her Majesty's Government,

  121
  or that any such thought could ever have occurred to them, but the giving of direct encouragement is not the only way in which Italy may have been incited to take her present course. Rumour tells us—and I speak of that kind of rumour which usually passes for the rumour of what is true and may be credited—that Her Majesty's Government has tendered advice to Austria for the cession of Venetia. Well, it may be said that if that advice is only given to Austria it could do no harm, and could have had nothing to do with the present disturbance of Europe. But I answer that transactions of that kind invariably become known in the diplomatic circles at the various capitals of Europe, and in this way I say that advice of such akind being given to Austria is encouragement and encouragement of the strongest nature addressed to the people of Italy. It is very true that this advice has not been taken, and certainly there never was advice less calculated to be taken. I should have thought that it was the duty of a great Power, when advising another, or when contemplating that course, to be above all things careful that it was advising something which was consistent with the interest of the advised Power, and especially careful that it was advising something which was consistent with the honour of the advised Power. Now, I cannot come to the conclusion that advice of this kind to Austria can answer either of these purposes. It appears to me that anything more crude than the notion of calling on Austria to surrender this immense province never entered into the mind of any statesman. Look at the naval importance of this territory. Why, it is half the seaboard of Austria. Now, imagine calling on a great Power, in these days when Powers look so eagerly for any fresh extension of their seaboard, to abandon half of the seaboard which she already possesses. In that point of view the proposition is startling, but when we come to look at it from a military point of view it is still more untenable. The form of the Julian Alps is such that no force less than one of 300,000 men can defend the frontier; but place a much smaller number of men in the plain below, on the site of the Quadrilateral, and there they can make good the frontier against all corners. This is not a mere military theory, but a thing which has been tried, and which has stood the test of experience. We well know that after the battle of Solferino the French army was stopped, and
  122
  stopped effectually, by the obstacle of the Quadrilateral, and I think I may say that at this moment we owe such peace as still exists to the existence of that Quadrilateral, for who that knows anything of Italy will doubt that if the Quadrilateral were out of the way some of the more enthusiastic of the people, led, perhaps, by Garibaldi or some other chief, would have been crossing the frontier and in that way engendered war. But the very existence of that nest of fortresses on the frontier has prevented any result of that kind. Now, it is a great error to suppose that Austria is retaining this stronghold simply for herself. To her, indeed, it is of vital importance, as we know, because whoever obtains possession of the Julian Alps as one party did in 1846, is, as it were, in sight of Vienna, and there is nothing to stop him from approaching that city. But Austria holds the Quadrilateral not simply for herself, but also for Germany, and it does so happen that Prussia herself in 1859 authoritatively laid it down that the nest of fortresses on the south of the Julian Alps was a German stronghold which Austria was bound to occupy in the interests of Germany. And it will be no exaggeration to add to that statement another—namely, that fortresses of that kind are a protection not merely to Austria and Germany, but also a safeguard for the maintenance of peace all over Europe. But if the proposal for inducing Austria to give up a rich province which is so important to her in a naval and a military point of view be extravagant, still more extravagant, I venture to say, is the principle on which Austria is asked to do so. What is that principle? It is the principle of nationality, which for the want of a better adjective I may call a Fenian principle. Now, when you ask a great Power to give up an important province on such a principle, is it not important to take into consideration whether the principle is one which is of any importance to her in other respects? What is the principle upon which the Austrian Empire is constructed? Is it not an Empire which is constructed upon the principle of holding together a vast number of territories differing from one another in point of nationality and in all other respects. It is the fate of Austria to hold these provinces, and if she once admitted the principle that she must give up Venetia because it is rather Italian in its notions than Austrian the same principle would apply to Hungary, Bohemia, and every territory that she has. Nor would the matter be adjourned. Supposing

  123
  Austria were to give up Venetia, the consequences of such a step would be felt almost immediately, because it so happens that other territories, not at present challenged, are also Italian in character, as, for instance, Trieste and the Tyrol. In all these cases the same principle would apply if Austria were induced to make the cession of Venetia. I say, therefore, that in asking a country to dislocate the arrangements of Europe by sacrifices of this kind, although you may be doing what is very amiable in one sense, and what is very popular, you are nevertheless taking a course which makes you disturbers of the peace of Europe. It may be that after great disasters, or even after great successes, Austria may be compelled or enabled to give up the province of Venetia, but in the meantime it is, as I believe, impossible even to raise the question without endangering the peace of Europe, and bringing about, or tending to bring about, the exact crisis in which we are now placed. Austria finding Venetia to be of this enormous importance, and being asked to come into a Conference, naturally took care to see whether in the Conference she would or would not be asked to give up that province. Upon this point I must ask from Her Majesty's Government some few words of explanation with regard to, I will not say change of policy, but change in the way of regarding questions of this kind which has obtained during the last two years. A proposal for a Congress was formally made to this Government two years ago, and we all remember the answer which Lord Russell made to that proposal. We all remember what I may perhaps call the pitiless logic with which Lord Russell spoke. Many Gentlemen on the other side of the House were of opinion, I think, that the noble Lord's despatch might have been couched in more courteous terms, but I believe that even they would have agreed that the conclusion expressed in the despatch was a sound one. It seems that from that conclusion we have now departed. Lord Russell then said, in his very first despatch, "Why are we to go into a Congress without knowing what is to happen there? Before we go into a Congress let us know, with respect to Venetia, whether Austria is willing to treat." On the present occasion, strange to say, but subject to any explanation we may yet receive, that precaution was altogether omitted; and the whole stress of
  124
  having to resist the proposed Conference was thrown upon Austria, who did as best she could under the circumstances. She applied to the proposal for a Conference a touchstone which was wonderfully operative. She said, "Before I consent to go into a Congress let me know that there is no intention on the part of any of those who have thus been called into Conference to aggrandize their estates." This test was fatal, and the idea of a Conference at once collapsed, the moment it was understood that the idea of aggrandizement was to be excluded from it. It was understood that the French Government first came to that conclusion, and that we agreed to it. Whether Russia did or not I cannot say, for I think it has been prematurely stated that Russia had taken that view. At all events, the opinion of the Powers was that the exclusion of the idea of aggrandizement was fatal to the whole proposal. In this state of things the Austrian Government has issued what appears to me to be a very able State paper, which I would commend to the attention of hon. Members who desire information upon this subject. I see it stated there is a question whether the document published in the newspapers is authentic, but I believe it is no secret now that the document, as it appeared in the papers, was perfectly authentic; and one can hardly imagine that so able a paper as that could have been forged, or that any one could have taken the trouble to impose upon us so admirable a paper. In that paper Austria states that she stands upon treaties, and she submits her belief that it is a not unbecoming duty on the part of the Great Powers, as far as their authority goes, to repress the hostile action of aggressive States; and, at all events, if that is not to be, that she is entitled to respect, and that she shall be left as free to defend as others are free to attack. She also states that she claims no help from other States. I submit that that is the spirit in which we ought to desire to see a State acting, if we are men of peace. I can quite understand the feelings of those who are so carried away by prospects of future improvement and by their sympathy for foreigners that they may desire to attain the object aimed at, even at the cost of a European war. But that is not our duty in this country, and we must endeavour, I humbly submit, to check those feelings of sympathy which at this moment have brought Europe to the verge of war. Depend upon it that

  125
  exactly as you desire the maintenance of peace, you must strive to avert all change of territory in Europe. The two things—the maintenance of peace and the change of territory—are not objects that are capable of being reconciled. With these remarks I venture to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer the questions of which I have given notice—namely, 1. Whether Her Majesty's Government can impart to the House any grounds for hoping that the peace of Europe may be preserved? 2. Whether the Government can communicate to the House any further information as to the reasons which induced the Courts of France and England to conclude that the proposed Conference could lead to no result? and, 3. Whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer can state the purport of any advice which may have been tendered by Her Majesty's Government within the last two months to the Governments of Austria, Prussia, and Italy?
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—(Mr. Kinglake.)
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: My hon. Friend was so good as to send to me on Friday afternoon notice of the three questions which he has just read; but he kindly refrained from putting them on that evening, because he was not desirous to interrupt the course of business, and we had some hope of resuming the discussion on the Reform Bill. This afternoon the hon. Member again intimated to me that it was his intention to ask those questions, but I did not gather from the note of my hon. Friend that it was his intention to accompany the proposal of the questions with any discussion, much less that it was his intention to make remarks covering so wide a field. I confess I am exceedingly reluctant to enter upon the general subject of those remarks, for my duty is to put to myself this inquiry:—To what good purpose can a discussion upon these subjects lead in the present conjuncture of affairs? Unfortunately, it is very difficult for me to remain entirely silent, first of all because in addition to the questions with which my hon. Friend concluded, he has distinctly challenged the conduct of the Government upon a particular point of very great importance. I should not feel that it was consistent with respect to the hon. Member or with respect to the House to pass by entirely what he
  126
  has said. At the same time I cannot refer to the subject, even as briefly end succinctly as I shall attempt to do, without doing it in a certain sense under protest, because I am not of opinion, and the Government are not of opinion, that good is likely to arise from a conversation of this kind in the actual state of affairs. My hon. Friend has stated that at the present moment, as he understands, the German quarrel might have been adjusted if it had not been for the differences existing with respect to Venetia. Whether that is the actual state of the case or not I will not undertake to say, as I do not know from what information my hon. Friend has spoken; but certainly it is not so as far as regards the information in the possession of Her Majesty's Government. The testing question proposed by Austria as the condition of her entering the Conference was a question which embraced the subject of the Duchies just as much as it embraced the subject of Venetia. If it was a criterion of the views of Italy as to whether she contemplated the acquisition of Venetia, it was just as much a criterion to determine whether or not Prussia had views of a similar character respecting the Duchies. Then, that is not all I have to say upon the subject, because another matter has come into the foreground and stands distinctly in advance of the Venetian question as connected with the present state of affairs—I mean the recession, so to call it, by Austria from the Treaty of Gastein, with reference to the question of the Elbe Duchies and the Diet, and the convocation of the Estates of Holstein; and, as far as we are acquainted with what has happened, it is that reference of the question of the Elbe Duchies to the Diet, and it is that convocation of the Estates of Holstein which are likely, if any circumstances are likely, to afford the immediate occasion of war. Consequently, there is not the least reason to suppose, so far as we are aware, that the Venetian question, with reference to the circumstances of the moment, is in a distinct and specific sense the question which threatens the peace of Europe, there being other questions which are in advance of it. My hon. Friend says that Italy has a frontier which enables her to act the part of a disturbing Power under the protection of France; but it is only fair to say, as far as we know—not entering at all into any question of intention, but confining ourselves simply to overt acts—Italy is not acting the part of a disturbing Power,

  127
  and no armament or other overt act on the part of Italy has tended to throw upon her the responsibility of aggravating by military measures the difficulties of the present state of affairs. My hon. Friend went on to speak of what he terms the bystanding Powers of France and England. It is not for me to defend in this place the conduct of the Government of France, nor do Her Majesty's Government profess to be apprised of everything that the French Government, may have said or done. Far less is it for me, on behalf of Her Majesty's Government, to impugn that conduct. I pass it by because the question does not arise in such a shape that we are called upon to deal with it. My hon. Friend referred, however, to the conduct of the other bystanding Power. First of all, he asks whether the British Government have given encouragement to Italy, and next, whether we have given advice to Austria. My hon. Friend acquits us of having directly encouraged Italy to contemplate or promote war at the present crisis. He might have gone a little further than that, because I am not aware of any encouragement, direct or indirect, singly, or in connection with any other Powers, which Italy can be said to have derived from any act or word of ours, tending to bring about a war on this occasion. But my hon. Friend says that we have advised Austria, and that if we have not given her official advice, yet in some other manner we have counselled Austria to surrender Venetia. My hon. Friend appears to be aware that the British Government, as a Government, has given no advice to Austria whatever. But he thinks and says, and rather makes it a matter of charge, that we have unofficially, irregularly, in some mode which he has not described, through some Members of the Government whom he has not named, made known to Austria the opinion of Her Majesty's Government, that it would be well if, compatibly with her honour, she could make arrangements for the cession of Venetia. Now, Sir, this is a charge upon which I feel very great difficulty in answering my hon. Friend, and for this plain, simple, unequivocal reason—that Austria has been perfectly well aware—eminently so for the last seven years, but, perhaps, in some considerable degree even before that time — that, as between one friendly Power and another, that was the opinion of the British Government. There has been no doubt or question at all about it. Not only was this the opinion of the present Government;
  128
  it was the opinion formed and expressed by Lord Palmerston in 1848. It is not the opinion of my hon. Friend; that opinion, I know, has been questioned in this House, but it is also an opinion that has from time to time been defended and maintained in this House. And since the present Administration was formed, now seven years ago, there never has been upon their part the smallest hesitation in giving utterance to that opinion, and in giving the reasons upon which they thought it might be defended. From that opinion I am not prepared in the slightest degree to recede. But I am sorry that the speech just addressed to the House has compelled me to refer to it. For at the present moment, when Austria is in a position of difficulty, there is something invidious and unkind in appearing to cast this advice in her teeth. It has been our earnest desire to behave not only with delicacy of feeling, but in every respect upon the strictest principles of friendship and goodwill towards Austria at all times, believing the maintenance of the Austrian Empire to be of the greatest importance to the peace and order of Europe. This has been our desire at other times, and most especially do we entertain it at the present time. If, indeed, my hon. Friend will go back to what happened one or two years ago, he will find there is no secret at all about the matter—it is upon record in official documents—that we deeply lamented, and, moreover, so far as we were entitled to do so, we decidedly condemned the course pursued by Austria in conjunction with Prussia towards the Elbe Duchies. But if we look at the recent posture of affairs with regard to these Duchies, we cannot fail to see that the cause of public right and the cause of justice has been to a great extent in the hands of Austria. It is therefore most painful to us to be called on to make any public declaration which, with reference to her position on another point of her frontier, might seem to discourage the pursuit by Austria of objects which we believe to be honourable. I think the House will to a considerable extent sympathize with the views entertained by Her Majesty's Government upon this question. We feel that it would be neither prudent nor honourable to invite or enter upon detailed expressions of opinion with reference to a question so peculiar as the position of Austria in the double quarrel which she is now carrying on—a quarrel respecting one portion of which I believe

  129
  she has the sympathies of this country, and as to another portion of which, that not being a matter which has arisen for the first time, but being a question of old standing, she undoubtedly does not possess that sympathy. Upon the whole, therefore, I think it is our duty to refrain from going over the ground on which my hon. Friend has entered. All that he has said about the naval importance of Venetia, of its preserving a seaboard for Austria, of its being German rather than Austrian, and about the advantage of Venetia as a German stronghold and as a safeguard to the peace of Europe—all these are matters which I only recite for the purpose of reserving on my own part and on the part of the Government the opinions that we may hold. I think that, under the circumstances, it is better to refrain from controverting anything stated by my hon. Friend. To express any concurrence with his opinion would not be in my power. But this one thing I will say. My hon. Friend attempted in the commencement of his speech to draw a parallel between the attitude of Austria in respect of Venetia and the attitude of Prussia in respect of the Elbe Duchies. Now, if that parallel be a true one we should never hesitate for one moment to apply to the case of Venetia the very same principles which we applied to the case of the Elbe Duchies. In Prussia my hon. Friend appears to see a Power desirous to annex to herself certain outlying territories against the will of the population of those territories. If such be the relation between Italy and Venetia we at once surrender Italy to the tender mercies of my hon. Friend, for Italy can have no right to seek for or desire the possession of Venetia, unless it be founded upon the feelings, the desires, the hopes, the convictions, the tradition of the Venetian people. There is, I think, only one other point alluded to by my hon. Friend upon which I need say a word—namely, the change of view which he imputes to Her Majesty's Government respecting the convocation of a Congress in Europe. He has referred to a period — now, I think, about two and a half years ago — when the Emperor of the French proposed to the Government that they should confer with the French Government in order to promote the meeting of a Congress. At that time, as he has truly said, the suggestion of the Emperor of the French was declined; and it was declined, if I may venture to speak from memory, upon this ground—that so far as regarded one
  130
  single question, there was indeed at that time a complication of affairs which threatened war, but there was no other question in Europe, beyond the single question of the Duchies which threatened the disturbance of the general peace. Our opinion was that the question of the Duchies would better be dealt with by concurrent action among the Powers communicating in the usual manner, than by the formalities and imposing machinery of a Congress. So far, therefore, as regarded the Duchies, it appeared to the British Government that a Congress was the least convenient method of proceeding, and having regard to the relations of other Powers, we thought at that time that a Congress was likely to do harm rather than good. But the present state of affairs is very different. It is not now the mere question of the Duchies that is at issue. The question of the Duchies was serious enough, but that question is now complicated with the far larger question which is to be the ruling Power in Germany, and with fundamental questions affecting the structure of the Germanic Confederation; while, at the same time, in conjunction with that very great subject, there is the difference between Austria and Italy on her southern frontier. At a period when Austria is threatened upon the north and upon the south—I use the word "threatened," but it would be more correct to say when Austria is engaged in questions which may lead to war both upon her northern and southern frontier—at such a period it is evidently no mere local question that is at issue, which was the case two and a half years ago when the Duchies were the subject of dispute, but whether there should be a general outbreak of war in Europe. Her Majesty's Government therefore, the proposal of the Emperor of the French being made, were certainly of opinion that at the time when there was a just apprehension of a European war, it behoved the friendly and allied Powers to consider whether they could do anything to avert such a dire disaster. I may also state that since the Treaty of Paris negotiation has assumed rather a different aspect. I do not mean to assert that whenever any Power, even though it has the great position and influence of France, proposes a European Congress, it is the duty of every other Power to accede to such a proposal. Each State still retains its own liberty of action in reference to the propriety and sufficiency of the course proposed. At the same time

  131
  it is certainly true that the tone of the negotiations carried on at the Congress of Paris in 1856 did amount to a sanction of the general principle of collective, peaceful intervention, by way of advice and recommendation, which is in itself a fact of such importance that no European State can be justified in ignoring it. I do not know whether my hon. Friend means to question the course we have taken in acceding to the suggestion of the French Government and in agreeing to promote a European Congress along with France. I do not know whether he objects to the course we have taken upon its merits, or whether he only thinks it inconsistent with what has been done on a former occasion. The inconsistency I have endeavoured to explain, whether satisfactorily or not I do not know; but that is comparatively a small question. I cannot entertain the least doubt that, with such dangers hanging over Europe as we have seen within the last two weeks, and with a firm conviction in our own minds that there were reasonable, wise, and honourable methods by which every one of those dangers could be averted, we should have been wholly without justification if we had hesitated for one moment to accede to the proposition made to us. I shall now, Sir, proceed to answer the questions which my hon. Friend has put to me. The first question of my hon. Friend is whether Her Majesty's Government can impart to the House any grounds for hoping that peace may be entertained. Sir, I am afraid that there are no grounds which can be alleged with confidence upon which we can build any solid expectations of that kind. But it appears that for the moment there has been an arrest of the military proceedings in Prussia. There has been a delay in the departure of the King from Berlin. But how far an expectation of peace may be founded on that circumstance I cannot venture to say, because I have no authority upon which I can found any opinion upon that subject. The next question of my hon. Friend was this—whether Her Majesty's Government can communicate to the House any further information as to the reasons that induced the Governments of France and England to conclude that the proposed Congress would lead to no result? Sir, I mentioned on a former occasion that the demands of Austria to be guaranteed against territorial changes was, in my belief, a sufficient ground; but I might also have mentioned—at any rate I
  132
  may now mention—that the reference by Austria of the question of Holstein to the German Diet has, in point of fact, contributed to place the matter in its present position. The two principal subjects—namely, the territorial questions and the German constitutional question—being in this manner, as we think, thrust out of the domain which the Congress would occupy, it appears to us, as it appeared to France and to Russia, that there was no practical purpose for which any combination of European Powers under the name of a Congress could be justly called upon to meet. And as respects advice, with regard to which my hon. Friend asks whether I can state to the House the purport of any which might have been tendered by Her Majesty's Government within the last two months to the Governments of Austria, Prussia, or Italy, I will only refer to what I have already stated, adding, however, that we have been rather chary of tendering single-handed advice with respect to which we could not be sure whether it would be otherwise of such authority as to make it likely to contribute towards the attainment of its end. Anything that has been said by Her Majesty's Government has been said in favour of moderation and peace. Our good offices, it was well known, were at all times at the service of the parties. Anything that we could do single-handed in the direction of avoiding bloodshed may have been little, but that little has been freely done. We have not, however, taken upon ourselves any responsibility beyond that which our position appeared fairly and legitimately to justify. We have thought that the collective action of European Powers in a case like this is a perfectly justifiable method of proceeding; it is an advance in civilization—at all events, it is an approximation towards a better system of public law, when the Powers of Europe having any difference among themselves show a disposition to recognize the mediation of friendly Powers. It is, however, a matter of deep concern and grief to us that the plan of a Conference should have failed to take effect owing to the obstacles which have interposed to prevent it.
  MR. DARBY GRIFFITHsaid, he wished to make some inquiries in relation to this subject from the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs. It appeared to be acknowledged that Austria had been advised to cede Venetia, and it was known that to this advice Austria had but one answer — what compensation are we to

  133
  have? Now, the question he wished to ask the hon. Gentleman was, what was the answer which Her Majesty's Government gave to this retort? It was said that compensation had been suggested to Austria in the Moldo-Wallachian provinces. He should be glad to elicit from the Under Secretary a denial of this statement. He must say that your Liberal Government showed great dexterity in shifting from one position to another, and the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary was quite an adept at the art.
  "Græculus esuriens in cœlum jusseris ibit."
  And so it was with his hon. Friend, who showed great skill in obeying his instructions. At one time he displayed a liberality which astonished the world; at another he was the ready champion of the most despotic of Governments. With regard to the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, he did not think that his explanation of the inconsistency of the Government with regard to a Congress now, and their rejection of the proposition two years ago, was satisfactory. The right hon. Gentleman said that two years ago they had only to settle the question of the Duchies. But was not the Polish question then before them? That was a question which was likely to involve the whole of Europe, and, in fact, was the question on which the Emperor of the French proposed the Congress. The simple fact was, that for years the difficulties of Austria had been the opportunity of Italy; and the present disturbed and threatening condition of Europe was only the result of what had taken place in the North of Europe. He was not disposed to blame Her Majesty's Government for the course they adopted with regard to either Congress, for he admitted the difficulties with which they had to deal. They might, perhaps, on the former occasion, have conducted the correspondence with greater courtesy, but the logic of their answer was confirmed by the experience of the present state of affairs. Questions of this kind, in which the passions, the hereditary feelings, and the pride of great nations were so mixed up, were not to be settled by half-a-dozen persons meeting together in Paris or London. He only now desired to be informed whether, when the advice was given to Austria to cede Venetia, it was proposed to give her territorial compensation in any other quarter?
  MR. BAILLIE COCHRANEsaid, he could not but express his very great regret at the most ungenerous conduct of the
  134
  Chancellor of the Exchequer in his reply to his hon. Friend. The right hon. Gentleman had gone out of his way to express a private opinion which he was not called upon to express. The questions had reference, of course, to the advice given to Austria by Members of the Government acting for the Government, and the right hon. Gentleman was not called upon at the present conjuncture to state that for several years the cession of Venetia had been privately recommended to Austria by Her Majesty's Government. The statement was not only ungenerous but injudicious, and calculated to do injury in the present juncture of affairs. Her Majesty's Government was to a very great extent responsible for the condition of Europe; and when he remembered that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was partly the creator of the Italian kingdom, he should have thought that the right hon. Gentleman would have taken an early opportunity of deprecating a policy so mischievous and dangerous to the peace of Europe as that pursued by the Italian Government. It would be found that the noble policy pursued by England of watching with indifference struggles on the Continent in which we perceived no immediate interest for ourselves was not, he believed, a policy that in the long run could add much to our honour or to our welfare. Could the right hon. Gentleman foresee the consequences of the outbreak of war? Where could they fix the limits within which it would be confined, and all the interests that would ultimately become involved in it? Was the Chancellor of the Exchequer aware that at this very moment 20,000 men were collected either at Civita Vecchia or at Rome? He had lately received a letter from Naples, and public opinion there was that should war break out these troops would be marched southward, and that the French would occupy the Neapolitan States. Was the House prepared to see the seaboard taken possession of by the French? He simply made this observation because it was impossible to foresee what might be the issue of the complications now existing on the Continent. He held that the course of the right hon. Gentleman would have been wiser and nobler if, notwithstanding his sympathies with the kingdom of Italy, and his dislike to the Government of Austria, he had candidly admitted the truth — namely, that the course pursued by Italy had led to all the present dangers, and that her position and

  135
  policy at the present moment were in violation of every principle of law and justice.
  MR. SANDFORDsaid, he thought the hon. Member for Bridgwater was entitled to the thanks of the House for having called attention to the great questions now pending in foreign affairs, before which the question of internal Reform which they were now discussing sank comparatively into a mere matter of parochial importance. The hon. Member had asked two questions, neither of which had the Chancellor of the Exchequer answered. The hon. Member did not ask whether Her Majesty's Government had been corresponding to stir up Italy as against Austria, or whether they had been tendering advice to Austria, but whether Members of the Government, in their private capacity, had not been writing notes to that effect; and if ho was rightly informed they had done so. Well, then, in answer to the hon. Member for Bridgwater, the Chancellor of the Exchequer replied that Her Majesty's Government in 1863 refused to enter into a Conference because there was only one subject at that time to be discussed. But upon this point the language of the right hon. Gentleman that night was precisely at variance with the language of Her Majesty's Government in 1863. Lord Russell, writing to Lord Cowley on the 12th of November, 1863, said—
  "He felt more apprehension than confidence from the meeting of a Congress without fixed objects, but ranging over the map of Europe, and exciting opinions and aspirations which they might find themselves unable either to gratify or to set at rest."
  Again, in a subsequent despatch to Lord Cowley, Lord Russell says—
  "But as it is intended to ask Austria to relinquish the possession of Venetia, Her Majesty's Government have good grounds to believe that no Austrian representative would attend a Congress where such a proposition was to be discussed. They are informed that if such a proposition were announced beforehand Austria would decline to attend the Congress, and that if the question were introduced without notice the Austrian Minister would quit the Assembly."
  There was another paragraph which he desired to read and to compare with the present language of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Lord Russell, writing to Lord Cowley, said—
  "It appears certain that the deliberations of the Congress would consist of demands and pretensions put forward by some and resisted by others; but as there would be no supreme authority in such an assembly to enforce the decision of the majority, the Congress would probably separate, leaving many of its members on worse terms with each other than when they met."
  136
  He now asked what circumstances had occurred to change the views expressed by the Government in 1866 from those set forth in 1863. The objects for which the Congress in 1863 was to have met were well known. The Emperor of the French had been perfectly explicit upon this point. In His Majesty's speech at Auxerre he distinctly stated that it was for the purpose of setting aside the Treaties of 1815. Now, he would be the last person in the world to say a word against the Emperor of the French, because he believed His Majesty was about the best friend England had in France, and because he had very good reason for believing that he wished to live in peace and amity with this country. At the same time he would point out that England was a Conservative Power—he used the word not in a party sense, but as being Conservative in the sense that it was her interest to preserve the peace and order of Europe, of which the Treaties of Vienna were the title deeds, while the interests of France were diametrically opposite. These were not merely his opinions, but the opinions of the head of Her Majesty's Government. Lord Russell himself, writing to Lord Cowley on the 12th of November, 1863, said—
  "If, instead of saying that the Treaty of Vienna has ceased to exist, and that it is destroyed, we inquire whether certain portions of it have been modified, we find that some of the modifications which have taken place have received the sanction of all the Great Powers, and now form part of the public law of Europe."
  And further on the noble Lord said—
  "It is the conviction of Her Majesty's Government that the main provisions of the Treaty of 1815 are in full force, that the greater number of its provisions have not been in any way disturbed, and that on these foundations rest the balance of power of Europe.
  These were the deliberate opinions of the head of Her Majesty's Government in 1863; and he wanted to know what had caused a change in their opinion in this matter. In 1866 they were willing to attend a Congress, the avowed object of which was to tear up the Treaty of Vienna, which Lord Russell in 1863 proclaimed to be the basis of public order in Europe. He hoped Her Majesty's Government would shortly lay upon the table of the House all the papers relating to the proposed Congress, because he desired to know the terms on which they acceded to it, the reasons which had induced them to change their opinions since 1863, and the cause of its being ultimately given up. He was rather surprised that the papers had not been

  137
  produced before. He could easily understand that it was the wish of the Government to preserve a discreet silence upon the subject, but it would be trifling with the House and the country if they failed to furnish the fullest and most ample information.
  SIR GEORGE BOWYERregretted that, in the present circumstances of Europe, the Chancellor of the Exchequer should have expressed an opinion on the part of the Government that Austria ought to give up Venetia. The right hon. Gentleman had told the House that the Government had not lately in an official manner communicated that opinion to Austria, because Austria was already fully aware of their opinion; but he wanted to know, not only whether the Government or any members of the Cabinet had in any way intimated that opinion to Austria, but whether the Government, in the private or surreptitious manner of which they were so fond, had intimated that opinion to the Court of Florence, or given that Court to understand that they would use their influence with Austria at the Conference, to induce her to give up Venetia? The papers would, he hoped, be all laid before Parliament; but he feared that there were private letters which would not be laid before Parliament, but which, like the postscript in a lady's letter, contained things of more moment than the public despatches. He regretted to observe a disposition to throw upon Austria the blame of the Conference not being held, but nothing could be more unjust. Austria could not, with any sense of dignity or justice, accede to any Conference in which the affairs of Venetia and the demands of the Court of Florence could be entertained. The Government itself must see that to entertain such a question must be subversive of the law of nations, on which the peace of Europe mainly depended. The very fact of the question being entertained at the Conference would have implied that Her Majesty's Government considered that the Court of Florence had some right to Venetia. He contended that the Court of Florence, or rather the King of Sardinia—for he would call him so still—had no more right to Venetia than he had to Middlesex. He founded that statement upon the existence of the most solemn engagements in repeated treaties, which, if set aside in this case, must lead to the utmost confusion of all notions of right or wrong between nations. Did they suppose that Austria could give up the Quadrilateral with any regard to her own safety? They all knew that
  138
  France could pour into Italy any number of troops in half an hour, and that when the tunnel through Mont Cenis was completed, she would be nearer still, and all that had occurred since the usurpation of the King of Sardinia had gone to prostrate Italy at the feet of France. The Quadrilateral was one of the bulwarks, not only against the encroachments of the Court of Florence, but also against the possibility of the encroachments of France. They all knew that Italy had no nationality, but was now a province of France. Italy had no real unity, for it was composed of discordant elements that would not be held together except by the force of arms. How, then, could Austria be expected to give up the Quadrilateral and open Germany to the attacks of France? He did not himself believe that the Emperor of the French could have any intention of disturbing Austria in the possession of Venetia, which she held originally, not under the Treaty of Vienna, but from the first Napoleon. If the cession of Venetia ought to be considered at the Conference, why not, also, the case of the Danubian Principalities? What had Venetia to do with the question of Schleswig-Holstein? The peace of Europe depended upon Schleswig-Holstein and not upon Venetia. Why were the rights of Austria sought to be compromised by a question not relevant to the matter at issue? To bring the question of Venetia into the Conference must be the greatest obstacle to the settlement of the Holstein difficulty. That question was troublesome enough of itself without bringing in the cession of Venetia. He was afraid it would turn out that it was Her Majesty's Government who were responsible for the failure of the Congress, and not Austria. The noble Lord (Earl Russell) when he was at the head of the Foreign Office was always very fond of giving advice to other nations how to manage their own affairs, and his policy was very well described by a noble Earl in the other House as a meddling and muddling policy. The present seemed another instance of this policy. If Her Majesty's Government must give advice, why did they not advise the Court of Florence to keep quiet and mind its own affairs? They were ruining themselves by the course they were pursuing, although he (Sir George Bowyer) cared very little for that. Their finances were a disgrace to Europe, and they were approaching a state of national bankruptcy. The Government

  139
  ought to have advised them to look at home, and especially to look at the South of Italy. If it were for the good of Austria to give up Venetia, it was ten times more desirable for the good of the Court of Florence that they should give up the Two Sicilies. If hon. Members would look at the correspondence of The Times of that very day, they would find it plainly asserted that what had been thought to be brigandage was not brigandage, but reaction; and that a guerilla warfare was being carried on. In the South of Italy there were actually committees of private persons whose business it was to hunt out people who were in any way suspected, and to accuse them to the authorities. They were then arrested and thrown into prison, where they suffered greater severities and hardships than were asserted to have been inflicted upon Poerio, the friend of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The King of Sardinia governed by force of arms in the South of Italy, where, according to the Government, he had been welcomed as a deliverer. If that were so, tranquillity would long since have been restored to the country. Year after year greater disinclination was displayed in the Neapolitan provinces to submit to the dominion of a people and of a King whose language they did not understand. The people of that country had always been greatly attached to their native princes, they wished to see those native princes restored, and by the progress of events they would be brought back again. Charles III., an ancestor of the present King of Naples, was still remembered and celebrated as a patriot, because he had delivered his country from the rule of the Spanish Viceroys. The condition of Naples at the present day was calculated to awaken sympathy. With a population of 600,000, and properly the fourth capital in Europe, it was reduced to the position of a county town, with a decaying market-place. So visible, indeed, was the decay that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, were he dealing with it in a Reform Bill, would surely take away its Members; and it might be said to have been "grouped" already. Plainly, the King of Sardinia could never keep his present territories. If any advice could be given to the King of Sardinia which would be in the least degree advantageous to him, it would be that he should give up the two Sicilies and the Papal dominions, which he had usurped without the slightest casus belli, and against all international
  140
  law, and that he should restrict himself to the limits of his ancient monarchy. The people groaned under the pressure of taxation, and exceptional laws were necessary to make them submit to his government. If, then, he could not govern what he had got, how was it possible that he could hope to govern Venetia? The transfer of that province would only consummate its ruin; and the Government, in stimulating the Italians to look forward to its acquirement, was doing its friends anything but a service; it was encouraging wild hopes and undermining those rights and laws without which the peace of nations could not exist at all. They had brought matters to this issue, that sooner or later a break-up of the kingdom of Italy was inevitable, and the people of the South would insist upon having their native princes. ["Oh, oh!"] He was not surprised to hear that cheer from hon. Gentlemen opposite, sitting below the gangway, for he knew that many of them held principles utterly subversive of the law of nations. The Royal family of Naples were at one time French, no doubt, in the same way that our Royal family were originally Germans; but we no longer spoke of them as Germans, we always called them our native princes. It was true that while the Bourbons still reigned at Naples there were, as there always would be, discontented people in the country. [Laughter.] Yes, he repeated it. Look at the history of the Old Testament. When the Jews were governed by God Almighty himself, they were discontented and called for a king. How, then, could it be a matter of surprise that discontent should exist under any mere human government. He would tell the Government what would happen if the native princes did not return to Italy. France would declare that it was necessary for the preservation of peace in the South of Italy, that she should march an army of occupation into the country. She would thereupon take possession of those provinces. The kingdom of the Two Sicilies would become French, probably be governed by a French prince. Was it a consummation devoutly to be wished that there should be a French army quartered in Naples and in the Two Sicilies? He did not believe that his observations would be attended with any effect on the mind of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The right hon. Gentleman had arrived upon this question of Italian policy at a foregone conclusion, and they all knew it to be part of his disposition, that having

  141
  once made up his mind, he was reckless of consequences. The Chancellor of the Exchequer was so clever that he often deceived himself; by a process of self-persuasion he arrived at a belief to which he then expected everything to give way. It was so with regard to the Reform Bill. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had plainly determined to listen to no remonstrances, but to force the measure upon the House. He was bent on carrying the Bill, though he (Sir George Bowyer) believed that if the votes of Members could be taken by ballot, the Bill would be rejected by a very large majority. In the same way with regard to the affairs of Italy, the right hon. Gentleman began by deluding himself with the fable about Poerio, invented by clever men at Turin, and he had since encouraged the Italians, not merely to the brink of ruin, but to actual ruin itself. To ask Austria to give up Venetia was a monstrous iniquity and absurdity. Were she to do so, past experience would show that it could only consummate the final overthrow of the people who were the particular friends and creatures of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and his colleagues.
  SIR ROBERT PEEL: I do not wish to follow the hon. Baronet in his digression, which certainly had no relation whatever to the subject brought under our investigation by my hon. Friend; but there was one observation of his in which I concur, although it was received with much dissent from this side of the House. I do believe that in Southern Italy a very strong feeling exists against the system of government prevailing in that part of the country. I was one of those who at first strongly advocated the course taken by the King of Sardinia, until I saw the treachery in which he was induced to embark; and then I began to doubt whether the policy which this House and this country viewed with so much favour would be beneficial to Italy. I believe that the expectations formed with regard to the good government of Italy, and to the unity of Italy, have signally failed. I have information which assures me that in Naples itself, and in other parts of Southern Italy, there is a state of things far worse than existed before the union of that old and important province to the other dominions of the King of Sardinia. But leaving that point, which I only touch upon in consequence of what has already been stated, I must say that I most entirely dissent from the view
  142
  taken by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer of the course adopted by my hon. Friend. It was only a few minutes before the meeting of the House that my hon. Friend informed me he intended to bring this subject under the consideration of the Government, and I was one of those who hoped he would address his observations directly to the Chancellor of the Exchequer as the organ of the Government, representing in this House the views of the Cabinet. Accordingly, I was very much surprised to hear the Chancellor of the Exchequer state that he rose to make the observations which fell from him under protest, and that he altogether deprecated discussions of this kind at the present moment. Why, if we are not to discuss this question now, in God's name, when are we to discuss a subject that threatens to involve the whole of Europe in a disastrous war? And I would remind hon. Gentlemen that in another place the Minister for Foreign Affairs thanked the noble Lord who addressed questions to him on two occasions, because he said he was glad of an opportunity of laying before that place and the country what really was the position of affairs. The Chancellor of the Exchequer tells us that he rises under protest to answer the questions of my hon. Friend; and he went on to say that he deprecated these discussions in the critical state of foreign affairs. Let me tell my right hon. Friend that he must expect to have many such questions addressed to him. I am as anxious as anybody can be to conclude the discussion which is now pending, and I have always supported the Government; but in the present state of Europe, and in the momentous crisis that has now arrived, my right hon. Friend must expect to be questioned pretty freely as to whether, through the friendly offices of Her Majesty's Government, it is possible matters may be brought to an amicable solution, or whether it is impossible to avert the calamities of war. I hope Her Majesty's Government will consider whether it is not possible by friendly advice to prevent the calamity with which Europe is now threatened. But I wish to remark that my right hon. Friend did not answer the question of my hon. Friend as to whether Her Majesty's Government had given any expression of opinion to Austria with the view of inducing Austria to cede Venetia to Italy—officially or non-officially? [The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER: Officially.]

  143
  My right hon. Friend was explicit on the subject of the States of Schleswig and Holstein, but he evaded the question about Venetia. He told us that Her Majesty's Government would have been wrong if they refused the invitation to a Conference or a Congress, but will he tell the House that the Government were prepared to enter into an arrangement with France without knowing upon what basis France was acting, and whether she was desirous of inducing Austria to give up Venetia? If Her Majesty's Government accepted an invitation to a Conference which could only lead to an enlargement of the power of France, without any question as to what the opinions of France were on the question of Venetia, I can only say that they did not act with that prudence and judgment which might have been expected from a Cabinet containing Members of the importance of some of the present Ministry. My right hon. Friend, using an expression which I had heard several times before this Session, said he endeavoured to treat this question with great delicacy of feeling; for he thought the maintenance of Austria a matter of great importance. But as my hon. Friend showed Austria is made up of a conglomeration of nationalities. The right hon. Gentleman gave the House to understand that the Government had given no advice in this matter lately. They are the Government of Lord Palmerston, and they accept the statement made by Lord Palmerston in 1859. Will my right hon. Friend rise and say that Her Majesty's Government have given no advice to Austria since that time? Will he say that officially or non-officially the Government have given no advice to Austria lately as to the cession of Venetia? My hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater showed that the part of Venetia in which the Quadrilateral is situated is of immense importance as regards the maintenance of the independence of Austria. To cede that portion to Italy, and, consequently, to France, would imperil the independence of a great portion of Germany. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said he was not going to defend the action of the French Government; but surely if the English Government were acting in a straightforward and honest manner they must have had an understanding as to the footing upon which the Government of France was prepared to treat this question. The right hon. Gentleman said that no doubt there was a strong feeling for the cession of
  144
  Venice to Italy, and that if Italy had any right to Venice she could only have it by the sympathies of the people and by the traditions of the past. Now, I should like to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what possible tradition of the past ought to give the Venetian State to the King of Sardinia? He must have read history in a different sense from that in which it has been studied by most hon. Gentlemen in this House if he can find in it any justification in ceding Venetia to the kingdom of Italy on the basis of the traditions of the past. I merely rose to express my entire concurrence in leaving the matter in the hands of the Government, but I hope my right hon. Friend will not meet these inquiries—which, no doubt, will be very frequent during the next few weeks—by a protest such as that which he entered against the question of my hon. Friend, because I believe that this subject is of infinitely more importance than any Reform Bill the Government can pass. I am not one of those who are opposed to the Government Reform Bill, but I do believe that this question is of infinitely greater importance. England, as represented by the Government of the day, should place herself before Europe in a manner to conciliate the feelings and sympathies of the Continent; and I do hope . that through the efficient administration of the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the efforts of this country will be directed to avert, if possible, the dreadful calamity which now appears to be hanging over Europe. I concur with my right hon. Friend that the sympathies of this country are strongly marked as against Prussia, because every one must have felt that overweening ambition has placed her under the influence—under the hoof I may say—of, not to use a harsher word, an unscrupulous Minister. This state of things has been brought about, not by anything which in the ordinary sense may be called a casus belli, but by the spirit of aggrandizement, which, as Lord Palmerston said, must always result in evil to the Powers which allow themselves to be influenced by it. If the British Government had acted as Lord Palmerston would have done, I believe we should not now have had to apprehend the war which is threatening Europe, and into which, should it break out, this country, sooner or later, will inevitably be drawn. I would again express a hope that Her Majesty's Government will use their best efforts to avert what

  145
  would certainly be a grave misfortune to Europe and the world at large.
  LORD ROBERT MONTAGUmust join in the protest which the right hon. Baronet had just made against the manner in which the Chancellor of the Exchequer had commenced his reply to the hon. Member for Bridgwater. The right hon. Gentleman had vehemently protested against the discussion which the hon. Member for Bridgwater had raised, and had deprecated all consideration of the foreign policy of the Government. And yet, most inconsistently, he was now proposing to enlarge the basis of representation, by lowering the franchise with the avowed object of rendering the House of Commons more efficient. While making such a proposition, he objected to that House exercising its legitimate functions as a check upon Ministers. By deprecating all discussion of the policy, the acts—nay, even the opinions and intentions of the Ministry—he was in fact seeking to establish the irresponsibility of the Government; he was trying to make his rule despotic. What was the use of a House if it did not act as a check upon the Government? It was far better to govern without the delusive semblance of a Parliament, than to establish and carry on a despotic rule by means of a Parliament. The right hon. Gentleman had said that if there was to be a war at all the cause of it was to be sought not in Venetia, but in the Duchies of Schleswig and Holstein. He would remind the House that fifteen years ago a Congress had met and altered the succession to those Duchies. The arrangement was kept secret for a long time; and after it had become known it was disregarded, because the treaty had not begun to take effect. It was not until the death of the King, in November 1864, that it came into operation. Then immediately all Germany arose; the Bund sought to rescue the Duchies and establish their rightful Sovereign over them. The lawless ambition of Prussia was aroused; she seized the opportunity; overbore the Bund; set at nought all law and right, and marched into the Duchies. Austria went hand in hand with Prussia, from a fear, he supposed, of being distanced in the race for the leadership of Germany. Thus the wrongdoing by the Congress led to the subsequent wrongdoing of the two German Powers. The lawlessness of the Congress gave opportunity to the rapacity of Prussia; the rapacity of Prussia gave cause to the interference of Austria, and this had led
  146
  to heartburnings and bitterness which was now about to burst forth in an European War. Austria now felt a tardy repentance and sought to re-trace her steps; and at once we heard of the Venetian question. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said that unless the people of Venetia wished to be united to Italy he would hand them over to the tender mercies of the hon. Member for Bridgwater; and justified the wish expressed by Her Majesty's Government for the cession of Venetia, on the ground that the Venetians desired it. This tallied with the famous despatch of Lord Russell in 1860, on the Italian question. But did the right hon. Gentleman mean to say that whenever the subjects of any Government desired to be united to another State they were entitled to have their wishes carried out? Had the wishes of the people of Schleswig and Holstein been consulted when their rulers were changed? Would the Chancellor of the Exchequer apply these doctrines to India? Her Majesty's subjects there might desire to be annexed to some Tartar or Chinese State. If they preferred the rule of some other race to ours, was their preference to be gratified? Or if Ireland aspired to a separation from this country, and sighed for American forms of Government, would the right hon. Gentleman not say them nay? He suspected that the right hon. Gentleman held by the doctrine only when it was convenient to apply it to foreign States. For himself, he was heartily glad that there was not now to be a Congress. He had never known any good to this country from a Congress. We were strong in arms; our navy was invincible; but the moment we entered a Congress we were sure to lose that which our prowess had obtained. We gave up in a Congress what we gained in war.
  MR. LAINGsaid, he rose, not for the purpose of prolonging the discussion, but to appeal to hon. Members to put a stop to it. It was of a most painful character, and he believed it could do no good and might possibly do harm. The matter was of such grave importance, that he thought hon. Members ought to concur with the suggestion of the Minister, and by abstaining from any further conversation on this question, act with a dignity which was suited to so grave an occasion. He apprehended that Her Majesty's Government, in common, he believed, with every sensible man in the House and the country, had adhered to the resolution that in the event

  147
  of war breaking out England should not be a party to it. Now, if this country were to abstain from being drawn into a war in which neither its interests nor its honour were immediately concerned, it would be better that the House of Commons should not erect itself into a sort of tribunal for criticizing the conduct and conveying an opinion as to the rights of the opposing parties. Such a course could, he thought, only lead to mischief and tend to make us misunderstood on the Continent, while it might, perhaps, drift us into the very situation which we wished to avoid and get us entangled in the war. He earnestly hoped, therefore, that the House would not allow this discussion to be continued.
  MAJOR WALKERsaid, he did not rise with any intention of prolonging the discussion, but merely for the purpose of asking a question with reference to the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the immediate or proximate outbreak of war was to be expected rather in the North of Germany than in Italy. He had noticed in the public press that afternoon an announcement to the effect that General Garibaldi had landed at Genoa, and was about to proceed immediately to Como, the place which was the scene of his successes in the war of 1859, the headquarters of one of the divisions of the Garibaldian Volunteers, and in close proximity to the Austrian frontier. He wished to know whether Her Majesty's Government had received information to that effect, and whether they believed it to be authentic; and, if so, whether they were still of opinion that the outbreak of hostilities was to be expected on the Elbe rather than on the Alps?
  MR. HENRY SEYMOURsaid, he thought that an expression of opinion on the part of the British House of Commons would have a considerable effect through out the whole of Europe, and he was therefore glad that his hon. Friend had brought this subject forward. He believed that the statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had been somewhat misunderstood by several hon. Members who had addressed the House. The right hon. Gentleman stated, as he understood him, not that Her Majesty's Government had represented officially to Austria that she ought to give up Venetia, but that Her Majesty's Government were of opinion that Austria had by treaties an undisputed right to that province. A totally different question, however, arose, if
  148
  Her Majesty's Government were asked as friends what they thought it was expedient for Austria to do in the interests of herself and in the interests of Europe. That was a totally distinct question, and admitted of a totally distinct answer. There was no doubt that Austria held Venetia by the same right as that by which other Powers held territories under the Treaties of 1815. But laws were made for ordinary occasions, and extraordinary occasions might arise when the sympathies of nations set at naught ordinary legislation. He thought if Venetia showed an effective wish to be joined to a population which were akin to her in birth and religion, although not having had the same political organization before 1793, she had a right to assert that unanimous desire. Now, as these feelings had through a long series of years been manifested in such a way as to disturb the equilibrium of Europe, it was quite right for Her Majesty's Government when war was imminent to say, "We see that this is an increasing difficulty, and the only difficulty which prevents Austria and Italy from being on friendly terms with each other." Austria was a nation in the same sense that England, France, and the United States were nations. There were different nationalities, it was true, but they were all united together by ties of social intercourse and political organization, which in the case of England, France, and the United States appeared to override everything else. Austria had possessed territory in Italy for about seventy years. In the case of Alsace, France had so endeared herself to the population of the province that if the question should arise whether they would be French or German they would without hesitation side with France. In a similar way the Silesians were united to Prussia by ties of religion and feelings of affection. Austria, he understood, was willing to accept the Silesian provinces in lieu of Venetia. Well, it was generally believed that Austria wished to fight one great battle and to recover Silesia from Prussia, because it had been originally wrested from her by Frederick the Great. At all events, he had heard that stated by friends of Austria in that House, the understanding being that she would then cede Venetia. Now, he thought that nothing could be more unwise than for Austria to wish for any possessions which would entail upon her the same difficulties which had resulted from her possession of Venice. In his

  149
  opinion it was perfectly wise and right for Her Majesty's Government, when they saw that the peace of Europe was likely to be disturbed, to say to Austria, "If you ask our private opinion, we think that if you give up this province the peace of Europe may be maintained and your own position very much strengthened." That advice might not be in accordance with the sentiments of some hon. Gentlemen opposite, but it accorded with the ideas of most Gentlemen on that side of the House, and with the wish of the nation at large. In matters of this kind we were very much in the hands of the Foreign Office, which could never act with force unless it were supported by the opinion of the country as expressed in the House of Commons. He was glad, therefore, that the feeling of the House seemed to be that Her Majesty's Government had taken the right course. A very material change, he might remark, had taken place in Austria during the last two or three years with regard to Venetia. Formerly the cession of Venetia was never permitted to be mentioned at Vienna, but now it was a common subject of conversation in the capital; the general opinion of those who wished to see Austria strong being that if Austria ceded Venetia in a manner consistent with her honour she would greatly promote her material interests.
  VISCOUNT CRANBOURNE: I wish to say a word or two in answer to the appeal made by the hon. Member for Wick, because I am sure that every Member of this House wishes to escape the responsibility, and it is a grave responsibility, of aggravating the present state of affairs in Europe by any remarks he may make here. But, as I understood the hon. Member for Bridgwater and those who have taken part in this debate, our object is not to criticize the actions of foreign Powers, but to exercise a constitutional check on the action of our own Government, which is merely exerting one of our first rights. And in this case I maintain that the House has a very strong reason for interfering in order to express an opinion on the part of the country. No one knows better than the hon. Member for Wick how deep is the suffering which has fallen on this country in consequence of the disturbed state of the Continent, and if that disturbed state of the Continent is in any way the result of the diplomatic action of the British Government, the British House of Commons has a right, and, indeed, it is their
  150
  duty, to interfere. The charge brought against Her Majesty's Government is that in the case of Italy, which is the first and most irremediable cause of the complications of the Continent, the Government have, by their diplomatic action, tended to foster and envenom the most dangerous feelings—that they have encouraged Italy in her designs, and thereby increased the difficulties of the Continent at this moment. There is this difference between the case of Germany and the case of Italy. The case of Germany is a disputed question of right which might be submitted to arbitration; but the case of Italy is a simple demand on the part of A for that which B possesses. Now, you cannot submit that to arbitration. If I have a lawsuit with a man, I can take it to an arbitrator; but if a man meets me in a lane and puts a pistol to my head and says, "Your money or your life," that is no case for arbitration at all. However practicable it might have been at first to have settled the question of the Duchies by the ordinary processes of diplomacy, when once the population of Italy were inflamed by the passions of war, and their cupidity was tempted by the hope of acquiring Venetia, the chances of any arrangement by the operation of diplomacy became very slight and precarious indeed; and that is the ground of the complaint I make against Her Majesty's Government. The country thought that when Earl Russell left the Foreign Office, and Lord Clarendon took his place they would get rid of those despatches which were perpetually stirring up difficulties; but, like a character on the other side of the water, Earl Russell seems to be "irrepressible," and when he cannot kindle disturbance by despatches he does it by private letters. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has not ventured to deny that Earl Russell has given, by private letters, advice which has tended more than anything else to engage Italy in that course, so dangerous to the peace of Europe and so baneful to Italy, which she has pursued. Therefore, although, of course, one cannot take any notice now or record a protest in a formal way, still, I think the hon. Member for Bridgewater does right in protesting, and this House will do right in protesting, as it often has done before, against Earl Russell's incurable habit of meddling in every foreign dispute that arises. There is another part of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's speech to which I wish to refer, The right hon. Gentleman

  151
  told us that Italy had no claim whatever to Venetia, except such as arose from the wishes of the people of Venetia. He told us that for years past Members of his Government had urged upon Austria to recognize the justice of their claims, and that now the Italians had in their enterprize the sympathies of the people of England. [The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER: No!] Well, we shall see from the report to-morrow that that was the substance of what he said. If these are the opinions of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, it results that he lays it down as a principle of public law that whenever a nation desires to be free from the Sovereign who possesses it, and desires to be annexed to another nation then the latter deserves and acquires the right to the sympathy of himself and of the people of this country. What warrant has the right hon. Gentleman for his statement of the facts? How does he know that the Venetians have a desire to be annexed to Italy? I cannot help thinking that a fallacy, which we trace very deeply in certain domestic matters now before the House, has got hold of the mind of the right hon. Gentleman in reference to foreign politics. In home matters he considers England made up of towns; he does not believe in anything you may call country; and I always think the Chancellor of the Exchequer exhibits the same fallacy in dealing with this question of Italy. If he finds that a great town has a strong political opinion, he utterly disregards any manifestation of counter-opinion in the rural districts in its very neighbourhood and immediately speaks of the opinions of that great town as those of the nation. It has been eminently so in the case of Southern Italy. I think it probable that in a considerable part of Naples the people are well pleased with the new order of things, but no impartial person can peruse the history of the last six or seven years and say that the rural districts which constitute the vast mass of the old kingdom of the Two Sicilies are satisfied with the new order of things. But according to his wont, the right hon. Gentleman treats the rural districts as a cypher, and the large towns as everything, and he still maintains that the southern provinces are well satisfied with the revolution. As in their case, so it may be in that of Venetia; we have no evidence, so far as I know, that the Venetians wish for the revolution which the right hon. Gentleman desires to see. There is evidence that the
  152
  town of Venice desires it, but I have never seen any evidence to prove that it is desired by the people of the country districts, and I suspect that the revolutionary feeling is not so general as the right hon. Gentleman would have the House believe. Be that as it may, I cannot pass without a protest that most pernicious doctrine of public law, now for the first time, I believe, laid down by a Minister of the Crown, and the public repetition of which by persons high in authority will assuredly rid us of all our Indian possessions, possibly of a considerable part of Canada, and I fear, last, but not least, of Ireland.
  MR. LAYARD: I should be sorry, especially after the judicious remarks that have fallen from the hon. Member for Wick (Mr. Laing), to prolong this discussion. The hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Kinglake) has mistaken what was said by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who did not protest against answering any question. The hon. Member had a perfect right to put any question he thought proper to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. What my right hon. Friend said was this—the hon. Member went far beyond his question, and entered into a discussion of the relative position of Austria and the other Powers, under present circumstances, and as my hon. Friend could not, with due courtesy to the hon. Member for Bridgwater, pass over his remarks, but felt bound to answer them, he did so under protest, as to anything he might say on the spur of the moment, and without notice of a discussion raised in a manner—I will not say not conformable to the rules of the House, but not quite in accordance with the custom and practice of the House. I quite concur in the opinion that a grave question which may involve the peace of Europe is a legitimate subject of discussion here, but surely when an hon. Member wishes to get up an important debate it would be just and fair to give due notice of his intention, and not without notice to raise such a discussion on an evening generally expected to be devoted to other business. Several hon. Members seemed to have altogether misunderstood what the Chancellor of the Exchequer said, but I do not think any other hon. Member would have made the remark which has fallen from the noble Lord opposite.
  VISCOUNT CRANBOURNE: Will the hon. Gentleman name it?
  MR. LAYARD: The noble Lord said the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that

  153
  which he did not say, and when the Chancellor of the Exchequer ventured to correct the noble Lord he said he would wait until to-morrow to see the report.
  VISCOUNT CRANBOURNE: I did not mean the slightest imputation on the Chancellor of the Exchequer's veracity. Any Member may forget the words he used; the Chancellor of the Exchequer may have done so; and if there is the slightest idea that my language imputed untruth, I withdraw the expression.
  MR. LAYARD: It is better that such language should not be made use of in this House. The hon. Member for Dundalk (Sir George Bowyer), who was not in the House to hear the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in answering it, replied to what the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not say—namely, that Her Majesty's Government had been urging the Italian Government to go to war with Austria. [Sir GEORGE BOWYER: No; I did not say that.] No such advice has ever been given by us to the Italian Government. On the contrary for years past, from the time the Italian unity was established, whenever advice was asked for—and it has never been volunteered—and occasion required it to be given, the advice we have continuously and consistently given to the Italian Government has been this—"Consolidate yourselves, develop your resources, establish good government, do not think of any further acquisition of territory, and do not turn your attention at present to warlike schemes." I must say I should be unworthy of my position if I did not protest against the very ungenerous remarks that have been made by the hon. Member for Dundalk (Sir George Bowyer) as well as by the right hon. Member for Tamworth (Sir Robert Peel). I am glad that the former confesses that a change for the better has taken place in Italy, and any one who knew what Italy was seven or eight years ago, must be astonished at the changes that have been effected. That there is some open expression of discontent, I quite admit, but this very expression of discontent is a proof of the difference between the present and the past condition of Italy. A few years ago when there existed the state of things which the hon. Baronet admired, any one who expressed discontent was conveyed to a dungeon. I remember, some three years ago, when walking through Naples, I bought thirty-seven different newspapers, published in one day, and advocating all views, from the strongest
  154
  Reactionary opinions down to the broadest Mazzinianism or Republicanism. There is the most perfect liberty of the press, and everybody grumbles, as people do in a free country. Look at the start Italy has taken and the progress she has made in railways, commerce, and in education; look at her administration, her jury system, and the improved state of her prisons. I know that hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House have a preference for the despotic rule of the old times; but let us be at least just to Italy; I do not wish to justify all that the Italian Government may have done; it may have committed a great many faults, every Government does that in its turn. But it is the privilege of a people to comment upon those faults, and in Italy that privilege has been exercised to the fullest extent. With regard to advice recently given, Her Majesty's Government never advised Italy to go to war with Austria; on the contrary, we strongly urged and tried to dissuade her from going to war. Let me add this statement in Italy's justification. Until the Austrian Government thought fit to send a considerable force into Venetia, the Italian army was not raised above its usual peace footing. I am one of those who believe that the Italian Government have originated nothing aggressively towards Austria, and the strictest inquiries have shown that it was not until Austria sent troops to Venetia that Italy had taken any steps to increase her army. I think I am bound to state this fact in justice to the Italian Government. Of the movements of General Garibaldi I have no official knowledge; my information upon that subject is confined to what I have read in the daily journals. I do not wish to detain the House further, but I cannot sit down without requesting that hon. Gentlemen who desire to put questions of this character will in future give due notice of their intention to do so to Her Majesty's Government.
  COLONEL PERCY HERBERTsaid, that the hon. Member for Poole had informed them that the debates in that House were read with great interest on the Continent—but he scarcely thought that the debates in that House would have as much weight upon the Continent as they had at present if it were known that hon. Members made statements in their speeches founded upon no better authority than the various canards that appeared in the newspapers. The hon. Member cited no better authority than

  155
  that in support of his statement that Austria was prepared to go to war for the sake of obtaining Silesia in exchange for Venetia. The Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs had stated that it was indisputable that until Austria had concentrated her forces in Venetia, Italy had not added to hers. That might be so, but surely the Emperor of Austria had a right to increase the forces in any portion of his dominions which he might think required additional defence without the inference being drawn from the fact that he intended to attack Italy. It was evident that the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs wished such an inference to be drawn from his statement, but it was asking too much of their credulity to believe that the Emperor of Austria was such a drivelling idiot that with France uncertain, he should court a war with Italy at a time when he was in danger of having to contend with all the force of Northern Germany.
  MR. BENTINCKsaid, he had not the slightest doubt that the Foreign Secretary desired to smother this question, for during his experience of nearly seven years in Parliament, he never knew any discussion on foreign affairs in which the Government did not get the worst of the argument. The hon. Member for Wick (Mr. Laing) had also endeavoured to stop the debate, but had he sat in the last Parliament he would have made no such attempt, for he would be now persuaded that had the Schleswig-Holstein question been ventilated in an early stage, the simple point involved would have come clearly before the House, and the minds of hon. Members would not have been utterly confused, as they were now, by the blundering policy of Earl Russell upon every matter connected with that subject. The Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs had complained that the hon. Member for Bridgwater had not given notice of his question, but the memory of the hon. Gentleman must be very imperfect or he would have recollected that the hon. Member for Bridgwater had a notice on the subject standing on the paper in his name on Friday last, and that he withdrew it at a late hour on that evening, stating his intention to bring the matter forward at the earliest opportunity. Of that intention of the hon. Member hon. Gentlemen officially connected with the Treasury were fully aware. He entirely agreed with the observation of the hon. Member for Bridgwater that the dispute with regard to the Duchies was a question solely concerning the German
  156
  Powers. The Italian question had never arisen in any form, and if that question was to be dealt with in a Congress or Conference there was no possible reason to show why the present time was more fitting than last year, when a Congress was proposed by the Emperor of the French and declined by Earl Russell. He (Mr. Bentinck) considered it quite plain that the Italian question would never have arisen but for the dishonest, unnatural, and discreditable convention between Prussia and Italy to attack their common enemy. But if England had intended to interfere in this matter, she should have proceeded with the utmost caution, for while she was acting as a mediating Power in conjunction with Russia and with France, her interests were wholly different, for of these three Powers England was the only Power whose policy at this moment was not aggressive. Who could foretel the designs of Russia? The House had heard enough of the Schleswig-Holstein question, and had been frequently informed that Russia had originally instigated the Treaty of London of 1852. Russia had a strong interest, therefore, in the Elbe Duchies as well as in the questions which sow agitate the Principalities and Greece. He believed the Emperor of the French to be personally a friend to this country in his desire for peace, but the mind of France—if he might use such an expression—was also aggressive, and she could not forget that in 1814 the banks of the Rhine, the kingdom of Holland, and various parts of Italy were included within her boundaries. Under those circumstances it could not be said that England would meet France and Russia on equal terms in an endeavour to preserve the peace of Europe. But if she did consent to join in such an attempt she should take care to see that the propositions made to the disputing Powers were not coupled with conditions which it was impossible for one of them to accept. He contended that the propositions which had been recently made to Austria had been coupled with conditions which Her Majesty's Government must have been well aware that country could not accept. He had not had the good fortune to see the despatches that had been sent by Her Majesty's Government to the Powers of Europe upon this question, but he had seen in the public journals of the day the following most remarkable and able despatch sent by the Austrian Government to their various diplomatic agents, which presented

  157
  in very clear terms the substance of their objections to enter into the proposed Conference—
  "The Emperor's Government only desires to receive beforehand the assurance that all the Powers which are to participate in the projected meeting are ready, as it is itself, to forego the prosecution of any object of private interest to the detriment of the general tranquillity. In order that the work of peace which the Cabinets have in view may be accomplished, it appears to us indispensable that an agreement should be come to beforehand to exclude from the deliberations any combination that might tend to give to one of the States now invited to the meeting a territorial aggrandizement or an increase of power. Without that preliminary guarantee, which sets aside all ambitious pretensions and leaves a greater space for arrangements equitable for all concerned, it would seem to us impossible to count upon a fortunate issue for the proposed deliberations."
  The next paragraph had reference to Italy—
  "There must, however, be a clear understanding that the position assumed by the Emperor's Government as respects that of King Victor Emmanuel cannot be altered or prejudged by the eventual consent of Austria to cause herself to be represented at a meeting which has to occupy itself with the Italian dispute. In diplomatic Conferences held before war has broken off all ulterior engagements, the admission should be made that the public law of Europe, and consequently former treaties, should serve naturally for a starting point. We believe that this remark cannot give rise to any objections; it suffices to indicate the attitude which we shall have to assume, and we think we are giving to the Powers a pledge of the perfect honesty of our intentions in showing a frankness which ought to be complete on both sides if any wish is felt that a sincere effort at conciliation should be attempted."
  The third objection was as follows:—
  "We must, lastly, express some surprise that the Pontifical Government should not be also invited to take part in deliberations concerning the Italian dispute. The situation of Italy cannot assuredly be examined without taking account of the interests of the Papacy. Independently of the questions of right, which we nevertheless are anxious to preserve intact, the sovereignty of the Pope is a fact recognized, in my opinion, by all Governments. His Holiness has, therefore, an incontestable right to make his voice heard in a meeting which has to occupy itself with the affairs of Italy."
  These objections on the part of the Austrian Government appeared to be perfectly reasonable. The Austrian dominion in Italy was not only recognized by the Treaties of 1815, but after the war of 1859 no voice was raised against the possession by Austria of that part of Italy which was left to her. The Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs was at that time quite in favour of the Treaty of Villa-franca,
  158
  and no less a person than Earl Russell actually favoured the division of Italy into two Kingdoms—Northern and Southern Italy. The right of Austria to Venetia was as strong and as good as that by which any great Power held any part of its territories; and it was, therefore, too much to expect that Austria would enter into a Conference with the condition precedent that the surrender by her of that province should be discussed there. Did anybody suppose that the Emperor of the French would enter into a Conference if it were made a condition that one of the subjects to be discussed should be either the cession of Savoy, the "cradle" of the reigning dynasty in Italy, or of the county of Nice, the "cradle" of Garibaldi; for Garibaldi, as the House might be aware, was by birth a Nizzard, and therefore now a Frenchman? Again, if Spain were summoned to the Conference, would England allow the cession of Gibraltar to be debated? The hon, Member for Birmingham (Mr. Bright) had stated that if Ireland could be loosed from her moorings and taken 2,000 miles to the westward, she would proclaim her independence, Would England then allow this Fenian view to be mooted in a Conference, and entertain the separation of Ireland from this country? If not, then it was unfair to blame Austria for not going into a Conference under the same circumstances. As to the question of nationalities, he really wondered that the Government should raise it when they had left it quite out of view in the case of Schleswig-Holstein. When the question there arose whether German nationality should be oppressed by the Danes, Her Majesty's Government took their stand upon the Treaty of 1852, though the Treaty of London was not comparable in importance and validity to the Treaty of 1815. Now, however, they changed their tone, and said, "Let us go upon nationalities and disregard treaties altogether." As to the alleged desire of Austria to possess Silesia, the published despatch showed that the Court of Vienna were influenced by no motives of that kind. Then with respect to the Conference, it seemed remarkable that the Pope had not been invited to attend it. What was going to happen on the 16th of September next? By the Convention of 1864 it was provided that in two years the French army would be withdrawn from Rome, and the Pope was to be left to defend his possessions with such a force as

  159
  he could muster. But the Pope had no army which could resist attack by Italy, and it was, therefore, singular that the Papacy had not been summoned to the Congress in order that the probable results of the Convention of September should be discussed there. He did not mean to say that it was not his wish to see Italy united. Matters had gone on too far to leave any chance of the restoration of the ancient thrones, and he thought we ought now to look to the future rather than the past, and induce the Italians to consolidate their political and material strength. But if there was to be one sole kingdom of Italy, it must include the County and Port of Nice, the Southern Alps, and certainly Rome should be its capital. His great objection to the policy of the Government was that it seemed to be wholly without definite principle. He had been forced unwillingly to the conclusion that the foreign policy of the Government for the last six or seven years had been nothing more nor less than a popularity-hunting policy. On their first accession to office, the Government were all for Italy and nationalities, simply because the cry was popular. Garibaldi, too, was a lion—a curiosity; he entered London in procession, welcomed by crowds, who would have gone next day as eagerly to see him hanged. Then Poland came on the scene; the working men of Brighton called on the Government to go to war for the sake of Poland; and we heard a great deal about the sufferings of the unfortunate Poles and their oppression by Russia. Next came the Danish question. Earl Russell wrote at first remonstrating strongly with Denmark for endeavouring to oppress the nationalities of Schleswig-Holstein. But afterwards the Government, for reasons to which he (Mr. Bentinck) would not then refer, turned completely round against these nationalities, and now they were supporting the unjustifiable aggressions of Italy, and again expressing sympathy with nationalities. They observed, however, a very discreet silence with reference to the Pope, for he invariably found the adherents of the Pope during the present Session going into the Government lobby on every division. Why they did so he did not know, for he thought that if they consulted their own interests they would not thus follow the lead of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Under Secretary, who systematically took the side opposed to the Pope. He could not give them the credit of being actuated by any genuine
  160
  conviction in so doing, for the motive of the Government appeared to him to be simply to catch stray votes and bid for popularity, no matter though they thereby sacrificed the true interests of the country, and pursued a fickle and feeble foreign policy, which was a reproach to every Englishman who travelled abroad. He was grateful to the hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Kinglake) for declining to be puzzled, and for bringing this question forward in so statesmanlike a manner, and enabling them to express their opinions independently at the present critical juncture.
  MR. POWELLsaid, he had always believed that Italian unity would one day prove to be a fact—and that Italy would in that way arise from her protracted dissolution into new life. It was because he feared that the course pursued by Her Majesty's Government at the present grave crisis might retard the march of improvement on which Italy had entered during the last few years that he desired to offer a few observations to the House. It was often said that history reproduced itself, and Parliamentary debates appeared to reproduce themselves; for the present discussion and the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer naturally reminded him of the fact that a few years since the cession of Savoy and Nice to France was being arranged by secret treaties, and that the first note of suspicion proceeded from the right hon. Member for Tamworth, who to-night had spoken in almost the same tone. Venetia had been the subject of various compacts without care or regard for the wishes of the inhabitants, and as it was scarcely to be expected that Austria would surrender it without some equivalent, he thought the House ought to know what mode of compensation was proposed. Moreover there had been instances of a State, while receiving an accession of territory on the one side, making a cession of territory on the other, and it was well known that the Emperor of France, without whose consent, to say the least, Venetia could not be ceded to Italy, stipulated on a similar occasion for Savoy and Nice as a compensation. Amid the silence of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, of the press, and of hon. Members usually best informed on such matters, he could not help suspecting that some secret arrangement was now in existence by which Italy was to compensate France for the acquisition of Venetia. The Government were bound to consider

  161
  Whether any of the interests of this country would be affected by such territorial changes, and the House was entitled to the fullest explanation before it was too late. It was argued that Italy should have Venice because Venice desired to be Italian, and the same argument was preferred when the southern portion of the Peninsula desired annexation. If, however, the discontent prevailing in South Italy was to be taken as an indication that the unionist feeling had disappeared after two or three years' experience, it might fairly be argued that the yearnings of the Venetians might prove equally transient. He fervently hoped, indeed, that that reactionary feeling was only local and temporary, and he regretted that Her Majesty's Government had not given a fuller explanation on that subject. He had more than once been in that country and spent happy days on the shores of the Italian sea, and among the mountains and the cultivated plains of that fair land, and he could testify from personal observation to the advances that had been made by Italy of late years. He had seen education diffused and trade and commerce extended in districts where a few years since no signs of progress were perceptible. He had seen every external sign which a stranger could see of national progress, and he earnestly desired to see that progress continue. He desired to see a firm, consolidated, and enduring Italy, realizing the most fervent aspirations of her greatest patriots during many generations; but he feared that the policy of Her Majesty's Government in virtually, though not directly, inciting Italy to a war with Austria, was calculated to arrest that progress and disappoint those aspirations.
  LORD CLAUD HAMILTONsaid, he had no knowledge that the hon. Gentleman opposite was going to bring forward this subject, but in doing so he had only acted as became one who on former occasions had shown that he took not only a great but an enlightened interest in foreign affairs. If any one should get up and blame the hon. Gentleman for what he had done at such a momentous crisis, when the telegraph might at any instant flash the news of the outbreak of war over Europe, he would evince a complete misapprehension of the usages and practice of Parliament and the country. He had understood that the policy of England of late years—and in his opinion it was a judicious policy—was not to interfere much in foreign politics—not to coerce or even to advise foreign potentates as to the
  162
  conduct of their affairs. But, on the other hand, it was our duty to discourage those who sought to embroil Europe through greed of territorial aggrandizement, and from a desire to seize on the possessions of their neighbours. But from what he had heard since he entered the House of the tone of the hon. Member for Southwark's remarks that was not the case. So far from coming forward to defend the rights of those who were acting in self-defence, his hon. Friend had apparently gone out of his way to throw blame on Austria. For what did his hon. Friend say? That Italy had never made any movement, had never commenced any military preparations until Austria had moved within her own territories certain bodies of troops. But did the hon. Gentleman mean for one moment to assert that Austria was not cognizant of the secret negotiations that were going on between Florence and Berlin? Did his hon. Friend, by thus throwing blame on Austria for an act of common precaution, profess to be ignorant that Austria had the fullest knowledge of the constant passing of negotiators between the two capitals for the purpose of raising up a menacing state of things, and assisting those ambitious schemes which had so long guided the policy of Prussia? If the hon. Gentleman were now in the House he would ask him whether he was not perfectly aware that all the military movements of Austria in Venetia were in response to the known resolve of the Italian Government to take the opportunity of the embroilment of the affairs of Germany to make a military raid upon the Austrian frontier? He regretted that the mouthpiece of the Government on Foreign Affairs in that House should have made statements which if they meant anything meant that the present unfortunate state of things was owing to the military preparations of Austria in Italy. Nothing could be more unfair than to intimate anything of the kind. No doubt the Austrian Government had from time to time committed many faults, but no one could believe that in the present state of complications in Germany Austria should wantonly and wilfully have created hostility against herself. The hon. Gentleman said he entirely agreed with the observations of the hon. Member for the Wick burghs that it was very injudicious to raise this question, and then he proceeded to make remarks which rendered it impossible for any one who knew anything about the facts of the case to remain silent. As he understood the general

  163
  tendency of the remarks of hon. Gentlemen, there was a general disposition to blame Austria for not accepting the proposed Conference. But he would ask any English gentleman fairly to say how he could blame Austria for this. Could any Congress give her pledges or securities for her possessions greater than she already had under existing treaties? He would ask whether a person who had a complete right by, law, by usage, and by possession, was likely to place himself in the position of a mere claimant, and to go into court with any one not having the shadow of a title except that which greed and the desire of aggrandizement gave him? The Chancellor of the Exchequer talked of the traditions of the past. But what were those traditions in the case of Italy? Were they not the traditions of a time when she was divided into a number of republics, carrying on perpetual wars with one another, and each, when worsted, inviting the Frenchman, the Spaniard, or the German to come in? From his imperfect reading of history he found that then, as now, Italy was always inviting the stranger to come in and interfere. He did not wish his views on the subject to be taken for more than they were worth; but he wished to show that this country would be treading on very dangerous ground if she departed from the sound principle on which she generally acted. What did the Earl of Clarendon say in 1859 on this very subject? His words were remarkable. They were these—
  "If, my Lords, it is intended to require Austria to withdraw from that territory to which she has treaty rights, why my noble Friend and Her Majesty's Government know very well that the answer of Austria would be that she recognizes no authority on the part of a Congress in 1859 to abrogate the rights conferred by the Congress of 1815. Austria would reply that she was prepared to defend her rights, and there would be an end of the Congress."—[3 Hansard, cliii. 1842.]
  But Lord Clarendon went further. He said—
  "If we are parties to, or in any way sanction, the violation of those treaties by which the Austrian possessions in Italy are secured and maintained, we may rely upon it that that process will not stop there, and that we shall soon have to consider other and more important questions of territorial arrangements. However, it may be thought, after a lapse of forty years, that in some cases the provisions of the Treaty of Vienna were defective in foresight—and it cannot be denied that in two or three cases they have broken down under the overwhelming force of circumstances—it cannot upon the whole be denied that they have served their purpose by maintaining the peace of
  164
  Europe; and the best proof of the confidence attached to the arrangements they effected was the universal satisfaction with which all Europe hailed the declaration of the Emperor of the French that he would respect the faith of treaties. But if these treaties are now to be torn up, and if Europe is to be scrambled for, I say that nothing but endless strife and universal confusion can arise."—[p. 1843.]
  He asked hon. Gentlemen opposite if these sentences were not pregnant with sound, statesmanlike policy? Did they not represent the principles of honesty and good faith, without which no state could, in fact, be secure? He did not wish to see this country meddling with the affairs of other countries, and he could not help thinking that the spirit in which we had so interfered had too often been calculated to give just cause of offence; more especially he deprecated the tone of the late Foreign Minister's official correspondence. Such a policy could end only in humiliation. What a miserable result had followed our uncalled-for interference with the Circassians. We coquetted with them, endeavouring to make use of them for our own purposes, during the Crimean war; and now that gallant nation had been vilely betrayed, trampled under foot, and all but swept off the map of Europe. Did we not also incur disgrace by our conduct towards Denmark? Did we not encourage Denmark to compete with the armed hosts of other nations, assuring her that she should not stand alone, and did we not leave her to her fate? He must apologize to the House for having detained them so long, but he could not allow the observations of the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs to pass unnoticed; and he would only say, in conclusion, that he hoped the House would by some expression of opinion condemn the spirit of aggression and uphold the faith of treaties.
  MR. WHITESIDE: In the course of this debate we were getting into some difficulty when the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs poured oil on the troubled waters, and restored the temper of the House to a state of amenity. I do not think that the question put by the hon. Member for Bridgwater has been sufficiently attended to, or the character of the answer given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary complained to the House that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had been misunderstood. How it is that such a master of language should not be able to express himself as clearly as he certainly can copiously, and, when

  165
  he pleases, eloquently, I am unable to understand. What was the question put to him by the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Kinglake) who, in a very temperate and states-manlike speech, addressed himself to a very large subject? That hon. Gentleman did not suggest for a moment that Her Majesty's Government had recom- mended Italy to go to war with Austria. What I understood him to say was that if not the Ministry, yet that some individual Member of the Ministry had at a very critical period of European history recommended Austria to cede Venetia to Italy. That raises a very curious question of principle. It is not asserted that the Ministry, through the Secretary for Foreign Affairs, addressed a despatch to that effect to the Austrian Government; but that a particular Member of the Ministry—and it might have been the foremost—may have written a letter recommending Austria to cede Venetia to Italy. The question is quite consistent with such a supposition, and when the Chancellor of the Exchequer was called upon by the scope and effect of the speech of the hon. Member for Bridgwater to answer that matter, with great good feeling to his Colleague and with great good taste, he avoided giving an answer to that question; and I maintain that no answer was given to that question—whether the Prime Minister had or had not addressed a private letter, but still in the capacity of Prime Minister, recommending Austria to give up Venetia to the Italians. If that had occurred, I should invite the attention of the House to the matter. I never knew that it was a principle of our foreign policy that while there was one set of despatches which, if moved for, might be laid on the table, there might be other documents of an epistolatory nature passing between great personages of the two nations, and having more effect and operation on the course of events than the formal despatches of which we can get copies placed upon the table of the House. I think the hon. Member for Bridgwater has done good service by calling upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer to answer this question, and by calling attention to the new principle on which modern diplomacy has attempted to conduct our foreign affairs. Without going into irrelevant topics the noble Earl at the head of the Government has not been lucky in his despatches, and when we are told of his sympathy for oppressed nations I cannot but remember his sympathy for Poland. When certain despatches
  166
  were written by Earl Russell on the subject of Poland we all felt for Poland, but many of us thought it more expedient to hold our tongues, because I, for one, did not believe the noble Earl meant to act or do anything on behalf of Poland, and I thought that the expression of strong indignation against the Emperor of Russia must bring this country into trouble about Poland, when we did not mean to interfere or to do more than offer very emphatic advice. There was afterwards one despatch from the Russian Minister to Earl Russell which in former times must have led to instant war, because it was of a very affronting character to the great nation which the noble Earl represented. But if we had no business to interfere with Russia, and to ask it to resign the government of Poland, although our sympathies were with the Poles, what authority have we now, as a principle of International Law, to call upon the Emperor of Austria to resign his government of Venetia on the ground that that government is not acceptable to a large portion of the inhabitants of Venetia? Mr. Canning once said that any individual Member of Parliament might express his opinions as he pleased if he sympathized with any nation in the world which he believed to be oppressed, but that a Foreign Minister had other duties to perform, and must not indulge the same expression of opinion unless England, which he represents, is ready to back that expression of opinion. As another illustration of this unhappy tendency in the management of Foreign affairs by the noble Earl, I may refer to Denmark. The noble Earl conducted the negotiations in the affairs of Denmark, and I do not know that any Member of this House was ever called upon to perform a duty of a more painful nature than that of reading those despatches. I remember the criticism of the late Mr. Cobden upon them, and the remark of the right hon. Member for the University of Cambridge, that while we signed such treaties, and our Ministers wrote such despatches, we might well expect the very consequences that have arisen in Europe from that policy. We do not seem to have gained much by the advice we then gave to Denmark. I was surprised to hear the right hon. Member for Tamworth—who knew something about these matters, as he was connected with the Government, and who is a Gentleman of great ability and high position—say that Lord Palmerston wished to pursue an

  167
  opposite policy, but that he was overruled by the Government. It cannot add to our admiration of the manner in which the foreign policy of this country is managed if advice has been offered in the way suggested. Indeed, the offering advice at all at a critical time, unless you mean to act on what you say, is, attended with more danger than advantage. What is the effect of this course of proceeding? Supposing that such a letter as the hon. Member for Bridgwater refers to has been written, it becomes known in diplomatic circles that England is in favour of Italy and against Austria. The expression of such an opinion at this most critical period is a standing incentive to war. Some years ago there was a debate on the line of policy pursued by Lord Palmerston in respect to Italy, and it was then stated that Austria had offered to resign Lombardy and some other parts of Italy, but refused to surrender Venice, though the Austrian Government were willing to give Venice a free Constitution, a native army, and a native administration. The offer of Austria was refused by Lord Palmerston and by the Government of that time, and the result was that General Radetski was put in motion and Italy was conquered; and what the hon. Member for Bridgwater now says is, that the advice to surrender Venice, which originally led to great effusion of blood, has been repeated in a private letter at a most critical period, when there is danger that it may be the occasion of the outbreak of hostilities. He could not say that Lord Palmerston was wrong when he used language to the effect that it was not only to the interest of Austria, but for the security of Europe, that rights confirmed by treaties, which formed a portion of the International Law of Europe, should be maintained; and that though in some instances those treaties might be repugnant to the desire of progress inherent in Englishmen, we were bound in honour and good faith to maintain them. What the Austrian Minister said to Lord Palmerston in regard to the Italian question is in their diplomatic papers. He said, "We cannot give up Venice, because the Power that is in possession of Venice commands Trieste, but we will give it a constitutional Government." Such being the position of affairs I cannot conceive more unfortunate advice than that represented to be given by the Government of this country, that Austria should surrender a great and important province without any consideration in return
  168
  Another hon. Gentleman asked an important question as to whether the Government were aware that General Garibaldi had arrived at Genoa. The hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs seemed to throw the General overboard as if he was a vulgar person, apparently forgetting that he was the good friend of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and had been warmly received in this country, and worshipped as an heroic and disinterested man, who, by the way, was drawn into revolutionary practices by the fact that his own country was handed over to another Power against his will, at a time when he had a positive assurance under the Royal hand that it never would be surrendered. The hon. Member for Dundalk might well be a little warm on this subject, because the dignitary at the head of his Church must be to-night in trouble when he hears that General Garibaldi has arrived at Genoa, and is marching on Como, for General Garibaldi has never denied that he wants to overthrow the power of Austria, and get rid of the Pope, and that he would do so whenever he could. Now the advice given to Austria, which leads to the arrival of General Garibaldi in Genoa, is very questionable advice as regards the preservation of the peace of Europe. If that advice which the hon. Member for Bridgwater referred to has been really given, it is a piece of advice which ought to have been contained in a formal despatch from the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, so that, when called for, the despatch might have been laid on the table, and the House of Commons enabled to pronounce an opinion on the policy which dictated it.
  SIR JOHN HANMERsaid, he regretted, as an independent Member, to find, on returning to the House after an absence of several hours, the debate raised by the hon. Member for Bridgwater still going on. He did not know, and did not pretend to know, what communications might have passed between Her Majesty's Government and the Governments of foreign countries on the matters in dispute. But this he did know, that even if those communications were so unwise as hon. Gentlemen on the Opposition Benches seemed to think, he believed that nothing could be more unwise than for hon. Members, after the events that had taken place within the past few years, to take a prominent part in discussing the affairs of the Continent of Europe, unless the House were prepared to

  169
  put fleets on the sea and armies in the field to back up its opinion. It seemed to him that this debate was got up in order to prevent another debate in that House rather than to have any effect on the policy of Europe. He had great respect for the right hon. Gentleman opposite the Member for Buckingham, because that right hon. Gentleman always stood up for the honour, dignity, and influence of that House; but what, he asked, would become of the influence of that House among statesmen abroad, if those statesmen were led to believe that this discussion was a mere windy expression of opinion, having no result? He deprecated these casual debates on foreign policy, for he thought that if hon. Members had anything to say about foreign policy, they should bring forward a formal Motion on the subject. He thought the war in the Crimea was one of the most foolish undertakings into which this country had ever entered, although, having become entangled in it, she was, of course, bound to get out of it in the best way she could. If hon. Gentlemen opposite wanted to get rid of the question of Reform there were twenty other ways of doing it without occupying the time of the House with such debates as this, which lowered the House to the position of a common debating society.
  LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, he did not agree with the hon. Member who had just sat down, that debates of this kind lowered the House of Commons to the position of a mere debating society. While admitting the truth of the statement that previous discussions on questions of foreign policy—as, for instance, in the case of Denmark, which had been grossly mismanaged—tended to place this country in no very enviable light before the nations of Europe, he thought his hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater had acted wisely in asking the question which he had that evening put to Her Majesty's Government. The threats which were held out, and the denunciations which were uttered against the German Powers in reference to the Duchies, did not proceed, it should be remembered, from the Parliament of England, but from the Prime Minister; and he felt sure his hon. Friend who had just spoken would agree with him in the opinion that the House of Commons could not be called upon to discharge a more vital or important function than that which the hon. Member for Bridgwater had invited them to perform—not by lecturing Europe,
  170
  but by taking account of the various steps adopted by the Government in the present most critical state of affairs. Under what circumstances had the questions been put to which that hon. Gentleman had drawn attention in his most thoughtful and statesmanlike speech? Had the House of Commons exhibited the slightest wish to interfere with the prerogative of the Government in the conduct of the recent negotiations, or displayed any undue haste in asking for explanations on the subject? Quite the reverse. It was not until it had been made known to the House by Her Majesty's Government that these negotiations and the hopes of a Conference based upon them had hopelessly failed, that his hon. Friend had come forward to ask for the information with which he thought it desirable the House should be furnished. And how had his appeal been met by the Government? The Chancellor of the Exchequer, using a phrase which would probably be well remembered hereafter, told his hon. Friend that he would answer the questions which he had put categorically, but that as to the arguments by which those questions had been accompanied he would reply to them only under protest. Very natural comments having been made upon that statement, the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs rose in his place and endeavoured to throw a gloss over them, observing that it was a mistake to suppose that the Chancellor of the Exchequer objected to reply to the speech of the hon. Member for Bridgwater, and that all he had protested against was the practice of individual Members presuming on great questions of foreign policy to enter into any explanation of the questions which they desired to put. The hon. Gentleman had gone on to state that if it was the wish of any hon. Member to raise a debate on the all-important subject of peace or war he should give notice of his intention to do so, and fix the discussion for some convenient day. He, however, would appeal with confidence to those hon. Gentlemen who were then present to say whether it was not in accordance with custom when matters so grave were at stake that a Member of the House might take advantage of any legitimate opportunity which its forms afforded—always acting under a due sense of that responsibility of which his hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater had, it seemed to him, taken a proper measure—to bring under the notice of the House, before it was too late,

  171
  the conduct with respect to those matters of the executive Government. That being so, he could see no good grounds for censuring his hon. Friend for the course he had taken; nor could he see the force of the allusion which had been made by the hon. Baronet to the Reform Bill. The hon. Member for Bridgwater was no opponent of that measure. He had supported it throughout, while he had been the apologist and successful vindicator of the Government, so far as a vote of that House went, by throwing his shield over them at the termination of the unfortunate Danish war. The hon. Gentleman, he therefore contended, was open to no accusation in the present instance, and had simply discharged an important duty in directing public attention as he had done to the manner in which the Government bad conducted the late negotiations. Their conduct of those negotiations was a point on which he also desired to say a few words, His own opinion was that the more the question was sifted, the more distinctly would it appear that the Government had taken a hasty and precipitate course in reference to that reservation under which Austria expressed her assent to enter into the proposed Conference. It was not, he thought, the part of a neutral Power to say categorically to Austria, "The reservation you make with respect to territorial aggrandizement cannot be for a moment entertained by the Powers of Europe assembled to secure the interests of peace. If you persist in adhering to that reservation we shall not enter into a Conference, and we hold you responsible for the war which may ensue." The neutral Government of England had, he maintained, no right to assume that tone in answer to the Austrian proposition. Their duty surely was rather to say, "We shall come to no conclusion in the matter until we have ascertained now the proposal is received by Prussia and Italy. If they consent to enter a Conference on those conditions, we too shall be glad to do so." And if upon those equitable terms Prussia and Italy declined to enter the Conference, then the whole blame attaching to that determination would devolve upon them, and the neutral Powers would have had the satisfaction of knowing that they had fairly exhausted every means within their reach for the preservation of peace, and would have retired with far more honour than they had done from the prosecution of the task in which they were engaged. But as things
  172
  stood, what was the position of the Government? The Chancellor of the Exchequer could hardly fail to be alive to the expression of feeling in that House to which he had listened that evening. The great majority of the speakers had advocated the line of conduct which he had briefly indicated. There was manifestly an uneasy perception in the mind of the House of Commons that the Government of England had not permitted the case of Austria to be placed fairly before Europe, and that they were endeavouring to shield, as it were, their own failure in the negotiations by throwing upon her unjustly the blame of that failure to bring about this Conference. That he regarded as a most untoward and unfortunate result, and he must repeat that his hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater had, in his opinion, done a great public service by directing the attention of the House and of the country to the present lamentable state of affairs. The discussion which had taken place would serve to show the nations of Europe, not that the House of Commons was anxious to urge the Government on to the brink of war, but that however much they might value the blessings of peace, they would not sanction a line of conduct which sought unjustly to cast the blame of breaking off the negotiations entered into with a view to its maintenance on a great Conservative Power like Austria.
  SIR HARRY VERNEYsaid, that much as the House might desire to proceed with the business of the evening, it was quite impossible when accusations were made from the other side which Members on that (the Ministerial) side believed to be utterly unfounded, to let them pass without reply. To wade through the blue books on the Danish question might not be a pleasant task; but any one who took the trouble to read Lord Russell's despatches would see that nothing could have been more judicious than the advice which that noble Lord had offered, and that the interests alike of peace, of Denmark, and of this country had been uppermost in his mind. It was not Lord Russell who stated that if Denmark was attacked she would not stand alone. [An hon. MEMBER: It was Lord Palmerston.] It was impossible for Lord Russell or any other Minister to believe, after the Prussian Minister had declared in Congress what the policy of Germany and of Prussia ought to be, that Prussia would cast to the winds all those statements, and pursue a policy almost

  173
  without parallel in European history. His conviction was, that the present complications in Europe were due to the unscrupulous audacity and untruthfulness of a Minister, and the weakness of a Monarch.
  SIR JOHN WALSHsaid, it was a remarkable fact that one portion of the hon. Member for Bridgwater's speech had been left unnoticed, both by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs. It referred to a point of so much importance, and one calling for so direct and immediate an answer from the Government, that it could scarcely have escaped their memory. The right hon. Member for Dublin University had already alluded to it, and it so imperatively demanded some reply from the Government that he made no apology for once more calling their attention to it. The hon. Member for Bridgwater, as he understood him, conveyed to the House the impression that there had been two sets of communications addressed to the Austrian Government—that, while official communications passed in the usual and proper channel from the noble Lord the Foreign Secretary, there were certain other more private communications addressed by some other Member of the Government to the Austrian Court. Now, he ventured to say that, if any such proceeding had really taken place, nothing more subversive of the principles and practice of the British Constitution could well be conceived. Of course, he had no knowledge of such being the fact; he only gathered it from the statement, or at least from the broad insinuation, of the hon. Member for Bridgwater; but still it was a matter which, until it was contradicted, must leave a most unfavourable impression on the House. He could not tell whether the hon. Member for Bridgwater had any other private information, but the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin seemed to believe that that indirect or semi-official communication originated on the part of the Prime Minister. That, again, was a circumstance which demanded immediate contradiction if it did not rest upon fact. Where was Lord Clarendon placed by such a supposition? Where was his responsibility? Did he endorse such a communication, assuming it to have existed; or was he, like the House of Commons, utterly ignorant of its having taken place? In either case, there had been a very gross departure from the proper official
  174
  rule of conduct. Either Lord Clarendon ought to have resisted such an indirect interference with his responsibility, or, if he bad been left in ignorance of the communication, he had been very scurvily treated by his colleague. Were there no reasons why the present Prime Minister, of all public men in this country, should have hesitated to address the Court of Austria in such a manner, or to have made any particular claim on the confidence of that Court? A passage in the life of the present Prime Minister, which, he thought, had not been alluded to in that discussion, was still fresh in his recollection. Happening himself some years ago accidentally to read in a newspaper what purported to be a circular addressed by the Austrian Government to its Ministers throughout Europe, complaining of the conduct of that noble Lord—complaining of what they regarded as a breach of the engagement into which the noble Lord had entered with the Court of Vienna, he immediately came down to the House and gave notice of a question which he meant to put to Lord Russell on the subject on the following day, of course expecting to hear from his lips an indignant denial of what he was likely to stigmatize as a mere newspaper fabrication. What, however, was his astonishment when the noble Lord himself got up in his place in that House and, standing where the Chancellor of the Exchequer now stood, admitted the substantial accuracy of that accusation made against him by the Court of Vienna in the face of Europe and published in all the official documents of the day? Nor was that all. A notice of Motion was given by his right hon. Friend (Sir Bulwer Lytton), who proposed to call the attention of the House to all the circumstances of that transaction, which, on the face of it, appeared so disgraceful to a British Minister, and to offer to the noble Lord an opportunity of fully explaining the whole matter, and, as they all hoped, of triumphantly refuting the charge brought against him. But what was the line then taken by the noble Lord? It was confidently stated at the time that forty Gentlemen on the other side of the House who were stanch supporters of Lord Palmerston, and attached adherents as well as ranking among the chief ornaments and most respectable Members of the great Whig party, went to Lord Palmerston and told him, "If this matter goes to a division we cannot,

  175
  under the circumstances, vote in justification of Lord Russell's conduct on that occasion." Whether that was the fact or not he did not know, but it would be very easy for hon. Gentlemen opposite to contradict the statement if it were untrue, and it would be only an act of justice to Lord Russell if they did so. But there was one fact which admitted of no dispute—namely, that Lord Russell did not meet that charge, and that Lord Russell resigned. It was a matter of deep regret if in the present critical state of Europe, when it was possible that a judicious Minister who really possessed the confidence of the House and the goodwill of Austria might have succeeded in preventing the calamity of war, it should prove to be true, as his right hon. Friend seemed to surmise, that Lord Russell—who of all men must have felt that his communications could not carry any great weight with them—went out of the way to make a private and unauthorized communication to the Court of Austria. He did not wish to prolong the discussion, but the subject weighed heavily on his mind, as he believed it did upon the mind of every independent Member of the House who desired to maintain the honour of England.
  MR. HIBBERTobserved, that five hours had now been spent in the discussion of Continental affairs, and he thought that it was time the House turned its attention to the Reform Bill, a matter which affected our own country. He had continued in his seat during the whole of the dinner hour, expecting that the question of Reform would be brought on for discussion, but he had been disappointed. He must admit, however, that the speeches which had been delivered had came as much from one side as the other. He now thought the subject had been sufficiently ventilated, and that it should now proceed with a question on which hon. Members would be able to show their sympathies, not with foreign nations, but with our own countrymen. He had no doubt the hon. Gentleman who originated this discussion had been actuated by very proper motives, but if it were further continued, he believed it would do more harm than good.
  MAJOR STUART KNOXsaid, that the more discussion the subject underwent, which was now before the House, the better it would be for this country and for the peace of Europe. The hon. Member for Bridgwater had studied the interests of the country in bringing it forward. If the
  176
  question of European affairs did not interest Gentlemen on the opposite side of the House, he was very sorry. The Chancellor of the Exchequer deprecated its discussion; but, with regard to foreign affairs, he was pleased to "meddle and muddle," regardless of the honour of his country. In the time of the Crimean war the following opinion was expressed by Her Majesty's Government:—"The rights conferred by the treaties which now form a portion of the International Law of Europe should be maintained." He trusted that the conduct of Her Majesty's Government would be in accordance with this opinion. He thought the country showed a right feeling when it encouraged the Government of which the right hon. Gentleman was a Member to engage in the Crimean war, and he believed it would show a similar feeling again, if it were necessary. [Cries of "Divide!"] He did not know what there was to divide about. At this time the Government must have quite enough to do to attend to foreign affairs, and he urged them to throw aside their obstinacy and postpone the question of Reform till next year.
  MR. EARLEasked, whether it was the intention of the Government to produce the papers relating to the important negotiations which had taken place in regard to the present crisis on the Continent?
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE BILL [BILL 68.], AND RE-DISTRIBUTION OF SEATS BILL— [BILL 138.]

  COMMITTEE.
  (Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Sir George Grey, Mr. Villiers.)
  Order for Committee read.
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 4.
  MR. HUNTsaid, he rose for the purpose of moving an Amendment to the clause under discussion. He proposed to add the words, "Such clear yearly value being the rateable value of the premises as ascertained for the purposes of the poor rate." The question upon which the House voted the other night was whether premises of £14 yearly value should confer upon the occupier the franchise. His right hon. Friend (Mr. Walpole) had proposed the substitution of £20 for £14, intending,

  177
  had he been successful, to follow it up by proposing to add to the end of the second paragraph the words, "on which he has been rated or assessed to the poor rate or the inhabited house duty." In consequence of his right hon. Friend not being able to obtain the insertion of the word £20 for £14, the other portion of his Amendment fell to the ground, because no one was assessed to the inhabited house duty who did not occupy a house of the annual value of £20. The question whether the county franchise should depend upon the rental or the rating had never been put to the Committee; but he thought it was one of such importance that the present clause ought not to be passed without the decision of the Committee upon this point. The expression in the second paragraph of the clause, "clear yearly value," without any explanation, was ambiguous. The Government in their interpretation clause, which had been postponed, sought to assign a definite meaning to it, and it was as follows:—
  "Clear yearly value, as applied to any premises, shall mean a sum equal in amount to the rent a tenant might reasonably be expected to pay by the year for such premises if let to him, he undertaking to pay all usual tenant's rates and taxes and tithe commutation rent-charge (if any), but no deductions being made in respect of the probable annual average cost of repairs, insurance, and other expenses, if any, necessary to maintain the premises in a state to command such rent; and for the purpose of this Act the gross estimated rental for the time being of any premises, as ascertained for the purposes of the poor rate, shall, until the contrary is proved, be deemed to be the clear yearly value of such premises."
  He thought it was not right to leave so important a question for decision on the interpretation clause, and that before going any further in the discussion of the Bill, the Committee should define what was to be the meaning of a "clear yearly value." He had endeavoured, by the clause of which he had given notice, to define what was the meaning of the clear yearly value; and if his Amendment was adopted by the Committee the deductions that would be made were those that were excepted in the interpretation clause—namely, the cost of repairs, insurance, and such other expenses as were necessary to maintain the premises in a condition to command such a rent. The rateable value, as distinguished from the annual value, depended upon the Act passed in the late reign to regulate the parochial assessment, the net annual value of the hereditaments—that is to say, of the rent at which it might reasonably be
  178
  fixed, after deducting the probable annual average cost of repairs, insurances, &c. If the Amendment which he proposed were carried, the effect would be to raise the county franchise to a higher standard than if the clause passed without amendment. The question, however, was not so much whether the amount should be raised to a higher figure, as whether the Committee should adopt the principle of rating, requiring every man in possession of the county franchise to discharge all the duties and be subject to all the burdens of ratepayers. As he understood the Bill, it was not a necessary condition of the franchise that a man should be on the rate book at all, and therefore it would be quite possible for a man to vote as a rated occupier without his name appearing on the rate book. By agreement between the rated occupier and a sub-tenant, under which the former was to pay all the rates, it would be quite possible for the latter to figure in the rate-book without paying any rate at all. The hon. Member for the South-West Riding had alluded to the desirability of preventing the creation of sham qualifications. By supporting this Amendment he would take the most effectual means of doing so. He was at a loss to understand why the Government had adopted the principle of rental instead of rating, or why the £14 franchise had been fixed upon unless it was that this was the figure at which the Irish county franchise stood. But if they were to go to the Irish Reform Act as a model, they would find that the Irish franchise was a rating franchise. The Irish Reform Act was carried under the auspices of the present Prime Minister, and he had never heard any dissatisfaction expressed with its operation. He was on a Committee which inquired two years ago concerning the registration of county voters when evidence was taken as to the working of the system in Ireland, and superior advantages were claimed for it over the English county franchise, because ninety out of every 100 voters in Ireland had their franchise by virtue of occupation. The presence of the names upon the valuation book was accepted as proof of the voter's right to be upon the register, and the names accordingly were all transferred to the register without entailing any trouble upon the individuals themselves; and thus a complete self-acting register was obtained, liable only to change from the claims or objections served at either side. Before the same Committee the hon. Member

  179
  for Lanarkshire gave evidence with regard to the system of registration in Scotland, where the valuation roll in like manner was primâ facie evidence for the purpose of the county registers, all the names of owners, as well as occupiers, being transferred to the register of voters by a public officer. The extension to England of the principle thus found to operate beneficially in Ireland and Scotland might seem a small matter to hon. Members anxious to extend the franchise widely; but though the Committee might not be anxious to go down to as lots a figure as some hon. Members desired, he would doubtless obtain their concurrence in saying that all those to whom the franchise was ultimately to be given ought to enjoy the greatest facilities for being placed upon the register. In this country, owing to the want of connection between the rate book and the register, county voters had the greatest difficulty in securing their right to vote. No public officer existed whose duty it was to transfer their names from the rate book to the register; they were accordingly obliged before a certain day to transmit their claims, in a particular form, to the parish officer. The consequence was that numbers of persons in England and Wales, either from not sending in their claims on the right day or from sending them in an improper form, or from an inaccurate description of their qualification, were omitted from the register. If the Amendments which he proposed were carried, nothing would be easier than to add a clause directing the parish officer to place on the register the name of every rated occupier, and without any trouble to individuals a register for the county would be thus obtained. Even since the passing of the Irish Reform Act this principle of rating had been sanctioned by the present Prime Minister. By the Bill brought in by the noble Lord in 1852 it was proposed that the county franchise should be £20 of rateable value, and it was further required that there should be actual payment of rates. In the next Reform measure brought in by the same noble Lord in 1854, during the Premiership of Lord Aberdeen, that principle was departed from to a certain extent, inasmuch as the county franchise was to have been for premises of £10 yearly value; but, even by this Bill, it was required that the occupier should be rated. The Bill brought in by Lord Derby's Government in 1859 proposed a county franchise on a £10 clear
  180
  yearly value; but it also required that the occupier should not only be rated, but that there should also be an actual payment of rates. In the Bill of 1860, which never got into Committee, he believed for the first time there was no requirement of rating. But he would ask the Government how long ago it was since they had given up the principle of rating. In the remarks which he had made last week on the subject, he had called attention to the fact that according to the Electoral Returns, compiled by the Government, it was evidently their intention in the first instance that the franchise should be a rating franchise, because the heading stated the return relating to counties to be one of the—
  "Number of male persons who are assessed in the valuation lists now in force for the several parishes in the county or electoral division; or, if no valuation list has been approved, then in the valuation list last delivered to the assessment committee, with any alteration made by them therein, or where there is no such list, then in the last poor rate, as occupiers of a house or other building, either with or without land, within each parish, at the rateable values of £10 and under £12, £12 and under £15, £15 and under £20, and £20 and under £50, showing the number of each class who are owners of the property so occupied by them; and also of the number of male persons in like manner assessed as occupiers of lands or tenements, at the gross estimated rental of £50 and upwards."
  When the House came to the discussion of the county franchise on Thursday night, those were the only Returns they had to depend on, and therefore as the Government had given no returns whatever relating to a rental franchise, hon. Members were called upon to argue as to what this latter franchise would be on returns relating to a rating franchise. It appeared, however, that the Government were not in the same frame of mind on this subject from one week to another; because when they compiled those Returns they were contemplating a rating franchise; but when they laid the Bill on the table they were for a rental franchise. He had been rather curious to ascertain what was the reason for the change in the intentions of the Government, and he was told in private that there was such a difference in different counties with respect to the deductions made from the gross estimated rental, so as to come at the rateable value, that there could be nothing like uniformity, and the result would be that what would give a man the franchise in one county might not be sufficient to give it in another county. But they had made

  181
  great progress towards the principle of uniformity upon this subject of late years, particularly since the passing of the Union Assessment Act. In his own county deputations from the different districts had met in the county town with the view of adopting a uniform system of deductions from the gross estimated rental in order to get at the rateable value; and though complete uniformity did not yet prevail, there was much less variety than formerly. Besides, after the experience of the Union Assessment Acts of the last two years, there could be little doubt that we should have an Act of Parliament to secure complete uniformity in those deductions. Therefore, though he did not think the point was one of paramount importance in relation to the franchise, the want of uniformity was a difficulty which could be removed by Act of Parliament. He would, however, ask the Government whether the gross estimated rentals were uniform in the proportion which they bore to the real value? What was taken to be the gross estimated rental was generally the actual rent paid. Now, he would venture to say that in the case of lettings under old families the actual rent paid was much lower as compared with the value than it was in the case of lettings under recent purchases, who in many instances screwed the rent up to the utmost. He was convinced that every one who inquired into the subject would find that there were as great variations in the gross estimated rental as there were in rating. He therefore contended that under existing circumstances a rating franchise afforded quite as good a basis in respect of uniformity of result as a rental franchise did. Moreover, he thought the rating principle a desirable one to introduce, on the ground that no one should be entitled to the franchise who did not share in the burden of paying rates. They had hitherto been kept very much in the dark upon this question, but that morning for the first time hon. Members had been furnished with information showing what was likely to be the addition made to the county constituencies by the reduction of the franchise proposed by the Government, and what was the character of that addition? He must say he very much regretted that they had not that information before them when the question whether £14 or £20 should be the limit Was under discussion; because when the Committee were arriving at a decision on that point they were groping in the dark.
  182
  Those who voted for £14 were taking results on the faith of the Government; but he believed in that case it was the blind leading the blind. For weeks and months hon. Members had been asking for that information. They had told the Government that they could not possibly discuss the county franchise till they had it, but it was not before them last Thursday, though he believed that if the Government had been anxious to give such information, they might have supplied it long ago. It was rather late in the day to enter on an examination of those statistics now, but happily the Committee had not passed from the 4th clause yet. It was too late to alter the figure from £14; but it was not too late to make it a rating franchise, and it would be practically putting the franchise at a higher figure than it now stood in the clause if they adopted his Amendment. He ventured to think he would be able to give a good reason why they should put the franchise at a higher figure. [An hon. MEMBER: How much?] An hon. Member asked how much higher. Well, he believed about 20 per cent; but he was no authority on the subject. The President of the Poor Law Board was the proper person to satisfy the curiosity of hon. Members as to the difference; but his own information led him to believe that the increase which the adoption of his Amendment would cause would be something from 17 to 20 per cent. They had heard a great deal of talk lately about "the ancient lines of the Constitution." The Opposition were taunted with going against those lines; but he understood that originally it was only property of a permanent character and not the fleeting property represented by occupation which conferred a qualification in counties. In 1832, to a certain extent, Parliament departed from that principle for the first time, and admitted occupation as forming a part of the title to the county franchise; but he would remind the House that it was only to a small degree as regarded counties the principle of occupation was admitted. The Government Returns gave 542,633 as the total number of those upon the county register, and of that number nearly one-fifth, or 116,860, were on the register on the ground that they were £50 tenants. That was, doubtless, a departure from the ancient lines of the Constitution, but only to a certain extent—in adding occupying tenants to the amount of one-fifth of the constituency—the property of the county

  183
  was not swamped by the introduction of the new franchise. It was important to ascertain whether the whole of the male occupiers entitled to a place on the register were to be found there. The Government Returns showed that 155,847 was the number of occupiers who paid rents of £50 and upwards; and if only 116,860, as the Government Return said, were electors, it would be seen that at present one-fourth of the £50 occupiers did not find their way to the register. What, then, would be the effect of a £14 county franchise? By Returns presented to the House that morning, if they went down to £14 for the county franchise, the total number who would be competent to place their names on the register would be 488,942. Deducting from that number one-fourth, the proportion of £50 occupiers who did not register, 366,707 would be left as the number which would probably be placed on the register by virtue of the occupation franchise. The result was this. Taking 542,633 existing county voters, less 116,860, the number of £50 occupiers, they had 425,773, the number of voters by right of property; but the Bill of the Government would add 366,707 voters, making a total county constituency of 792,480. But mark the change. Instead of the occupation voters supplying one-fifth of the total number on the county register, they would in round numbers be three out of seven. That he felt convinced was new information to the House; because until to-day the statistics enabling hon. Gentlemen to see the real effect of the condition of the county registry at present, and as it would be influenced by the Government Bill, had not been presented to the House. He next proposed to show to the Committee the difference between the present and proposed franchise in respect to the rural and urban elements. It would possibly surprise hon. Members who had not examined the Papers to hear that out of the 542,633 county voters now on the register, nearly one-fifth had their qualifying property situated in the borough. He interpreted the statement as meaning borough free-holders, because were they only occupiers they would not be qualified for the county. Thus it appeared that, of the 425,773 voters qualified by property, about one-fourth had that property in boroughs. Lord Derby had been severely denounced for having attempted to take away the votes for the county from those whose qualification depended upon borough freeholds,
  184
  But this charge would not be repeated when it was seen that one-fourth of those on the register had their property situated within the boroughs wherein their interests and association were presumed to lie. The new statistics of which he was speaking also gave some information respecting the unrepresented towns in counties. They showed that out of 155,847 male occupiers of £50 and upwards, 36,792 lived in towns of 5,000 inhabitants and upwards; so that about one-fourth of the £50 occupiers represented urban interests, because they occupied premises within towns of 5,000 inhabitants. But the £14 franchise would place on the register 286,299 additional occupation voters. Taking one-fourth from them on the supposition that that proportion would not find their way to the register, there remained 214,725. That result was very nearly the number given by the Government. But of that number, as many as 97,925 had their qualifying property in towns with populations of 5,000 and upwards. Deducting one-fourth from them, about 73,000 were left, so that one-third of the £14 occupiers it was proposed to add would be urban voters. According to his calculation, while one-fourth of the present county voters were urban, the reduction of the county occupation franchise to £14 would raise the urban element to one-third of the whole. In that view of the case, hon. Gentlemen on the Treasury Bench and their supporters should excuse the Opposition if they were a little jealous of a proposition which would detract so much from the proper county constituency by adding to it so largely the borough element. He and his friends were not afraid of lowering the franchise, nor of increasing the constituency; but they maintained that, whereas the county constituency was already inflated to a greater extent than it should be by the urban element, it was most inexpedient that the agricultural interest should be still further overridden. In resisting the attempt of the Government to reduce the county franchise to £14, they did not deny that those to whom the £14 qualification would give county votes were fit to exercise the franchise; but they asserted that their introduction would disturb the proper balance between the counties and boroughs, and tend to destroy the characteristic quality of the former. He next proposed to show the Committee the amount of property now represented by the £50 occupiers in counties, and the property that would be represented by

  185
  the addition to the franchise of occupiers between £14 and £50. The statistics just furnished to hon. Members gave a larger number of male occupiers at a gross estimated rental of £50 than the original Government statistics. He had been in communication with the able gentleman who had prepared those statistics, and they both agreed as to the reason of that increase. These statistics had been obtained at a later date than the Government statistics, new valuation lists having been prepared, in which the real property had been assessed much higher in consequence of the operation of the Union Assessment Act. The gross estimated rental might be represented as the actual rental of most of the property in the country, and the deductions made from the gross estimated rental for rateable value were much more uniform and much less in amount. The consequence was that the gross estimated rental throughout almost all the country stood at a much higher figure than it did when the Government statistics were prepared. There were now, 202,643 male occupiers assessed to a gross estimated rental of £50 or upwards, while those rated at between £14 and £50 numbered 286,299. Thus nearly one-third more voters would be placed on the register in respect of property assessed at a rental of between £14 and £50 than those persons who were rated at £50 and upwards. The Committee, however, must not think that this one-third represented more property than the remainder. There were three columns of most valuable information in that Return which showed that the 202,643 occupiers of £50, and upwards represented a gross estimated rental of £33,800,000, while the 286,299 voters, who were rated at between £14 and £50, only represented a gross estimated rental of £7,464,395. Now, he would ask the Committee, was a more astounding statement than that given by these statistics ever presented to Parliament? They were to have one-third more voters occupying holdings between £14 and £50 than they had upon the £50 rental, and yet the property represented by the new voters was only one-fifth of that represented by the old ones. He asked, then, was it represented without reason that the Government were seeking to overbear property by numbers. Had they not then just cause for the statement which they were now able to prove by figures that the Government had been acting in the dark, and seeking to give an undue influence to
  186
  those whose interest in the counties was fleeting and temporary, so as to enable them to override by their votes those whose interests were of a permanent and established character? After producing these facts, he could not help feeling that the Motion which he was about to make would be but a very small aid towards correcting the abuses he had pointed out, for he was merely going to propose that the £14 county franchise should be raised from a rental to a rating franchise. That, he believed, would not really raise the qualification to more than a £16 rental franchise. He feared that in making such a proposition, he should not at all redress the monstrous injustice of the Government proposal. After the statistics which he had read to the House it seemed a poor, a paltry, and a halting proposition to make, and he must himself confess that the plaster was by no means large enough for the wound. But it was, at all events, a step in the right direction. It established what, in his judgment, was a just and proper principle—that every man who was placed upon the county register should be a man who was bound to take upon himself the burdens of a ratepayer, and no such condition was to be found in the Government Bill. He would not detain the Committee any longer, but would move the Amendment of which he had given notice.
  Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 40, at the end of the second paragraph, to add the words "such clear yearly value being the rateable value of the premises as ascertained for the purposes of the Poor Rate."—(Mr.Hunt.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Mr. Dodson, the hon. Gentleman has brought forward, without notice, an Amendment of very great importance. ["No, no!"] I am now stating a matter of fact and the hon. Gentleman himself is a great deal too well informed to contradict me.
  MR. HUNT: I sent private notice to the right hon. Gentleman.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: The hon. Gentleman sent me notice this afternoon—
  Mr. HUNTrose to explain, but on cries of "Order, order!" resumed his seat.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: As far as I am concerned, I have

  187
  not the slightest doubt that the hon. Gentleman did everything he could—
  Mr. HUNTagain rose, amid loud cries of "Order!" but Mr. CHANCELLOR of the Ex-CHEQUER giving way—
  MR. HUNTsaid, I sent it early this morning; I only want to speak on a point of order, that has been stated as a fact which, within my own knowledge, is not a fact. ["Order, order!"] I know I am not in order for any argument founded on the fact, but I am in order in correcting the statement.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The rule is that when an hon. Member is speaking, if another hon. Member rises to explain something, he is not at liberty to pursue his explanation unless the hon. Member who is in possession of the House voluntarily gives away.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: The reason, Sir, why I did not give way to the hon. Gentleman in the first instance was simply this:—that when I said he had brought forward his Amendment without notice, I did not mean that I had suffered any inconvenience in consequence, but I meant that which I apprehend to be a perfectly simple matter of fact—namely, that this is an important as it is also a complex proposition, and that it has been brought forward without notice to the House.
  MR. HUNTagain rose to explain, but on cries of "Order, order!" resumed his seat.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER continued: The House may think it desirable to allow me to finish the sentence. I was going to say that it was brought forward without notice to the House in the usual form—that is to say, given on the Votes. As far as I am individually concerned I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman, for I have not the least doubt that he gave me the earliest notice he could.
  MR. HUNT: I sent it this morning early.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I merely refer to the matter because it shows the difficulty in which we are placed. In the proposition of the hon. Gentleman there are involved three questions of great importance. One is whether the occupation is to be an occupation in respect to which the voter is rated. The next proposal is distinct from that, and is, whether he is to be rated on the rateable value. That is a question of the greatest importance. Then the third question is,
  188
  whether you are in part to undo the vote you gave the other night — that is to say, whether, having filled up the blank, or rather having confirmed the words £14 in the clause as it stands, you are to adopt a vote to raise it to £16 or £17? As regards the first of these questions, I will put it aside for the moment with a single remark. It appears to us that wherever the occupation is bonâ fide—and of course if it is not a bonâ fide occupation it cannot be recognized by the Revising Barrister—there is no object or policy in requiring that the occupier should himself be rated. We stand upon the principle which was adopted by Parliament itself in its Acts with respect to compound householders. They all proceed on the principle that, as the occupier is the real payer of the rates, whether it is collected from him or not, he ought to be allowed to be placed on the register. In effect, therefore, we are merely applying to the county occupiers that which has been done in the case of compound householders in boroughs. Nay, more, we are applying the very principle of the Chandos clause, that a £50 householder does not require to be rated. And now with regard to the second point, as to the raising of the franchise. The hon. Gentleman has produced figures which he called astounding, and which, indeed, appear to have produced a remarkable effect on his own mind. It is really difficult to deal with the hon. Gentleman, because he has propounded doctrines which are wholly new, and entirely void of foundation in our constitutional history. You cannot lay hold of these distinctions between urban and rural districts, and the conflicting classes of owners and occupiers. Whence does the hon. Gentleman draw them? They do not come from the old Constitution of England; they are some manufacture of his own and of his ingenious friends. The hon. Gentleman complains of our bringing in too many occupiers as contradistinguished from those who have more permanent interests. Well, but the greatest of all charges against the Government has been that, in our anxiety to keep up the number of proprietary votes, we enfranchised the leaseholders in boroughs; that was regarded as the most outrageous of all our propositions. This shows that when you talk of the proportion between occupiers and proprietary voters you use the words in a limited and a qualified sense of your own, and that you mean a great deal more than you say, and make distinctions unknown to the old Constitution,

  189
  which you can hardly expect us to recognize as legitimate. The hon. Gentleman is filled with horror at the idea of the increase in the number of occupation voters in comparison with proprietary voters. Has the hon. Gentleman forgotten that in 1859 he supported the Bill which his party brought in, which on the one hand cut off 100,000 proprietary votes, because the possessors lived within boroughs, and on the other hand took the occupation franchise down to £10. Independently of that view of the case, I do not think there is anything to be afraid of. As nearly as I can calculate the number of county voters at present is about 542,000, and of these about 116,000 are occupation voters. To this proportion of occupation voters are to be added a further number of 170,000 voters, making a total of 287,000; and there thus will be 426,000 proprietary voters as against 287,000 occupation voters. If we can find more proprietary voters, by all means get them. We tried to find them, but you were excessively dissatisfied with our proposal. We withdrew our proposal, in order, if possible, to conciliate you; in principle it is an excellent proposal; it is conformable to the whole spirit of the Constitution. If it conciliates you, we are willing to withdraw it; if it does not, we are quite prepared to persevere with it. The hon. Gentleman, again, dwells upon his contrast between urban and rural interests. He says that all the small unrepresented towns belong to the urban interest. My answer is that the Constitution knows nothing of these urban interests; and on this point I threw out a challenge which no one is more competent than the hon. Member to take up. The whole county franchise is proprietary whether in towns or outside them; and the Constitution knows nothing of the distinction between urban and rural interests. I now come to what I suppose the hon. Gentleman regards as the main point involved in his Amendment. His object is to establish a rating franchise, and I have no doubt at all that, in point of fact, he regards the augmentation of the franchise as rather an incidence of his Motion than the object of his Motion. Therefore, let us argue not this question whether the franchise ought to be what is commonly termed a rating franchise—that is, a franchise fixed upon the column of rateable value. The hon. Gentlemen says that from the form of the Government statistics it is perfectly evident that the Government originally
  190
  contemplated a rating franchise. There is some truth in that. Before we were fully informed we had thought of a rating franchise; but upon a careful and accurate examination of the whole case we found that every advantage of a rating franchise was to be had by another operation, while at the same time the great disadvantages incident to a rating franchise might be completely avoided. The hon. Gentleman would raise the county franchise by his Motion. I object to his raising it; I object to his undoing the vote of Friday wholly or in part. if it is to be done, I think the hon. Member will agree with me that it ought to be done by a proposition raised directly ad hoc. Independently of that, I say he is going to raise it in the worst way. We began, I admit, before we examined the matter carefully, with a prejudice in favour of a rating franchise, but as we examined it we found that the case for the rating franchise utterly broke down, The hon. Gentleman has fallen into a mistake respecting the Irish case. He says that we quote it, and if we quote it let us be bound by it. That is a —12 rating franchise. I quoted it with reference to the class of voters, and to the value and amount of interest that was presumably represented. But this is not a rating franchise in the sense in which the hon. Gentleman understands it. It is not fixed upon the rateable value. I have here the two Acts—that regulating the valuation and that regulating the classes of voters, The former fixes absolutely the mode in whiels the valuation of land was to be ascertained; it then fixes the valuation of a house; and in the case of a house it directs a certain uniform fixed deduction. That valuation of land without any deduction at all and that valuation of houses with a uniform fixed deduction are the uniform rate in Ireland, and there is no such distinction in Ireland as obtains in England between the gross estimated rental and the rateable value. [Mr. HUNT: That is fixed by Act of Parliament.] Here is the Act of 1850, which says that a person shall be rated at the net annual value of £12 and upwards. That is exactly as I understand the matter; that corresponds precisely with the Valuation Act. There is no system corresponding to ours in which the basis of valuation is the column of gross estimated rental, from which, by a system of variable deductions, the column of rateable value is constructed. My point is this, in Ireland there exists a totally different system.

  191
  [Mr. WHITESIDE: We know it.] There is an Act laying down the valuation of lands without any deduction whatever; upon that valuation, as I understand it, the rate is made; therefore, the Irish system has nothing to do with the case of England. I should not care if it had. If it had, I should say we profit by the experience which has been obtained since the Irish Act was passed. Let us look at the English system upon its own merits. The hon. Gentleman says, "Do not take the column of gross estimated rental," which is what we propose to take. His first, at any rate his best, objection to it is that the gross estimated rental is not free from error; in certain cases it is inaccurate. I admit that in certain cases the gross estimated rental is not accurate, but it is in a very small proportion of cases; and where the gross estimated rental is inaccurate, does the rating column correct it? No. There is no single error in the column of gross estimated rental that is not carried into the rating column. Where, then, is the argument for going to the rating column to escape the errors of the gross estimated rental? It does not exist; but even although there are no errors in the column of gross estimated rental, the column of rateable value is full of errors not to be found in the gross estimated rental. It is true we have done a great deal towards bringing them within certain limits; but it is not true that all those errors are got rid of, nor do I see how, as long as the system of local government prevails in this country, as I hope it may, we can get rid of them. You cannot advise that assessment committees shall not have the power of making deductions. In Ireland there are no assessment committees; the whole thing is under the direction of Government officials, while in England it is worked by the local authorities, and that is the main reason why, even if there were a column of gross estimated rental there, the Irish system is totally inadequate for this country. The English system of deductions is full of inequalities; but the hon. Gentleman says that by this Bill they will probably be got rid of. Is not that taking a leap in the dark? The hon. Gentleman cannot have the inequalities as they exist now, he speculates that in the future they will be got rid of; I cannot see the least probability of it; and I think it is most unlikely that that will be the effect of his proceeding. In the counties it would establish an unequal franchise. The deduction
  192
  in the case of lands would perhaps be 5 per cent; whereas the deductions in the case of houses would be 20 per cent. In consequence of two men paying the same rental, one would be enfranchised and the other would not. The hon. Gentleman would introduce a system of inequality in each county as between a man who drew his franchise from lands and another who drew his franchise from houses. But that is not all. If we establish this system for counties we must establish it for towns. How does the case stand in towns? In many towns different parts of the town are in different unions. Under the measure of the hon. Gentleman you would have different franchises in the same town and different franchises in different towns of the same county. Is that right, or is it desirable? We know that there is a Motion proposing different rates of franchise in different towns of different populations; but that is not the question now before the House. What I would point out is, that if you establish a rating franchise the effect of that will be that the franchise will be different in different portions of the same town according as they are in different unions. In one of the parishes in Greenwich, for instance, a deduction of 20 per cent is made, in another parish a deduction of 25 per cent, and in a third a deduction of 30. [Mr. HUNT: This was on account of different classes of houses.] These are parishes, and not classes of houses. Again, in Bury St. Edmund's, where there is no very different classes of houses, the deduction in the parish of St. James is one-tenth, and in the parish of St. Mary one-sixth. In Exeter, again, in three parishes the deduction is 33½ per cent, in two more 25 to 33½ per cent, in two others 20 to 33½ per cent, in another 20 to 50 per cent, in another 15 to 50, in two more 20 to 25, in another 15 to 25, and in another 12½. In fact, according to the hon. Gentleman's proposal, in every parish in Exeter there would be a different franchise. But the hon. Gentleman says they are different classes of houses, but such an explanation is entirely visionary. It is impossible that that can be the explanation, and indeed it is well known that it is not so. I will give the hon. Gentleman a practical case, if he likes. In the county of Dorset the magistrates levied a county rate, but in doing so they found the deductions made by the assessment committee so unequal and so impossible to reduce to rule, that

  193
  they rejected the rateable value column altogether, and went back to the gross estimated rental as the basis of a rate. But the hon. Gentleman thinks it an answer to say that different classes of houses require different rates of deductions. That is of course perfectly true as a matter of fact, but it does not in the least help his proposition. The meaning of the law when it fixes the rental of a house at £7 or any other number of pounds as the basis for the franchise, is that it regards his rent, subject to the deduction of rates and taxes, as a test of his capacity to pay. It makes no difference whether he lives in a house that requires an annual expenditure of 25 per cent to keep it in a habitable condition, or whether an expenditure of 5 per cent only is necessary for that purpose. The law has nothing to do with this. We take the column of gross estimated rental, because by it we can test the tenants' ability to pay. What, on the other hand, does the rateable value column mean? It indicates simply the value of the building to the landlord, and with that we have nothing to do for the purpose of enfranchisement. The true test we have to deal with is the capacity of the man to pay the rent, and if he finds it worth his while to pay that rent, it does not matter to us whether he expends 1, 10, 20, or even 50 per cent, in order to keep the building in habitable condition. As a basis, therefore, for action, the hon. Gentleman's standard is one altogether false and visionary. One may fairly ask, I think, why so much has been said about rateable value, and the question is, perhaps, worth some examination. The real truth of it, I suppose, is, that it was felt when the old Reform Bill was drawn up, and indeed in subsequent Reform Bills, that it would be a great advantage to fix the franchise and govern the formation of the register by means of some standard fixed by a public authority for another and not for a political purpose. On that ground people spoke of the rate book, and in doing so thought of the rateable value, and in point of fact, until the Act of my right hon. Friend the President of the Poor Law Board was passed, the gross estimated rental column was in a state of great uncertainty. The object, then, in fixing the franchise on the rateable value was to get rid of the swearing, the separate examination, and expense. It has, however, now been found that the advantages attending the employment of the rateable value column are
  194
  counterbalanced by many disadvantages which may be avoided by availing ourselves of the gross estimated rental column, and we should have acted very foolishly if we had not accepted it as our standard. My answer to the argument of the hon. Gentleman is, therefore, that the rateable value is a test false in principle, because it implies the value to the landlord, with which, at present, we have nothing to do; and, further, that it is a most unequal test, because it would give different franchises according to the variation in deductions, a variation depending solely upon local opinion and local authority, and one which you cannot by any possibility reduce to uniformity or rule. This variation would prevail not only in different parts of the country, but in a multitude of instances, as I have shown, in different parts and portions of the same town. These I believe to be very strong and practical reasons against the adoption of the rateable value, and to be quite irrespective of any question as to the amount of the franchise. But I have especial objections to the Amendment, because it endeavours by a by-blow to alter the vote at which the House has already arrived.
  MR. HUNTsaid, he wished to say a word in explanation, which he hoped to offer at the commencement of the right hon. Gentleman's speech. He thought the right hon. Gentleman was imputing to him that he did not give him notice of this Amendment until that afternoon. The fact was that immediately after breakfast that morning he had sent a messenger to the right hon. Gentleman informing him of the Motion which he intended to propose. He was not able to give notice before, because he had not intended on Friday to bring forward such a Motion. He was not, indeed, aware then, and he believed that a majority of the Members of the House were not aware what became of the notice placed upon the paper by his right hon. Friend behind him (Mr. Walpole). In fact, when he came down to the House that evening he found that the opinion prevailed on both sides of the House that his right hon. Friend proposed to proceed with his Motion. He merely wished to make these few remarks to prevent the supposition that he had the slightest intention of taking the Chancellor of the Exchequer by surprise.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I had not the slightest intention to impute to the hon. Member any discourtesy in the matter.
  MR. HENLEY: There is one question with respect to the rateable value upon which the right hon. Gentleman has not at all touched. The result is, that his basis does not appear to me to be altogether accurate. The right hon. Gentleman says that the rateable value has to do with the landlord, but in reality it has nothing on earth to do with him. The rateable value has to do with the amount upon which the tenant pays his taxes. The tenant does not care at what figure the gross estimated rental is fixed, for it does not concern him. All that he cares about is the rateable value, for it is upon that that he pays. And when the right hon. Gentleman says that it is desirable to take some test framed for purposes not connected with elections, he ought to have accepted the rateable value as the more accurate, for against that people will appeal if it is wrong. They cannot appeal against the gross estimated rental, for that does not touch them at all. It is upon the rateable value that they pay, and if they are assessed too high they appeal, and get it set right. Now, with regard to the Irish rating. I suppose that the valuation is fixed at the amount on which the tenant pays his rate, and it is to it that all look. Then the right hon. Gentleman has said a great deal about inequalities, but surely he does not simply call it an inequality, because the deductions in the case of a poor timber-thatched house and in the case of a strong, brick, slated building are different. Would he call it an equality to deduct the same percentage in each case? We all know that while the buildings in one parish are of a poor and inferior description, in another parish large sums of money have been expended in the erection of stronger and better houses. You cannot, therefore, adopt any uniform deduction. The real reason for my hon. Friend's Motion is, I think, to be found in the statistics of which we obtained our first view this morning. I confess I was not so much surprised as many hon. Members probably were at finding so large a number of persons between £14 and £20. But in consequence of the production of these statistics, something was necessary to be done either in this form, or by asking the House to reconsider its decision. Upon that I will not now offer any opinion, but I could not help saying a word or two when the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his remarks insisted so strongly upon the inequalities perceivable in the estimates of rateable
  196
  value. In some places it would scarcely be possible to say what deductions ought to be allowed, and they would, of course, vary greatly according to the different description of the buildings on which the rates were made; therefore, I cannot see how uniformity in this respect is to be preserved.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, that the right hon. Gentleman was mistaken in supposing that there was no appeal in the event of there being an error in the gross estimated rental, as it would be found that there was an appeal to the Revising Barrister in such a case. [Several hon. MEMBERS inquired under what Act such an appeal was given.] The appeal was given by the Bill then before the House. It formed a part of Government proposition. And more than that, hon. Gentlemen would find that there was such an appeal under the existing law. When any question arose with respect to the clear annual value of property the Revising Barrister had to determine it. It was a singular fact that in 1859 the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire objected to this very rating proposition on the ground that there would be an appeal to the Revising Barrister upon the question of the gross estimated rental. The right hon. Gentleman, in the first instance, said that this rating proposition appeared sufficiently plausible, and proceeded thus—
  "It appears to me that if you could make—to use a common phrase—the rate book the register, you would very much simplify the business of election; but when you come to examine this matter in detail, in order to see how it will act, you will find that it is involved in difficulties—great, all acknowledge, and I am sorry to be obliged to confess, to my mind, insurmountable."[3 Hansard, clii. 982.]
  The right hon. Gentleman, therefore, in 1859, regarded the difficulties in the way of carrying out the proposal now renewed as insurmountable, and those difficulties, although partly, had not been completely removed by union being substituted for parochial rating. Much difficulty still remained in consequence of the different principles of estimating the annual values in the various unions. Thus, were the suggestions of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxfordshire adopted a man living on one side of a street might be enfranchised, while another occupying exactly the same description of house on the opposite side of the way would not have a vote simply because the union authorities might hold different views with

  197
  regard to the way in which the estimated rental should be arrived at, and as to the amount of deduction that should be allowed for repairs, &c.
  MR. HENLEYexplained that when he said there was no appeal against the gross estimated rental, of course he was speaking with regard to the poor rates.
  MR. DISRAELI: I certainly said that I found the difficulties as to the rating proposition to be insurmountable, but that was in 1859. But there have been great changes in the law in reference to this subject since then. There have been two union rating assessments since then, and the whole tendency of our legislation in recent years has been towards effecting an equalization of rating. Therefore, the observation of the hon. and learned Gentleman has clearly nothing to do with the question.
  MR. BRIGHT: I want to put a question to the hon. Member for Northamptonshire with regard to a point which he did not quite clearly explain. Do I understand him rightly in supposing that he intends to leave the £50 occupiers in counties as at present, and that in regard to all occupiers between £50 and £14 the principle of rating should be taken I wish to ask the hon. Gentleman whether he would recommend that there should be two principles, or whether he would extend the principle of his proposal to the £50 occupiers now on the register?
  MR. HUNTsaid, he was glad to have an opportunity of answering the question of the hon. Member for Birmingham, which had been put to him on a former occasion when the rules of the House prevented him from replying to it. He did not propose to disfranchise anybody by his clause, and therefore he presumed that those electors who were now upon the register as £50 occupiers would remain there.
  MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, he supposed that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer recommended that the gross estimated rental should be taken as the qualification test, because that method rested upon a Government calculation; but an estimate might be a fiction, whereas the assessment for actual rating was tested, not only by the local authorities, but by the ratepayers. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had described the gross estimated rental as being the old basis of qualification for the franchise, but the right hon. Gentleman would find, on looking back into
  198
  history, that the most ancient franchise rested upon the payment of taxes. This view was supported by Guizot and other writers on the representative system upon this country. The payment of rates by the voter was good evidence of his respectability, and by requiring a qualification of this kind before a man was permitted to vote the expenses of registration would be materially reduced. The expenses of registration for counties were shamefully large, and on the part of the working classes he demanded that they should be reduced. No one ever contemplated that the county registration should be decided by the agents of two political parties in each county or division, who were to make what compromises and to exclude whom they pleased, including, of course, as many voters of independent or unknown opinions as possible. The hon. Member for Northamptonshire was taunted by the right hon. Gentleman for saying that he did not wish to see the representation of property swamped. But he (Mr. Newdegate) would ask the hon. Member for Birmingham whether the county voters for North Warwickshire were all wealthy men. The fact was that the constituency consisted largely of the labouring class. He (Mr. Newdegate) could not be taunted with objecting to the admission of the working classes to the franchise, as he and others had founded a freehold land society in his county with the express object of enabling working men to obtain a property qualification. The fact was that the Conservatives had found that the Liberals in North Warwickshire had been doing the same thing, and the Conservatives thought it a useful undertaking and joined in it; between them they had created large constituencies of working men by these means. He appealed to the House to relieve the small county freeholders from the expense of registration by adopting a rating franchise, thus creating at the same time a natural test of that which he believed to be the most natural of all qualifications. He (Mr. Newdegate) deprecated the proposed reduction of the county franchise to £14, because it was an attempt to introduce into the counties that domination of the middle class, which now existed in the boroughs. In the boroughs it was proposed to admit a certain proportion of the working classes, but in the counties that class were to be swamped. In the interests of labour and purity of election, he should vote in support of the Amendment.
  SIR WILLIAM JOLLIFFEsaid, the Question really was, which was the most reliable value that could be placed upon the franchise created under the clause. Now, he contended, in spite of what had been said by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that the rating value was ten thousand times more to be relied upon than the gross estimated value. From year to year the rateable value was continually undergoing revision, and the present mode of assessment was quite different from that of 1859. If the rating column were adopted, it would facilitate the registration of votes, keep the register pure, and secure the assistance of the parochial authorities in preparing it.
  MR. W. B. BEAUMONTsaid, that the rating column varied in different unions, according to the caprice of those who prepared it, and he thought the gross estimated rental possessed a great advantage in being a fixed and not a fluctuating amount.
  SIR HUGH CAIRNSsaid, he wished to say a word respecting the comparison drawn between this proposal and the Chandos clause. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said the Chandos clause did not proceed upon the principle of rating. That was true, but that clause had no kind of analogy to the £14 rating franchise now proposed. The Chandos clause did not create a franchise of clear rateable value. It took for its test the circumstance that the voter was actually subjected to the payment of a £50 rental. The value was not a point which the Chandos clause considered. Again, the franchise under the Chandos clause was one which must be claimed; it was not a self-acting franchise like the one now proposed. The Chancellor of the Exchequer referred to the Irish franchise and to the rateable value upon which it was based in the Irish Act, and the right hon. Gentlemen maintained that the system of rating in Ireland was so different to that in this country as to afford no fair analogy in the present instance. But on turning to the Act, it appeared that a house was to be valued upon an estimate of the net annual value after deducting the average cost of repairs and insurance, and other expenses necessary to maintain the building, and after deducting also rates and public charges. Thus, the rateable value of a house assessed upon that principle would be exactly the same as the rateable value of a house according to the English system.
  200
  It seemed to him an unanswerable argument to say that the principle on which a tenement and land were valued for the purpose of contributing to local taxation was the best principle of valuing the holding in respect of which a man received a vote for a Member of Parliament.
  COLONEL GILPINsaid, that he had always advocated a rating franchise, because it prevented all collusion and those frauds which existed with reference to value. He felt, therefore, that this was a subject which required grave consideration. It was introduced late this evening in consequence of a debate which was introduced on the other side, which was, therefore, not the fault of the Opposition; and the Chancellor of the Exchequer complained that he had been taken by surprise. Under all the circumstances, believing that the subject was one requiring ample discussion, he moved to report Progress.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he hoped that after the manner in which more than five hours of the evening had been consumed, the hon. and gallant Member would not ask the House to separate without coming to a vote. He hoped, too, that the hon. and gallant Member would not attribute to him words which he had never used. He had never said that he was taken by surprise in the smallest degree. Bearing in mind the whole history of the evening, the Government would resist to the best of their ability the Motion to report Progress.
  COLONEL GILPINsaid, he would be sorry to misrepresent the right hon. Gentleman, but when the right hon. Gentleman said he had not been taken by surprise, and yet complained of the Amendment having been brought forward without notice, he thought he was drawing a distinction without a difference.
  Motion made, and Question put, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Colonel Gilpin.)
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 254; Noes 303: Majority 49.
  MAJOR STUART KNOXmoved that the Chairman leave the Chair.
  SIR LAWRENCE PALKsaid, the question before the Committee was one in which every county Member had an interest, and as the representative of one of the largest county constituencies in England, and as he had not troubled the House hitherto in the debate, he wished to say a few words upon it. The Chancellor of the

  201
  Exchequer had adduced the city of Exeter as an example of inequality of rating. He would not dispute the statement of the right hon. Gentleman, but he could state that that city was rated under peculiar laws of its own, and the rating was a bonâ fide rating upon the value of the houses. How many agricultural labourers would the £14 qualification enfranchise? Was there one from the North of England to the Land's End which would be enfranchised by it? Why, had the agriculturists not as much right to the franchise as those who lived in towns? Had not those who gained their livelihood by their hard labour, by the strength of their sinews, by toil in the midst of winter, and who formed the class from which the country derived its soldiers, as much right to the privilege as those who shared the wealth accumulated in large towns? It might be said that the agricultural labourer was not sufficiently educated, but of all pleas that could be urged against that class that was the most shameful that could be uttered in the House of Commons. For year past funds had been drawn from agricultural parishes to educate the artizans in large towns, while the agricultural labourers depended for their education upon the clergy, the landed gentry, and other charitable people in the agricultural districts. When a measure of that kind was brought before the House at ten o'clock at night, was it not fair and reasonable that the county representatives should have more time to consider it? The Chancellor of the Exchequer fancied he was going to cram this measure down their throats, and had accused its opponents of hindering its progress in every way. Members, on that side of the House were prepared calmly to consider any fair and proper measure of Reform. When Lord Derby was in office they sacrificed themselves to his views. [Laughter.] What he meant was, that they sacrificed their individual opinions in the desire to pass a measure which would benefit the country, but they were prevented from passing that measure by proceedings to which the Conservatives had not on this occasion resorted. They had had no meetings in public rooms. They were prepared to go into the question, and debate it night after night in principle and detail; but as long as he had a seat in that House, he should continue to oppose a proposition so unjust to the agriculturists.
  MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, he had looked for the statistics with reference to the county, franchise till he thought they
  202
  would not have an opportunity of seeing them before the House got into Committee, and though he had at length seen the papers he had not yet had the opportunity of examining them. Under these circumstances, it was not unreasonable that the Government should grant those hon. Members who represented counties another day for the consideration of the question.
  COLONEL EDWARDSconsidered that the question before the House, and which had been debated scarcely two hours, was of especial importance to the agricultural community as well as to the interest of the country at large, and should be discussed another night at least. Although not opposed to a fair and equitable measure of Reform, having supported Lord Derby's Bill of 1859, he was prepared to throw every obstacle in the way of this one-sided and most revolutionary Bill which had been condemned by every Member on that side of the House, and by nine-tenths of those who sat behind the Treasury Benches. It had been sincerely supported by none except about twenty hon. Members who sat below the gangway, and who were marshalled by the great demagogue of the House—the hon. Member for Birmingham. He heartily wished the hon. Member joy of his leadership. The real and true object of the Bill was to extinguish utterly the great Constitutional Conservative party, and he warned the hon. Gentlemen opposite who sat behind the Treasury Bench that, should they succeed in annihilating the Conservative party, which had by its power in opposition upheld the interests of the country for so many years, they must look out for themselves. The day was not far distant should that Bill pass, when the successors of the old Palmerstonian party would, by their wicked policy, become the weakest party in the State. Under this measure, according as the Conservative party descended in the scale, so would the Radicals rise in power and importance. In a very short period hon. Members behind the Treasury Bench who professed to be so desirous of passing this measure, would have to go down on their knees to the small remaining section of the Conservative party, and pray for their countenance and support against the power of the Radicals created by themselves. The country was utterly disgusted at the manner in which the patronage of the State had been dispensed for the last quarter of a century by those who occupied the Treasury Benches

  203
  amongst the Russells, Greys, and Elliots, whose claims had been insatiable, and they still hoped, by the passing of this measure, to be maintained in office to continue this revolting system; but he hoped that the time was not far distant when the patronage of the then present officials would be taken away, and they would see what would happen when it passed into the hands of the, if possible, more advanced Liberals. He trusted that, as parsimony has been observed towards the Conservatives by the Whigs, so the Radicals, when it came to their turn, would bestow upon the Whigs precious few favours to feed their hungry families and Parliamentary supporters. He hoped that so long as the measure was not the law of the land—and thank God it had not yet become an Act of Parliament!—he relied upon every good Conservative in the land who had the honour of a seat in that House, to raise his voice against it, and proclaim through the House to the country, that, as a whole, it was a measure revolutionary in itself, uncalled fur by the people of the country, and most inimical to its interests.
  SIR JOHN TROLLOPEsaid, he would venture to appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, as to whether this discussion was not about to close prematurely. He had not yet had an opportunity of expressing his opinion on the Bill in any of its stages. He entertained a strong opinion on this particular question as to the advisability of a rateable or rental valuation. At present the county registration was most imperfect. His hon. Friend the Member for Northamptonshire had said it was extremely difficult for a man to get on the register, but it was equally difficult to get one off when once he was there. The reason of this was that the county registration depended entirely on individual agency, not on official agency, as in the boroughs. In boroughs the overseers of the poor made out the list annually, but there was no such system in counties. He could not give a stronger instance of this than one which had occurred at the last general election. A gentleman on the register of one of the counties in the West of England was strongly canvassed by both sides for his vote, but when he was about to record it, it turned out that he was wrongly described, his Christian name was wrong, his place of residence was wrong, and he had parted with his qualification ten years before. A rating qualification would remedy all this,
  204
  because the lists could be prepared annually. This question was vitally important; it had only been discussed for three or four hours, and he did not think it too much to ask for further time for its consideration.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, it was the duty of the Government to endeavour to make some progress with the measure. The greater part of the evening had been consumed, and he must say, in an overwhelming proportion by hon. Gentlemen opposite, although he did not say they had not a right to occupy the attention of the House in a discussion on our foreign policy. Now, this (the Reform question) was a subject in respect to which they were limited to two nights in the week, and it was also a subject on which the Government had made every effort to make progress, and this they intended to do. The Committee was quite willing to listen to any Member who wished to state his views. The question had been fully debated by the hon. Member for Northamptonshire; he had been replied to by the Government, and he thought they were quite entitled to ask the judgment of the Committee upon it.
  MR. DISRAELI: I had hoped upon this important question we would have avoided those contests which threaten us to-night. I think it will be most unfortunate if we get into these troubles. I am inclined, as far as I can, to assist the Government to avoid them. I wish, however, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would fairly consider the position of the question to-night. I acknowledge that the right hon. Gentleman, with his views of the matter, has some cause for disappointment and vexation in the opposition he has met with upon this question. But I think he will not on calm consideration impute that cause to this side of the House. Let the right hon. Gentleman but consider how this question stands. It is a question which deeply affects and interests the Gentlemen who represent the land. In Committee perhaps it is the most important question that could well be raised at this stage of the measure. There are other questions of franchise, but this is one which in its general character and many ramifications interests the county Members especially, and those who represent county populations. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to say candidly whether he thinks that the Committee have had a fair opportunity of discussing it. ["Hear, hear!" and cries

  205
  of "Yes!" from the Ministerial side of the House.] The hon. Gentlemen who say "Yes!" cannot have studied the question, and certainly do not take the same interest in it as those on this side of the House. Many Gentlemen on this side of the House who take great interest in this question, and who wish to state their opinions from their own knowledge of the facts, have not had the opportunity of doing so. The right hon. Gentleman complains—and with his views upon the matter with some reason—that a great portion of the evening has been employed by a discussion on another subject. Let me, however, remind him that we, on this side of the House, are not responsible for that. It is true that many speeches have been delivered on this side of the House; but I may be allowed to remark that the subject referred to is one of great interest and importance, and was introduced by a sound supporter of Her Majesty's Government in a speech of remarkable ability. So far as I am concerned I did not promote that debate, and withheld myself from taking part in it, with a view chiefly of affording an early opportunity to my hon. Friend of bringing forward this important question which we are now discussing—a question which my hon. Friend has deeply studied, and which he has placed before the Committee with all that weight of argument which it deserved. Now what opportunity has been given for the discussion of this question? It is true my hon. Friend has made his speech, and the Committee have heard the reply given to it by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. But nothing like a general discussion has taken place in respect to this question, involving a principle than which nothing can be more important in connection with this Bill. Our object is to elicit truth by general discussion, and arrive at some clear knowledge as to the alleged inequality of rating. A satisfactory conclusion upon it can only be arrived at by a fair discussion of the question by those hon. Gentlemen who have a peculiar knowledge of its details. This discussion if carried on further this night, could only be continued before an unwilling audience. I hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will reconsider the position of the question, and that he will not persevere in his opposition to the Motion that the Chairman report Progress. The Committee would then resume the discussion in a better humour on the first opportunity. I am so convinced that this will be the
  206
  wisest course that I feel persuaded the right hon. Gentleman will not allow a false pride to influence him in opposing the Motion any longer.
  SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, he must remind the right hon. Gentleman that there had been no indisposition in any part of the House to listen to those Gentlemen who wished to take part in the discussion. When the hon. Member for Bedfordshire rose he was listened to with attention, but although it was only twelve o'clock, after a few sentences he moved that the Chairman report Progress. They had now been discussing this Motion for three quarters of an hour, and he could not but think the time might have been more usefully employed in discussing the Bill. Even now (ten minutes to one o'clock) he thought they might go on a little longer, and endeavour to make some Progress.
  COLONEL GILPINsaid, he had made the Motion to report Progress in consequence of not having received the statistics furnished by the Government until late that day, when it was impossible to study them sufficiently in connection with the important question that was then under consideration.
  MR. BANKS STANHOPEsaid, he was also desirous of taking part in this discussion. The papers delivered that day were of such importance and intricacy, that he defied any hon. Member to master them in one day. The county Members must have time to study them. As a great party and a country party representing the great body of the people, they had a right to be heard upon a question involving a change in the Constitution. He would only say for himself that he was prepared to sit there till ten o'clock in the morning, rather than give way.
  MAJOR STUART KNOXreminded the Chancellor of the Exchequer that upon a Bill involving the destruction of the rights of property in Ireland he agreed to an adjournment of the debate at twenty minutes to twelve o'clock.
  SIR RAINALD KNIGHTLEYsaid, he trusted that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would not give the House the trouble to divide. In the first part of the sitting of the House he had been astonished to find that the hon. Member for Bridgwater had supplanted the discussion which it was expected would be raised by the hon. Member for Northamptonshire.
  MR. BOUVERIEsaid, there had been a division, and the House had shown its mind on the subject by the large majority

  207
  against reporting Progress. He had seen many struggles of the same kind about the same time of the night, and the result of his observation had been that if the minority were determined to protract the discussion and get the debate adjourned, they must succeed. There was in such cases a great expenditure of time and temper, and no good came of it. It must be admitted that the question was one of the greatest importance, and it was only natural that the county Members should wish to discuss the subject. He hoped the Government would not give the Committee the trouble of dividing again.
  LORD CLAUD HAMILTONsaid, that being a Member of a Committee upstairs he had come down at noon, and had now been in the House for thirteen hours. He appealed to the Government not to detain any longer Members engaged upon Committees, who must come down in a few hours to begin their duties again. He should have much to say on behalf of adopting in this Bill the Irish system of registration, which was self-acting and inexpensive.
  COLONEL LOYD LINDSAYsaid, he had waited from four o'clock till ten expecting this question to come on. At the latter hour hon. Members opposite began to come down to the House in their evening dress wondering that during dinner-time the county franchise had not been disposed of. He thought that it was but fair that those who sat on his side of the House should have an opportunity of considering this matter; and if they continued the discussion that night, he was sure that hon. Members opposite who sat below the gallery would not give them a fair hearing. He hoped that the advice of the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Bouverie) would be taken, and that the further consideration of this matter would be adjourned.
  SIR HEDWORTH WILLIAMSONsaid, that hon. Gentlemen on the Opposition side of the House seemed to think that they alone were the representatives of counties, but he begged to inform them that there were some county Members on the Ministerial side of the House also. An hon. Member had stated that the Bill would add 1,200 to the constituency he represented, and therefore wished for delay. Now he (Sir Hedworth Williamson) hoped to see his own constituents increased by 2,500, and on that account desired that the Bill might be pressed forward, and he therefore hoped the Government would persist in their course.
  Motion made, and Question put, "That the Chairman do now leave the Chair."—(Major Stuart Knox.)
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 212; Noes 254: Majority 42.
  MR. BAGGEthen moved that the Chairman report Progress.
  THE CHANCELLOR of THE EXCHEQUER: Sir, we shall not resist that Motion. We have thought it right to take the two divisions which have occurred in order to mark our view of the case. Circumstances did not admit of the House going into Committee before ten o'clock, and we were not allowed to carry on the discussion on this Bill beyond twelve. The moment the hands of the clock reached that hour a Motion to report Progress was made, and we felt it to be our duty to enter our protest against that method of proceeding. We did not for an instant think of attempting to limit the debate, nor did we make any such attempt. ["Oh, oh!"] The hon. Member for Honiton must be aware that that which I have stated is quite accurate. We were of opinion that, under the circumstances, the debate ought to have been permitted to continue to a later hour than twelve o'clock, while we feel that we should be showing some disregard of the comfort and convenience of the House if we were to ask them to prolong it now.
  MR. DISRAELI: I would remind the right hon. Gentleman that he commenced the evening by protesting against the debate on foreign affairs, and that he has now closed it by protesting against the debate on Reform.
  MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, the statistics which had been laid upon the table ought to be studied by those who took an interest in this question.
  Motion made, and Question, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again,"—(Mr. Bagge,)—put, and agreed to.
  House resumed.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Thursday.

  CURRAGH OF KILDARE BILL— [BILL 136.]
  (Mr. Childers, Mr. Chichester Fortescue, The Attorney General for Ireland.)
  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  MR. CHILDERSmoved that the Order be discharged, stating that it was not the intention of the Government to proceed

  209
  with the Bill this Session, but to appoint a Commission to make minute inquiry into the subject on the spot, with a view to legislate next Session.
  GENERAL DUNNEasked, whether the Commission was to have power to inquire into the legal rights involved in the question?
  MR. CHILDERS: The object of the Commission is simply to inquire as to what legislation may be desirable.
  Order discharged: Bill withdrawn.

  NATIONAL GALLERY ENLARGEMENT BILL— [BILL 124.]
  (Mr. William Cowper, Mr. Childers.)
  THIRD READING.
  Order for Third Reading read.
  MR. BERESFORD HOPEsaid, he trusted that, after the discussion which had taken place on Friday last, the third reading of this Bill would be postponed until some day when it might be conveniently discussed. A letter had appeared in The Times that morning from a very eminent painter, Sir Edwin Landseer, which rendered it all the more desirable that the House should have a regular National Gallery debate.
  Third Reading deferred till Thursday.

  BRITISH COLUMBIA BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. WILLIAM EDWARD FORSTER, Bill for the Union of the Colony of Vancouver Island with the Colony of British Columbia, ordered to be brought in by Mr. WILLIAM EDWARD FORSTER and Mr. Secretary CARDWELL.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 186.]

  CHURCH RATES AMENDMENT BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. BOVILL, Bill to amend the Law relating to Church Rates, ordered to be brought in by Mr. BOVILL and Mr. BERESFORD HOPE.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 187.]
  House adjourned at a quarter before Two o'clock.

MINUTES.
Took the Oath—The Lord Howard de Walden.
SELECT COMMITTEE—On Private Bills, The Viscount Halifax, The Lord Ponsonby, and The Lord Taunton added; on Crown Lands nominated.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading — Standards of Weights, Measures, and Coinage* (150).
Second Reading—Charitable Trusts Deeds Enrolments* (146); Lunacy Acts (Scotland) Amendment* (138).
Committee— Drainage Maintenance (Ireland)* (113).
Third Reading—Exchequer and Audit Departments* (108); Landed Property Improvement (Ireland)* (122); Nuisances Removal* (132); Life Insurance (Ireland)* (122); Naval Savings Banks* (129), and passed.
Royal Assent — Customs and Inland Revenue [29 Vict. c. 64]; Divorce and Matrimonial Causes [29 Vict. c. 32]; Land Drainage Supplemental [29 Vict. c. 33]; Cattle Assurance [29 Vict. c. 34]; Contagious Diseases [29 Vict. c. 35]; Poor Persons' Burial (Ireland) [29 Vict. c. 38]; Hop Trade [29 Vict. c. 37].

ELECTION COMMISSIONS.
  MESSAGE FROM THE COMMONS.
  That they have appointed Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Sir George Grey, Mr. Secretary Cardwell, and Mr. Bruce, to wait upon Her Majesty with the Address to Her Majesty respecting the last Election and Return for the Borough of Lancaster, the Borough of Great Yarmouth, the Borough of Reigate, and the Borough of Totnes.
BOOK OF COMMON PRAYER.
  PETITIONS FOR A ROYAL COMMISSION.
  THE EARL OF CHICHESTERrose, pursuant to Notice, to present Petitions praying for the Appointment of a Royal Commission to consider of certain Alterations in the Book of Common Prayer. The noble Earl said, that the petitions, which were forty-seven in number, were signed by upwards of 7,000 persons, many of whom were persons of great responsibility and learning, including among the number many professors and clergymen. He had given notice of his intention to present these petitions because his most rev. Friend (the Archbishop of Canterbury) and the noble Earl at the bead of the Government had both at an earlier part of the Session expressed their unwillingness at present to entertain the question. The petitioners in nearly every instance prayed for the appointment of a Royal Commission, one of their reasons being the great evil resulting from the present extravagant ceremonials practised in some of our churches. While he concurred with the petitioners in regarding these practices as at variance with the spirit of the Church of England, he confessed he did not see how these practices would be affected directly or indirectly by a revision of the Prayer Book. He thought, indeed, that their aim in any revision of the Church services should be rather towards comprehension than exclusion. It might be possible, by a more vigorous application of the law, to put a stop to any practices which were illegal; but he did not see how it could be done by a legislative revision of the Liturgy. Some vigorous executive administration might perhaps be possible, and in that case some of those practices which were against the law might be checked by means of the law.
ESTABLISHED CHURCH—REVISION OF THE LECTIONARY AND THE BURIAL SERVICE.

  ADDRESS FOR A COMMISSION.
  LORD EBURY,in rising to move that an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty for the appointment of a Commission to revise the Lectionary of the Established Church, and also to consider what steps should be taken to obviate the evils complained of as arising from the compulsory and almost indiscriminate use of the Burial Service, said:—The Motion which I am about to submit to your Lordships' notice for a Royal Commission embraces two objects—one, the revision of the Calendar of Lessons, which is called the Lectionary; the other, the amendment of the law with reference to the reading of the Burial Service. As to the first I need say but little, inasmuch as this has been the spontaneous proposition of my most rev. Friend who presides over the archdiocese of Canterbury, who not satisfied with stating his willingness to concur in this object has already applied to the Home Office for the issue of a Commission, and my object would already have been effected but for a notion on the part of the Secretary of State, as I understood him, that it would be better not to appoint a Royal Commission for what appeared to him, unfortunately, as I think, too small a matter to be made by itself the subject of a Commission, but that it would be better to wait until other subjects of a cognate nature could be included with it. I presume, therefore, that to this part of my proposal there will be no objection; and 1 do not know why I should anticipate any objection to the remainder, and for this reason—that the present state of the law of burial has been twice discussed in your Lordships' House and condemned on all sides—Government, Opposition, cross - bench, and right rev. Bench—with a very remarkable unanimity; so much so that I thought at one time the best thing I could do to save your Lordships' time would be to make this statement and sit down. I think, however, that I should best perform the task I have undertaken by simply recalling to the recollection of the House the history of the question since it has more prominently occupied the attention of Parliament. Some fourteen or fifteen years ago, in the town of Cambridge, a notorious evil liver, turned drunk out of a tavern, fell into a gutter and died. The clergyman, Mr. Dodd, who
  96
  was called upon to read the service at the deceased's funeral, and who behaved throughout the whole transaction with great good sense and moderation, feeling what a scandal it would create, very properly declined to do so. It is well your Lordships should be made aware of the exact words which he would have had to read—
  "Forasmuch as it has pleased Almighty God of His great mercy to take unto Himself the soul of our dear brother here departed, we therefore commit his body to the ground; earth to earth, ashes to ashes, dust to dust; in sure and certain hope of the resurrection to eternal life."
  Again—
  "We give Thee hearty thanks for that it hath pleased Thee to deliver this our brother out of the miseries of this sinful world."
  Again—
  "We meekly beseech Thee, O Father, to raise us from the death of sin unto the life of righteousness; that when we shall depart this life, we may rest in Him, as our hope is this our brother doth."
  Well, my Lords, for declining to read these words Mr. Dodd was prosecuted, condemned to pay the costs of the suit, and suspended for six months. These circumstances excited a very strong feeling of sorrow and anger in the University and the town, the result of which was a memorial to the right rev. Bench, signed by about 4,000 clergy of all ranks and shades of opinions, many of very high standing and eminence, which contained the following clauses:—
  "We beg to express our conviction that the almost indiscriminate use of the Order for the Burial of the Dead as practically enforced by the existing state of the law imposes a heavy burden upon the consciences of clergymen, and is the occasion of a grievous scandal to many Christian people. We therefore most humbly pray your Lordships will be pleased to give the subject such attention as the magnitude of these evils appears to require, with a view of devising some effectual remedy."
  The reply of the Archbishop on behalf of his brethren was, I venture to think, most unfortunate. It stated—
  "The Bishops generally sympathize with the memorialists in the difficulties to which they sometimes find themselves exposed with reference to the terms of the Burial Service; but I am sorry to report further that the obstacles in the way of remedying these difficulties appear to them, as at present advised, to be insuperable."
  When I brought this case before Parliament in 1863 by a Motion much the same as the present, your Lordships, one and all, took the same view of the case as those reverend petitioners. Every Lord who

  97
  addressed the House, whether spiritual or temporal, admitted that the grievance was intolerable and absolutely required a remedy; and the most rev. Primate undertook to consult the clergy generally as to the best means of finding a solution to the difficulty. I believe every one of your Lordships then present felt as I did, that the question was upon the eve of a satisfactory adjustment. Unfortunately, however, this attempt failed, and the most rev. Primate announced in the next Session that he was unable to propose anything, as the great majority of the clergy, so far as as he could ascertain, had declared against any change of any description. He did not say what their reasons were, but he stated that, such being the fact, he could not proceed. This House, then, was thus unfortunately brought into collision with the majority of the clergy, this House declaring that the present state of the law urgently required alteration, the clergy declaring that in their opinion no alteration was requisite. I waited for some time, hoping that this feeling would subside, and that, as so little was really required to set the matter straight, some plan of reconciliation might have been devised by the clerical element in the country. Now, your Lordships will bear me witness that in all these matters I have done my best to put these questions out of my own hands, and to place them in those of the Spiritualty of our Church, so that they might appear to come from that quarter. After waiting, however, nearly two Sessions, towards the close of last Session I renewed my previous Motion but in the most conciliatory form I could devise—namely, that the subject was one which required the attention of Parliament. I showed the Motion to the most rev. Primate who presides over the Northern province before I introduced it, and was happy to find that he approved it. I only regret that he was unable to be present on that evening. On that occasion I could have cited dozens of instances of the continuance of those scandals arising out of the state of the law; but I contented myself with one of recent occurrence, where a clergyman in Devonshire had, under circumstances which, in my opinion, fully justified him in so doing, refused to read the Burial Service, and was accordingly prosecuted and fined. I am very happy to say, my Lords, that my Motion was not opposed upon its merits, but merely upon the ground of the lateness of the time at which it was brought forward, near the end of the
  98
  Session, and on the eve of a dissolution. Although I did not consider this a good reason, I accepted it because it seemed to suggest a hope that we might arrive at a satisfactory solution of our difficulties. I now bring it forward again at a moment when of course no such objection will be taken, and I earnestly entreat your Lordships not to negative a Motion which has for its object the most practical method of dealing with an admitted evil. But whatever you do, my Lords, one thing I think I have a right to ask—namely, that you will settle this question now one way or the other. It is not fair to those I represent—it is not fair to myself—it is injurious to the Church of which we are members, to delay your decision. Either say that the grievance is imaginary and requires no remedy, or if you admit the grievance say you intend to deal with it. If you are of opinion that some overpowering and strange necessity exists which prevents your dealing with an admitted grievance—which prevents your even attempting the alteration of a law which is said by some of the best of our Ministers to impose a heavy burden upon their consciences, and to cause grievous scandal to many Christian men, then, my Lords, you will reject my proposal; but if you are of a contrary opinion—namely, that no such overpowering difficulty stands in your way—then you will vote for a Royal Commission; and I will venture to say that if Her Majesty should be advised to nominate one similar in its composition to that which had to consider the oaths and declarations made by the clergy, not ten days of sitting, which it cost us to arrange the new terms of subscription, not ten hours, I had almost said not ten minutes, would elapse before a satisfactory basis would be agreed upon for the settlement of this question, and your Lordships would hear of it no more. I beg to conclude by making the Motion of which I have given notice.
  Moved, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty for the Appointment of a Commission to revise the Lectionary of the Established Church, and also to consider what Steps should be taken to obviate the Evils complained of as arising from the compulsory and almost indiscriminate Use of the Burial Service.—(The Lord Ebury.)
  THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURYsaid, he felt himself compelled to object to the Motion of his noble Friend. Before entering into his reasons against the proposition contained in that Motion, he might

  99
  be permitted to make a remark personal to himself, and to state that he was no determined opponent to all reforms in the Church. He was the first to propose a reform in the Statutes of the University of Oxford, by which the forms for conferring degrees in the House of Convocation were much simplified, and many unnecessary oaths abolished. In 1854 he did not hesitate to become a Member of the Oxford University Commission, whose labours had resulted in a considerable change being made in those statutes, and very large reforms in the government of that University. Again, two years since, he had not objected to become a Member of the Commission appointed to inquire into the subject of clerical subscription. In all those instances he foresaw that successful results would be obtained, but he could not consent to take part in a Commission where he foresaw that the inquiry was likely to have no practical or useful result. His noble Friend was of opinion that if a Commission were appointed to sit upon this question, similar to those that had been appointed to consider the questions to which he had referred, a satisfactory result would be immediately arrived at. He (the Archbishop of Canterbury), however, was of a totally different opinion, for he believed that great differences of opinion would arise, and the Report of the Commissioners would be such that no Government would venture to act upon it. He was therefore decidedly not prepared to take part in a Commission whose investigations must result in such an unsatisfactory termination. The noble Lord's Motion was divided into two parts, one having reference to the Lectionary of the Church of England, and the other relating to the Burial Service. He certainly should object to a Royal Commission being appointed to take the former subject into consideration at the present time, when there was a good deal of anxious discussion going on with regard to the ritualistic question, and therefore they ought not to deal with it at present, while at the same time he had no objection whatever that the subject should be discussed at a proper season. He, however, did not think it right that the two questions, very different in themselves, should be mixed up in the same Motion. It was a serious question to touch the main body of the Liturgy, and he hoped that their Lordships would not hastily consent to that being done. The noble Lord said that forty-seven petitions had been presented upon this subject,
  100
  signed by 7,000 persons. Now, some months ago, he (the Archbishop of Canterbury) had received a memorial signed by 37,000 lay communicants, and another signed by 4,000 of the clergy, against any alteration in the Prayer Book being made, and therefore he felt convinced that there could be no chance whatever for a general revision of the Liturgy if a Commission were appointed as proposed by the noble Lord. Either matters would remain just as they were, or one party in the Church would gain a great victory at the expense of the other, which was most undesirable. Therefore he earnestly deprecated this part of the noble Lord's Motion. The noble Lord had adverted to the great scandals which sometimes arose with reference to the Burial Service. But suppose that in order to prevent such scandals arising, they were completely to remove from the Burial Service the objectionable expressions—did their Lordships imagine that they would get rid of all the difficulties which were raised? The language of the Burial Service was entirely consistent with the spirit of the Christian religion, and he should be sorry to see removed from it all expression of a hope in a resurrection to eternal life. It was better to be charitable than the opposite, and he thought an over-scrupulousness was sometimes shown, and that there were very few cases indeed in which a clergyman need scruple to employ that language. Some cases, indeed, there were, such as that of a person dying in the avowal of utter and resolute unbelief in which these scruples were justified, for if such a man after death could express an opinion he would be indignant at the Burial Service being read over him. Again, there was another case which had actually occurred, of a person living in gross and avowed sin, and dying in the act of declaring that she was resolved not to forsake it. A clergyman was fully at liberty to refuse to use the expressions in question in cases like these. But where a clergyman could not undertake to say that there was no hope whatever of a person's salvation, charity ought to induce him to employ the language of the Burial Service. Various attempts had been made to settle the difficulty, but all had failed; and the obstacles being such that he could see no prospect of a satisfactory solution, he could not accede to the proposal of his noble Friend. The noble Lord had spoken of his desire for conciliation; but he (the Archbishop of Canterbury) was certain that more persons

  101
  would be alienated than would be conciliated by the changes he proposed. The Protestant Episcopal Church in America had made some slight alterations in the Liturgy, but he could quote the opinion of one of the bishops of that Church that though larger concessions had been made than the early Nonconformists demanded, the effect had not answered the reasonable hopes that were entertained; and he had heard from another source that it was the stability and fixedness of the formularies of that Church which led so many members of Dissenting bodies to join it. He had now touched upon the principal points raised by his noble Friend, and would again repeat his objections to his Motion.
  THE EARL OF CHICHESTERsaid, he was sorry to differ on a subject of this kind from his most rev. Friend, and in some respects also with his noble Friend (Lord Ebury) who had made the Motion. If he at all differed from the noble Lord it was not because he did not admit the existence of a grievance which it was the duty of Parliament and of the heads of the Church to deal with as far as they were able, but because he thought any Commission that might be appointed should be empowered to take a wider view of the subject, and not be confined to the few and comparatively small points mentioned by his noble Friend. The most rev. Prelate, in urging the danger of a revision of the Liturgy, assumed that that revision would result in some great change, which might alienate a larger number than it would conciliate. He (the Earl of Chichester), however, was not prepared to suggest any extensive change. Having considered the question for many years, he was quite aware that it was involved in some difficulties, but he did not believe that those difficulties were insurmountable, and that being so, it was the duty of the Legislature, and a Christian duty rested upon them to solve them. Indeed, his belief was that if the whole subject was referred to a competent Commission—a Commission composed of men of learning and piety, and whose names would inspire confidence in the country generally—their inquiries would lead to important and useful results, and the circulation of the report which they might agree to would give a great deal of useful instruction to the clergy, and would prepare men's minds for a moderate reform. Let their Lordships consider the circumstances under which the Liturgy was framed. The great
  102
  Fathers of the Reformed Church were men who had been brought up in the Roman Catholic Church, they were nurtured in principles of superstition and intolerance; it would not therefore have been surprising had those worthy men been imbued with many prejudices, and had they been somewhat exclusive and dogmatical, and indisposed to make the Church as comprehensive as it ought to be. On looking, however, into the history of those times, we found that so far from such being the case, they were influenced by a feeling of Christian charity, and that they not only endeavoured to conciliate the members of the old communion by altering the formularies as little as necessity required, but that they also endeavoured to effect and maintain Christian communion with the reformers of other Churches on the Continent; and we could not be too grateful for the fact that the Liturgy, which was the result of these different efforts during the 16th century, was so comprehensive and so free from fault as we found it. Subsequently to the time of Elizabeth, and down to the period of the Great Rebellion, a more exclusive feeling no doubt crept into the Church; arbitrary attempts were made to enforce conformity, and all moderate reforms were refused. The consequence was what he considered to be a bane and reproach to the Church of England—that for nearly 300 years she had never made a single honest attempt to rectify acknowledged and repeatedly alleged grievances in her system, and thus to become more comprehensive, and, in fact, a national Church. He said no honest attempt had been made, for he thought no man who had fairly studied the history of the Hampton Court and Savoy Conferences, or the still more futile attempts made at the Revolution of 1688, would for a moment maintain that the Church of England had ever honestly attempted to meet the views of Nonconformists. It was represented, indeed, by some Church historians that those efforts were really marred by the unreasonableness of the Nonconformists; and no doubt the Nonconformists on two of those occasions were not so moderate or reasonable in their demands as they might have been. More conciliation and Christian charity might, doubtless, have been manifested on both sides. One very remarkable fact connected with the history of those transactions was that during the whole of that period they found from time to time that some of the most learned and pious

  103
  defenders of the Church had acknowledged those evils, and were advocates for their removal. Another fact was that there appeared to be a very great accordance of opinion as to the alterations required and the smallness of their amount, and that few and unimportant as these alterations were they would have conciliated a great number of the Nonconformists. The fact that the very alterations now urged were urged then partly by members of the Church and partly by Nonconformists surely went a long way to prove that there was something to be said in their favour. He was not disposed to discuss point by point these proposed alterations, which seemed to him not only desirable, but practicable. He, for one, particularly disliked discussions of that sort in their Lordships' House. It was quite sufficient if he could convince the House and the right rev. Bench, that an inquiry into this subject must some day or other take place, and that the sooner it began the more likely it was to lead to a favourable issue. It was a paramount duty on the part of those to whom were intrusted the government and well-being of the Church to endeavour from time to time to remove every cause of offence to the weaker brethren, to make the Church as comprehensive as possible, and promote, as their fathers had done, that intercommunion between the Churches of different countries who believed substantially the same great truths—and the greater the intercommunion of Church with Church—the more comprehensive the more Protestant would each Church become. These were among the reasons which induced him to think that some such inquiry was desirable; but whether it was wise or prudent to issue a Commission on the two points raised by his noble Friend he would not undertake to decide.
  THE BISHOP OF LONDONsaid, that when his noble Friend (Lord Ebury) brought the same question before their Lordships last summer, he had thought, upon the whole, the most prudent course for him (the Bishop of London) to take was not to vote at all; and he felt very much inclined to follow the same course on the present occasion. What had been stated by the noble Earl who had just addressed their Lordships (the Earl of Chichester) somewhat strengthened him in that inclination. He did not think the arguments of the noble Earl went much in favour of the proposition of his noble Friend (Lord Ebury); and his observations
  104
  took a much wider range. The noble Earl had spoken of such a revision of the Liturgy as would conciliate foreign churches. He (the Bishop of London) did not believe that our brethren in America or those who belonged to Protestant bodies elsewhere would be deterred from uniting with the Church of England, either by the length or the character of its Lectionary, or the use of the Burial Service. The noble Lord (Lord Ebury) had said that while the evil had been admitted he had always been met by the objection that the time had not arrived for remedying the evils complained of. He (the Bishop of London) thought he might honestly say that this was not exactly the right time, and that the matter was not of such paramount importance to the Church as to require that it should be taken into consideration at the present moment. The noble Earl had spoken of the refusal of the Church for many years to make any changes in its system. Certainly, if he (the Bishop of London) were convinced that the question at issue was between allowing all things to continue as they were, whether suited to the present time or no, and voting for the Motion of his noble Friend, he should vote with the noble Lord. But he thought his noble Friend must have observed during the many years he had been a Member of that House, that the Church of England had not been altogether stationary. He did not think the Church was liable to the imputation of a senile adherence to things as they were, and an unwillingness to make any change even when her forms had altogether ceased to influence the generation in which they lived. The noble Lord himself had been the principal instrument in inducing the Government to issue the Commission to which the most rev. Prelate had alluded; a Commission which had remedied an abuse of very long standing, which had conciliated many persons who long had stumbled at the mode of subscription to Articles of the Church, and which had conferred, as he (the Bishop of London) knew from his own experience, a great boon upon the Church. The matter taken in hand was a difficult one, and occupied a great deal of time. They had to deal with subscriptions which many thought to be absolutely essential for the preservation of the unity of faith in the Church. They had on the one hand to guard against the notion that a man denying the truths which the Church taught might become one of her ministers; and

  105
  on the other hand, they had to conciliate men of tender consciences, who were truly attached to the doctrines of the Church, and yet were not disposed to make a public declaration that they agreed with every iota of its forms. With great difficulty and after many discussions the matter was settled. A most remarkable change was thus introduced into the system of the Church, reaching even to the alteration of a most solemn service of the Church—the service for the Ordination of Priests and Deacons, and even, he believed, for the Consecration of Bishops. That alteration had been sanctioned by both Houses of Parliament, and by the Convocation of the Province of Canterbury. Consequently it could not be said that the Church of England had been altogether idle, or indisposed to adopt any change simply from an unworthy love of things as they are. Again, it was but a short time since a noble Earl now present (Earl Stanhope) had induced their Lordships to concur in removing from the Prayer Book those services which were called State Services, which were binding not indeed by an Act of Uniformity, but still by an authority recognized throughout the kingdom. This was a most important concession, which he believed had done great good, and had removed a great objection which had been felt in cathedral and collegiate churches against the retention of forms which had ceased to be anything but forms. There was, however, one of these State services which had been preserved—it was that in which thanks were returned for the commencement of Her Majesty's reign and blessings were prayed for on the reigning Sovereign. The reason that service had been retained was that it was felt that its spirit had not departed from it. He therefore said that the Church did not hold to forms when the spirit had left them; but where they were capable of being made instinct with more spirit, the Church in retaining would seek to breathe into them the new life required. Furthermore, there was at the present moment a Bill in the other House of Parliament which contemplated an alteration of the service for the consecration of Colonial Bishops. All this he felt was a sufficient proof that the Church had not been dead or torpid, but was anxious to adapt the services, where this could be done to the changed circumstances of the age in which we live. Great changes had also taken places even under the existing
  106
  law. They could all remember how different in former times were the somewhat slovenly performances of public worship in many parish churches from the present practice—certainly it could not be laid to the charge of the young clergy of the present day that they adhered too much to things as they are. Many thought that they were too much inclined to violent change. One of the reasons why he could not assent to the proposition of the noble Lord was that there were at the present moment more important questions than those brought forward by the noble Lord demanding consideration, and he thought that the Bishops should apply themselves to the pressing matters before them, rather than turn aside to the discussion of those questions which the noble Lord believed to be most important. Every man was liable to have—he would not say his own crotchets—but his own favourite ideas, and the noble Lord appeared to attach greater importance to the questions of the Burial Service and the Lectionary than in his (the Bishop of London's) eyes they really possessed. He granted that there was a grievance in regard to the Burial Service, and that it was very awkward when the law said one thing and the clergy did another. Though he desired to see a remedy applied to these matters as speedily as possible he did not know that this evil was very pressing. He had had few cases in his own diocese, and in the one or two instances in which he had been asked beforehand what ought to be done, he had given the best advice he could, and no legal prosecution had followed in any case in his diocese when the law had been slightly departed from. He did not think that the fear of legal prosecutions was so great as the noble Lord seemed to imagine, and he believed that by an arrangement such as was now entered into in some dioceses the evils and scandals of such cases as had occurred might be obviated. As he should not have an opportunity of addressing their Lordships to-morrow evening on the subject of ritualism, when it was proposed by a noble Marquess to subject himself and other Prelates to a catechetical examination, he would say that the Bishops had for some time been occupied in considering the difficulties which the petitions presented that evening set before their Lordships. It had been assumed by ardent spirits that they were too slow; but they desired before acting to ascertain what the law was. Instead, therefore, of

  107
  rushing at once into a Court of Law and putting forth what authority it gave them, they thought it best to ascertain with the utmost accuracy what was the real state of the law upon the subject. There being different rulings upon the subject, a case had within the last three months been carefully prepared and laid before the Attorney General and Sir Hugh Cairns. The questions submitted to those eminent lawyers embraced all the particular matters which had excited confusion in the Church during the last few years, and the answer given by those learned gentlemen was to the effect that there would be no difficulty in proceeding against the persons who had disturbed the Church in those matters. Having obtained those opinions, it must be obvious to their Lordships that the Bishops could hardly stand inactive; they were bound to go further after having gone so far; and he was sure, therefore, that their time would be sufficiently occupied without entering at present on the points that had been raised by the noble Lord. There was another difficulty which was also likely to occupy their time—he referred to that which arose as to the discretion which existed in certain cases referred to in the Preface of the Prayer Book, and he feared it might be necessary to ask the Legislature to give Bishops a greater discretionary power in dealing with matters which endangered the church. He said "endangered the Church," because he believed that those things did greatly stir the feelings of a vast number of Protestants, and tended to shake the influence of the Church of England which had always been recognized as the greatest Protestant Church in the world.
  LORD HOUGHTONexpressed his regret to hear the liberal and enlightened Prelate who had just sat down intimate that it was the intention of himself and other Prelates to apply to the law of this country on the subject of ritualism. He looked forward with dread to such an appeal. He really believed that that matter might be left to the good sense and Christian feeling of the people of this country, which was deeply rooted in Protestantism, and which had on a previous occasion put aside a far more serious Tractarian movement than that which at present existed. He could not, he thought, put the question before their Lordships in a more practical way than by stating that it had now become the habit of almost the entire of the middle and lower classes of this country to attend
  108
  the afternoon and evening rather than the morning service of the Church, and that the result was that they, in the present state of the Lectionary, never heard read there one chapter of the historical Books of the Old Testament. That was a condition of things which caused considerable annoyance, and which he contended ought not to be suffered to continue. As to the latter portion of the Motion of his noble Friend, he must say that, while ignorant as to what interpretation the right rev. Bench as a body placed on the Burial Service, his own interpretation of the English language and the documents of the Church was that the words "sure and certain hope of eternal life" expressed the doctrine of the Church, while it was left to the feeling of the clergyman ministering whether he referred that doctrine to the individual destiny of the person interred. There was in our Church a large freedom which distinguished it from the administration of other Churches, and its services breathed the spirit of prayer and benevolence much more than that of exclusive doctrine. He did not wish to oppose the wishes of the right rev. Bench, but he had simply to observe. that the right rev. Bench would, in his opinion, do well to assent to the appointment of a Commission on the Lectionary, which would spread itself over a considerable time while it would deal with a practical necessity.
  EARL RUSSELLsaid, he did not think it expedient, as at present advised, that the Crown should interfere in the matters which had been introduced by his noble Friend to their Lordships' notice in the manner proposed. Any steps that might be taken in the matter ought to be taken by the right rev. Prelates themselves. With respect to the Burial Service, he must say that ho looked upon it as a great misfortune that a clergyman should feel himself bound by a conscientious feeling to do, under any circumstances, that which was contrary to law; and he wished the right rev. Bench would take upon themselves to provide a form of words by means of which the law on the subject might be made more satisfactory. But the right rev. Prelate who had just spoken (the Bishop of London) thought that the difficulties in the way of this course were insuperable. His noble Friend behind him (the Earl of Chichester) had spoken in reference to the very wide question of the general revision of the services; and he (Earl Russell) did not think that the adoption of the proposition to issue

  109
  a Commission would tend to the peace of the Church. His (Earl Russell's) opinion was that the revision proposed was not one in which each party would have an equal chance; and it was a change which one school of opinion very much desired, whilst another school of opinion vehemently opposed it. He was, therefore, afraid that if they were to issue a Commission upon the matter, instead of producing greater harmony and peace in the Church, they would give rise to very angry controversy, and this without any chance of settling the matter. He could not, therefore, be a party to the issuing of such a Commission.
  LORD REDESDALEsaid, the noble Lord who made the Motion seemed to think that the whole question of the revision of the Burial Service might be settled by a Commission in ten minutes. Now if that were possible, it could not take more than two or three minutes to tell them how it was to be done, and he should very much like to hear from the noble Lord how so good a thing could be done in so short a time.
  LORD EBURYsaid, the discussion had wandered far from the simple Motion he had made. He would not go into the general question of the revision of the Liturgy, but would content himself with quoting a passage from The Times to the effect that no amount of controversy which the revision of the Liturgy would be likely to excite could be half so bad as that 4,000,000 Christians would have nothing to do with it as it stood. In reply to the question which had been just put to him, he thought that an alteration which had been suggested in the work of a clergyman, which he held in his hand, would meet the requirements of the case. The words of the Burial Service in the first Collect, as it now stood, were as follow:—
  "Forasmuch as it hath pleased Almighty God of His great mercy to take unto Himself the soul of our dear brother here departed, we therefore commit his body to the ground; earth to earth, ashes to ashes, dust to dust; in sure and certain hope of the Resurrection to eternal life, through our Lord Jesus Christ; who shall change our vile body that it may be like unto His glorious body, according to the mighty working whereby He is able to subdue all things to Himself."
  The words which he proposed to substitute were—
  "Forasmuch as it hath pleased Almighty God to take out of this sinful world the soul of our brother here departed, we therefore commit his body to the ground; earth to earth, ashes to ashes, dust to dust; looking for the general Resurrection
  110
  in the last day, and the life of the world to come, through our Lord Jesus Christ, who will judge the quick and dead at His appearing and kingdom, and change the vile bodies of His saints, that they may be like unto His glorious body, according to the mighty working whereby He is able to subdue all things unto Himself."
  If the service were thus altered a heavy burden would, he thought, be removed from the consciences of the clergy, and there would be no further difficulty on the subject. He was not sorry that he had made this Motion, seeing the declarations it had been the means of eliciting from those who had taken part in the discussion. But when the right rev. Prelate (the Bishop of London) said the Episcopal bench were not actuated by an unreasoning desire to adhere to things as they are, he must remark that some ten years ago the right rev. Prelates themselves had actually advocated a revision of the Liturgy, or, what was substantially the same thing, a modification of the Church Services. Since then, however, a change appeared to have come over their minds. Having referred to a speech delivered in Convocation, the noble Lord said the right rev. Bench were certainly acting in a very extraordinary way if they really desired to redress the grievances of the Church. A large body of the clergy felt the present state of things to impose a heavy burden on their consciences, and to cause a grievous scandal to Christian men; and he maintained that, as those evils resulted from the law of the land, it was perfectly competent for Parliament to deal with them. Was there, he asked, some kind of cabalistic virtue in every word and letter of these formularies, that it was impossible to retrench or alter a syllable of them in order to remove these scandals? He trusted that on that occasion he should be supported by such a number of their Lordships as would show that some action ought to be taken in this matter.
  THE BISHOP OF RIPONsaid, the noble Lord who had just sat down (Lord Ebury) had spoken as if certain members of the Episcopal bench had been inconsistent in approving some modification in the services of the Church some years ago, and in now being against a revision of the Liturgy. The noble Lord seemed to think that in approving a modification of the services of the Church they had committed themselves to a revision of the Liturgy. That, however, was not the case. They simply approved a shortening of the services—as, for example, by turning the

  111
  Litany into a separate service—and not of any revision of the Liturgy itself. But he had risen more especially to refer to some observations of his right rev. Brother (the Bishop of London), which had been partially misunderstood by the noble Lord who followed him in the present discussion. His right rev. Brother had stated that, in their anxiety to ascertain what was the right course for the bishops to pursue with regard to those ritualistic practices the introduction of which had occasioned so much uneasiness among the best friends of the Church, the members of the Episcopal bench had resolved to obtain the best legal opinion they could as to the exact law of the Church in respect to those practices. They had accordingly done so, and the opinion they had obtained was altogether against the introduction of those ritualistic practices which had been the subject of complaint. In this, in his opinion, the Bishops had adopted a wise course. The only proper course for the Bishops to pursue in the first instance was to ascertain what the law of the Church really was, in order that they might know what were the right steps to take to put down those practices if they were illegal. But the remarks of his right rev. Brother on that point had been partly misunderstood by the noble Lord who followed him, who appeared to take it for granted that, having obtained the legal opinion that these practices were contrary to the law of the Church, they should immediately endeavour to put the law into action; and by pursuing the question into the Courts proceed by the force and authority of the law to repress these practices. That was not their intention. Their intention was having ascertained what the law of the Church was in the first instance, to trust that the good sense of those who were, perhaps unconsciously, violating the law would induce them to retrace their steps, and bring their practice into conformity with the law. He earnestly hoped that such would be the case, and that those who now found that they had been transgressing the law of the Church would have the good sense to desist from doing so without obliging the Bishops to resort to legal process to compel the observance of what the law of the Church required. If, on the other hand, that expectation should be disappointed, then he apprehended they would have but one course before them as Bishops of the Church—namely, to maintain and uphold the law of the Church by
  112
  the authority of the law, if they could not do it in any other way. Should it unfortunately happen that they had to pursue these cases in the Courts of Law, the responsibility for that would not lie on the Bishops, but on those who had not the good sense, when they saw they were in the wrong, to retrace their steps, and make their practice conform to the law.
  On Question? their Lordships divided:—contents 20; Not-Contents 66; Majority 46:—Resolved in the Negative.

  CONTENTS.

  Westmeath, M.

  Belper, L.

  Westminster, M.

  Blantyre, L.

  Charlemont, L. (E. Charlemont.)

  Cowper, E.

  Fortescue, E.

  Churchill, L.

  Grey, E.

  Ebury, L. [Teller.]

  Minto, E.

  Foley, L.

  Zetland, E.

  Gage, L. (V. Gage.)

  Harris, L.

  Clancarty, V. (E. Clancarty.)

  Hunsdon, L. (V. Falkland.) [Teller.]

  Leinster, V. (D. Leinster.)

  Monson, L.

  Mostyn, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Canterbury, Archp.

  Sydney, V.

  Cranworth,L. (L. Chancellor.)

  Bangor, Bp.

  Cashel, &c., Bp.

  Derry and Raphoe, Bp.

  Cleveland, D.

  Gloucester and Bristol, Bp.

  Grafton, D.

  Somerset, D.

  Lichfield, Bp.

  Ripon, Bp.

  Bath, M. [Teller.]

  Abinger, L.

  Bantry, E.

  Aveland, L.

  Beauchamp, E.

  Boyle, L. (E. Cork and Orrery.)

  Belmore, E.

  Cadogan, E.

  Brodrick, L. (V. Midleton.)

  Carnarvon, E.

  Cawdor, E.

  Chelmsford, L.

  Dartmouth, E.

  Clandeboye, L. (L. Dufferin and Claneboye. )

  De Grey, E.

  Derby, E.

  Devon, E.

  Colville of Culross, L.

  Effingham, E.

  Crofton, L.

  Granville, E.

  Delamere, L.

  Hardwicke, E.

  Digby, L.

  Harrowby, E.

  Hatherton, L.

  Huntingdon, E,

  Heytesbury, L.

  Leven and Melville, E.

  Houghton, L. [Teller.]

  Lucan, E.

  Kilmaine, L.

  Malmesbury, E.

  Lyttelton, L.

  Orkney, E.

  Lyveden, L.

  Romney, E.

  Oxenfoord, L. (E. Stair)

  Russell, E.

  Polwarth, L.

  Stanhope, E.

  Redesdale, L.

  Verulam, E.

  Saltoun, L.

  Wilton, E.

  Silchester, L.(E. Longford.)

  De Vesci, V.

  Sondes, L.

  Halifax, V.

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

  Hawarden, V.

  Stratford de Redeliffe, V.

  Talbot de Malahide, L.

  Walsingham, L.

PRIVATE BILLS— STANDING ORDER No. 184.

  THE SELECT COMMITTEE.
  LORD STANLEY of ALDERLEY moved that Viscount Halifax, the Earl of Bessborough, and Lord Taunton be added to the Select Committee appointed to consider Alterations in Standing Order No. 184, proposing that a subscription contract shall be entered into in certain cases by the Promoters of Second Class Bills.
  LORD REDESDALEfelt that he had reason to complain of this proposition. He did not know whether the noble Lords who had been appointed to serve on the Committee approved or disapproved of the alteration in the Standing Orders which he had proposed; but because a certain number of them on the Government side of the House had expressed themselves dissatisfied with the present Standing Orders they were assumed to be bound to support his alterations. It was a strong measure to take to add those names; but notwithstanding he (Lord Redesdale) would place himself in the hands of their Lordships, and would still be willing to serve on the Committee.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYsaid, that the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees had not, as was the usual practice, held any consultation upon the subject with those on the opposite side of the House who felt an interest in the matter, and he was justified in believing that the noble Lord's Committee was not an impartial one, inasmuch as the names of those noble Lords on the Government side of the House, the Viscount Halifax, the Lord Ponsonby, and the Lord Taunton, added to the Committee who supported an alteration in the Standing Order had been placed on the list. He might add that the opinions of the three noble Lords whose names he proposed were not known to him, though one of them had said, on being asked to serve on the Committee, "I confess I am in favour of some such alteration as that proposed by Lord Redesdale."
  Motion agreed to.
  House adjourned at a quarter past Seven o'clock, till To-morrow, half past Ten o'clock.