objected to the test proposed in the clause, and said that he would take the sense of the Committee upon that proposition. The paltry sum of £35 a year which was paid to these persons ought not to be made the means of violating the principles of civil and religious liberty—the very weakness of such persons ought to be a protection against such legislation. The present Bill was a renewal of the Text Act in its most odious forms. It was an act of gross cruelty to stultify a poor schoolmaster, and demora- lize him by applying to him this test and calling upon him to take a solemn oath, which throughout the whole of his life would bear heavily upon his conscience. He appealed to the learned Advocate General not to insist upon this test. Entertaining a strong opinion to the principle embodied in the clause, he should move its omission from the Bill.

objected to the omission in this clause of charges for neglect of duty, which instead of being transferred along with those for immoral conduct and cruelty to children were still left to be tried by the Presbytery, and contended that neglect of duty, like other charges, should be tried by the sheriff. He proposed the insertion of words which would have that effect. Presbyteries, he maintained, were the worst possible tribunals for judicial functions, and the result of the jurisdiction allowed them by the Act 1803 had been that, although their sentences were declared by the statute final and not subject to revision, yet their blunders in procedure, and not keeping within the Act, had so constantly laid them open to challenge, and so many of their sentences had been quashed after long litigation, the expenses of which fell on the mentors or the Presbytery themselves, that scarcely any process was ever instituted now against a schoolmaster, and many improper parties were thus allowed to continue in office. Besides, it would be a mockery to open the parish schools to teachers of other denominations and leave them liable to be tried and deposed by the church courts of that establishment.

objected to the Amendment. The jurisdiction of the sheriff was confined to criminal cases, and the general superintendence of the Presbytery was preserved by the Bill. He would not object to take from the Presbytery the power of deposing a schoolmaster, but he thought cases of neglect of duty ought to be under the superintendence of the Presbytery.

said, that the position of these unfortunate schoolmasters appeared to be very hard indeed; for, not content with compelling them to pass through the meshes of numerous examinations, it was proposed to establish something like a police in the shape of the Presbytery to watch over him as though he were a person not fit to be trusted. He could not help thinking that the whole Bill was a mockery and a delusion, and one which would not be attended with any beneficial result to the cause of education in Scotland. He hoped that the time would soon come when they would have a Ministry not afraid to deal with this question in a liberal spirit. It would be very much better if the Bill were lost, and they had to wait a little longer for a better measure.

said, it was no doubt quite true that the Bill did not go so far as could be wished, but still it was a step in the right direction, and one which would open the schools to the children of both classes, and would form a useful basis for future enlightened and liberal legislation.

considered that, although the Bill was not altogether satisfactory, he still regarded it as a step in the right direction, and hoped that the hon. Member for Greenock would not press his Amendment.

said, that his Amendment was, in his opinion, essential to the good working of the Bill, and declined to withdraw it.

attached great importance to the Amendment, and thought that they ought to deprive the Presbytery of every rag of judicial power which they now possessed, in order that the Dissenters might be convinced that justice would be done to them in the management of the schools.

said, the Bill had been framed with a view to the satisfaction of all parties, and to secure its passing in that and the other House. If they were to deprive the Presbytery of all power of interference in the case of neglect of duty, they would reduce them to a state in which they would have no power of superintendence whatever.

said, the effect of the Amendment would be to separate the schools from the Church altogether. That would be entirely opposed to the object of the Bill.

had no fears that the Presbyteries would abuse the power granted to them by the Bill, and opposed the Amendment.

asked why they should deprive the Presbytery of that remnant of connection with the schools which they had so long enjoyed? It was to the Church they owed the schools, and it was the connection of the Church with them that had led to the happy union of secular and religious teaching which had so long distinguished the schools of Scotland.

would support the clause as it stood, as it was only by preserving it in its integrity they could hope to pass the Bill.

thought they should at least leave the Presbytery to judge of the daily doings and shortcomings of the schoolmaster. They had deprived them of every other power in connection with the school; but, as they must be the best judges of the schoolmaster's conduct, he thought they should be allowed to retain the superintendence that was still left to them.

would withdraw his Amendment, provided the Lord Advocate would consent to take from the Presbytery the power of libelling the schoolmaster.

thought each side ought to make concessions on this question; but he begged to observe that the withdrawal of powers from the Presbytery proposed by this Bill would create pain among many persons in Scotland.

said, he was prepared so to amend the Bill, that the Presbytery should be invested merely with the power of censure and suspension, and not with the power of dismissal.

asked how long the suspension of a schoolmaster might continue, and whether it would involve a loss a salary?

said, that the suspension, like an ecclesiastical censure, could be prolonged indefinitely, and that it would involve a loss of salary as long as it continued.

said, that there was no reason to apprehend that the heritors would allow the school to be closed for any length of time; so that practically the power of suspension would not be of an indefinite extent.

suggested that some positive limit should be placed on the power of suspension.

said, he was ready to adopt that suggestion. He would limit the power of suspension to a period of three months; and he hoped that under those circumstances the hon. and learned Member for Greenock would not press his Amendment.

said, that in answer to the appeal of the Lord Advocate, he would withdraw the Amendment. He felt less difficulty in doing so, as he had reason to think that, on a division, he would not receive the support of many of those Members who agreed with him upon the general principle.

proposed the insertion of words which would entitle the Presbytery to institute proceedings against a schoolmaster on the application of the heritors and minister, or of any six heads of families in the parish who had children attending the school.

accepted the Amendment.

thought the Amendment would give power to persons in the parish needlessly to annoy a schoolmaster.

proposed to add words to the effect that the right of electing a parochial schoolmaster jure devoluto, conferred by a 15th section of the recited Act on the Commissioners of Supply of the county after the expiration of four months from the time when the vacancy in any parochial school had taken place, should not arise or accrue to the Commissioners of Supply until the expiration of six months from the time of such vacancy.

proposed the addition of words to enable heritors to take ground for the schoolmaster's house, &c., and to provide an adequate supply of water.

objected to the Amendment, which would impose a heavy expenditure in many instances.

said, the words proposed gave a very great power to a very limited body. They would enable the heritors to take any ground they might fix upon.

moved to insert, in line 12, after "thereof," the following words, "nor shall any such schoolmaster be subject to the trial, judgment, or censure of the presbytery of the bounds for his sufficiency, qualifications, or deportment in his office."

assented to the Amendment, and the clause as Amended was agreed to.

moved a new Clause to enable heritors from time to time to discontinue existing side schools.

moved a new Clause to enable the heritors to appoint a female teacher.

moved a Clause to the effect that teachers might be required to resign, provisions being made for them during life.

moved a Clause to enable the electors of schoolmasters to choose more than one candidate to be tried by examiners.

moved a Clause to the effect that, upon agreement between the heritors and schoolmaster, the office of schoolmaster might be declared vacant, a retiring pension being provided.

proposed that the following should come after Clause 9:—

"It shall be competent for the Presbytery of the Bounds, or for the heritors, whensoever they shall see cause for instituting proceedings against the schoolmaster of any parish for contravention of the said declaration, to present a complaint to one of Her Majesty's principal Secretaries of State against such schoolmaster; and it shall be lawful to the Secretary of State thereupon to appoint a Commission to inquire into the said charge, and to censure, suspend, or deprive such schoolmaster, as they shall find to be just, provided that no such sentence shall take effect until it has been confirmed and approved by the Secretary of State."

objected to the clause. He believed it would not be put in force; but if proceedings were never taken under the clause it would be a mere sham, and ought not to be enacted.

also objected to the clause, and contended that the only true course was to separate religious from secular teaching, and leave the people to say what religious teaching should be given to their children.

said, the people of Scotland were divided in opinion upon many things, but they all agreed in this, that secular and religious teaching should not be separated from each other.

did not mean to exclude religion from the schools; but held that the people should be left to choose religious education for themselves and their children.

objected strongly to the test that had been introduced into the Bill.

moved a Clause to the effect that were a schoolmaster was absent for more than three weeks continuously, except in vacation time, it might be lawful for the heritors to appoint a substitute to be paid out of the salary and fees received by such schoolmaster—absence from ill-health not coming within the meaning of the clause.

a Clause was adopted to the effect that on the retirement of a schoolmaster the house and premises of the school should be made over within a certain time to the successor, and where the house and premises formed part of the retiring allowance, the heritors should make reasonable compensation to the ex-schoolmaster.

said, it was impossible to discuss this important clause and Amendment at that hour—half-past three; and he, therefore, moved that the Chairman should report Progress.

said, the right hon. Gentleman who proposed the Amendment (Sir John Pakington) was not present to press it, although he expected that it would be settled that day. He begged to remind the Committee that the Amendment received no support on Tuesday.

was surprised to hear it stated that the Amendment of his right hon. Friend (Sir John Pakington) had received no support. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carlisle and other Gentlemen certainly stated that they would support his right hon. Friend's proposition as he had altered it.

said, there was no support given to the original proposal made by the right hon. Member for Droitwich, but he admitted that some support was given to it in its modified form. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Droitwich had informed him that he could not be present, but that he expected his Amendment would be decided upon that day.

amid cries of "Divide," opposed the Amendment.

moved that the Chairman leave the chair. It was now near four o'clock, and the right hon. Gentleman must see that it was impossible to make any progress with the Bill that day.

said, he wished to ask the First Commissioner of Works, If permission will be given to open the Terrace at the back of Somerset House for respectable persons to walk there, at such hours and under such rules as shall be thought right, according to the recommendation of the Committee on Public Walks in 1833; and if there is any prospect of a Public Walk or open Ground being made in the south-east of London, near Bermondsey, or in Southwark, as suggested by that Committee?

in reply, said he was anxious that every public place in London which could afford a pleasant view, or promote or provide for the recreation of the public, should be turned to the best account. Doubtless the terrace in front of Somerset House would afford a pleasant lounge to a great number of persons if it were thrown open to the public; but there were certain objections made to that public use of it in consequence of the nature of the occupation of Somerset House. At the present moment, he had not satisfied his own mind that those objections could be altogether obviated. With regard to the proposal for another park, no doubt any one who saw the great delight that was caused by Battersea Park to thousands of the inhabitants of London would, like the hon. Gentleman, wish for another park at the south-east side of London. But he was unaware of any fund which could be appropriated for that purpose, and therefore, he could not hold out any distinct prospect of such an excellent arrangement being adopted.

said, he would now beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If the Metropolitan Board of Works or the Vestries of different parishes in the Metropolis, will assist in placing Porters' Rests for poor persons bearing heavy burdens in proper places; or would suggest proper places for those willing to erect Porters' Rests, and seats near, at their own cost?

Sir, this is a matter over which the Home Department has no control. Neither have I any reason to believe that the Metropolitan Board of Works have power or means applicable to such a purpose. But I believe the Vestries, if they are so disposed, can erect these rests for porters. In certain cases they have done so; and I have no doubt, if proper representations were made to them, that they would be willing to extend these advantages.

said, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for India, Whether any Papers have been sent home relative to an application made by Mr. Martin, Principal of the Government School at Berhampore, to the Lieutenant Governor of Bengal, for permission to open a Bible Class in the School under his charge; and, if so, whether he has any objection to lay them upon the Table of the House? And if they have not been received, whether he will direct their early transmission in order to lay them upon the table?

replied that some Papers on the subject had been received, but not from the Government of India, and he was not prepared to lay them on the Table. He would, however, write to India on the subject.

said, he wished to ask the Chairman of the Standing Orders Committee, If, after the experience of the plan for facilitating Public Business in the House of Commons recommended by the Select Committee during this Session, it is his intention to move for a Committee to revise the Standing Orders?

said, he was not authorized by the Committee on Standing Orders to make any Motion of the kind. Having consulted Mr. Speaker, the right hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle (Sir James Graham), who was Chairman of the Committee on Public Business which sat in the early part of the Session, and other hon. Members, he found it to be the impression that the House had not had sufficient experience of the recommendations of that Committee to warrant him in moving for a Committee to revise the Standing Orders. If those recommendations had not been favourable in some of their results, unquestionably they had been so in others. It had been supposed by more than one hon. Member that the plan of putting Supply down for Tuesday evenings would prove abortive; but the experience of Tuesday last afforded ground for supposing that the fact would be otherwise. Under these circumstances, he should not move for a Committee to revise the Standing Orders. Indeed, under any circumstances he should scarcely feel justified in taking such a step, after the appointment of a Committee presided over by so distinguished a Member of the House as the right hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle.

said, he wished to ask the hon. Member for Preston, What course he intends to pursue respecting his Bill for the Amendment of Church Rates, which stands for the 24th instant; and whether, after the opinions expressed on the withdrawal of a similar Bill on the 10th instant, he will persevere in moving the Second Reading at so late a period of the Session?

said, he had received a letter from his hon. Friend expressing his surprise and mortification at finding that some of his friends in London had expressed an opinion that, owing to the advanced period of the Session, it was not desirable to proceed with the measure; but that, under the circumstances, he should on Wednesday next move that the Order of the Day for the second reading of the Bill be discharged.

said, he rose to ask the Secretary of State for India, Whether the Government has received any information relative to the circulation by the Government of Bengal, in official envelopes marked "On Her Majesty's Service." of an English translation of a "Bengalli Play," containing attacks on British set- tlers connected with the manufacture of Indigo in Bengal, on their wives and families?

replied, that if his hon. Friend had any curiosity to read the play, he would send him a copy; but he had received no information whatever that it was of the character which his hon. Friend described.

said, he wished to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, The cause of the delay of the Belgian Government in applying the new Tariff Arrangements between France and Belgium to this Country? The House was, no doubt, aware that the trade between this country and Belgium had been very much diminished by the peculiar policy of the Government of Belgium. It was not merely a protective policy in favour of their own manufactures, but a policy of preference of almost every other country over this country, and especially a preference of France. He much feared that the disadvantages of this policy would be increased in consequence of the commercial treaty between this country and France, from which, in other respects, we derived considerable advantages. On the conclusion of the commercial treaty between France and this country, negotiated by the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Cobden), France offered almost the same terms to other countries, and amongst others to Belgium. The result was a commercial treaty between France and Belgium, by which French goods would be admitted to Belgium on much more favourable terms than English. That treaty was not extended to England; and the result would be that the differential duty against English goods and in favour of French goods would be very much increased. In worsted and woollen goods, with which he was best acquainted, the present duty on French goods was 22 percent; after the 1st of October it would be 15 per cent, to be reduced to 10 per cent in 1864. The duty levied on English goods of a similar description was about 35 per cent. So that while the differential duty against us was at present about 50 per cent, it would be increased to 130 per cent in October, and in 1864, if no new arrangement took place meanwhile, to 350 per cent. He believed the same was the case with regard to cotton, and also with linen. The duty on French silk was 4 francs per kilogramme; after the 1st October it would be 3 francs. On English silks the duty was 11 francs 60 centimes; so that the duty on English silks was now about three times as much as on French silks, and would soon be four times as much. He could understand why the Belgians might be afraid of English woollens; but their course with regard to the admission of silks appeared to him to be an especially unfriendly action, giving as it did a large preference to French over English silks. But we laboured under a disadvantage not only in the amount of the duty but in the mode in which it was levied. One of the greatest benefits of the treaty between England and France consisted in the substitution of ad valorem for specific duties. If anybody wished for proof of the disadvantageous working of the system of specific duties he would obtain it by observing the working of the importation into Belgium. The hon. Member read a letter from Huddersfield describing the evils attendant on the levying of duties in Belgium. The Belgium tariff in English goods, the writer said, was a very complicated one, and minute specifications were required; the Custom House officer put his own construction on these, and if he considered the specification inaccurate a heavy fine was levied, one-half of which went to the Custom House officers themselves. Not only, then, had the French goods an enormous advantage in point of amount of duty. but after October of this year, they would have the great additional advantage of an ad valorem instead of a specific duty. The manufacturers did not contest the right of the Belgian Government to adopt either a protective or a differential duty; but they did not expect that Belgium, towards which this country had always showed such a friendly feeling, and who had received, he might say, so many obligations at our hands, would have placed this country at a disadvantage as compared with others. It was not to France alone, but to other countries, that preference was shown, for Belgium had a general tariff on the admission of the goods of all countries; but there were special exceptions in favour of France, Holland, Luxemburg, and the Zollverein, so that English goods almost alone remained subjected to the general tariff. The reply of the Belgian Government to the re- monstrances of our Foreign Office was that they intended to remove this preference, but that they were waiting till the expiration of the special treaty with France. That special treaty expired on the 1st of March last, and, as it was understood that a new and more favourable treaty was in contemplation, the Chamber of Commerce of Bradford memorialized the Foreign Office that it would use its exertions to put our manufacturers on the same footing with France. This was in November; but the Foreign Office did not reply till January. He did not complain of this, as he had no doubt that the noble Lord was otherwise much occupied about that period; but it was matter of regret, for he had no doubt that during those two months the terms of the treaty had been arranged between Belgium and France. On the 11th of January the noble Lord directed Mr. Hammond to assure the Bradford Chamber of Commerce that the Belgian Government had given assurances that they had no intention to make the slightest distinction between the woollen mannufacturers of France and those of Great Britain, and that no concession would be made to the manufacturers of any country which was not also conceded to the manufacturers of Great Britain. Still nothing more was heard of the matter. In May the Treaty with France was completed, and a fresh memorial having been addressed to the Foreign Office, the following answer was received on the 31st of May:—

"Foreign Office, May 31, 1861.

"Sir, in reply to your letter of the 27th instant, I am directed by Lord John Russell to acquaint you that there is no discrepancy between the letter dated the 11th of January last, which you received from Mr. Hammond, and that which I addressed to you on the 22nd instant. Her Majesty's Government had in January last received, and have lately again received, from the Belgian Government, assurances that there was no intention on their part to make any distinction between the import duties on French woollens and those on woollens the produce of Great Britain, and Her Majesty's Government are now in communication with the Belgian Government, with a view to concluding a new treaty of commerce, which shall give effect to those assurances.

"I am, Sir, your most

"Obedient humble servant,

"WODEHOUSE."

Since that time a law had passed the Belgian Chambers sanctioning the treaty with France, but nothing whatever was said about a treaty with England. He wished now to ask the reason for this delay, and he hoped that the reply he should receive would be a satisfactory one. He could hardly sit down without stating that such were and had all along been the relations between this country and Belgium that they had a right to expect the conclusion of a treaty of commerce as favourable as with any country in the world, not even excepting France. It was under the guidance of the noble Lord now at the head of the Government that the Kingdom of Belgium was established; no one knew better than he what a prominent part the British Government had taken in assisting that Government—none knew better the obligations under which this country was placed with regard to it—indeed, the noble Lord occasionally reminded them of some of which they were not before aware—and he would only say that if the Belgian Government wanted to retain the friendly feeling of this country they had better trust to a good commercial intercourse than to any parchment obligations, however strong they might be.

rose to confirm the statement of his hon. Friend as to the great anxiety with which our merchants and manufacturers regarded the new treaty between Belgium and France. They felt that the French manufacturers were formidable competitors with them in ordinary circumstances, and they looked with regret, and with some degree of indignation, on a treaty which admitted the goods of their competitors at an unfair advantage.

begged to add a few words on behalf of his constituents, who were deeply interested in this matter, and who entirely concurred in the representations of his hon. Friend the Member for Bradford. He would not repeat all that had been urged by his hon. Friend, but the facts of the case were shortly these:—For years past the products of Great Britain had been subject to higher rates of duty on admission into Belgium than similar manufactures imported there from France and other countries. Almost every country except England enjoyed certain exemptions and privileges in Belgian tariffs, whilst England alone came in under the general tariff. Now, there was no possible reason or pretext for any such distinction. Not only were we on terms of the closest amity with Belgium, but if there was any one country more than another from whom we had a right to expect a different treatment it was from Belgium, to whom we had always afforded the advantage of our friendship, and which enjoyed the blessings of a free Government and liberal institutions nearly identical with our own. Unfortunately, however, a liberal commercial policy did not in this case follow, as might have been expected, from those institutions, and so far from being admitted upon terms equal to those of the most favoured nation, our trade was marked out by them for special hostility. And if the trade with Belgium had been hitherto in a languishing state, it followed that when the new Franco-Belgian tariff came into operation on October 1, that trade would be annihilated. The duty on French woollen yarn was now 45f. per 100 kilogrammes, and would be then further reduced to 30f. to 40f.; whilst the duties on corresponding English goods remained at 116f. So, too, as regarded woollen manufactures, the present French duty on which was to be reduced from 225f. per 100 kilogrammes to a 15 per cent ad valorem duty, whilst the duty on English was 381f., equal to 37 1/2 ad valorem. England asked no privileges or special advantages, but only the opportunity of free and fair competition. It was true Lord Wodehouse had written, on May 31, that the Belgian Government assured us they had "no intention to make any difference between the import duties on French woollens and those produced in England," but, meantime, nothing was done, and they had reason to ask the cause of this delay. He would add one other reason why the Foreign Secretary should urge this matter forward as rapidly as possible—namely, that owing to the unhappy civil war now raging in America, and the restrictive tariffs adopted by the Northern States, the American trade in the midland districts was nearly annihilated; considerable distress was already the consequence, and that distress would be greatly aggravated unless some modification of the Belgian tariff should be made so soon as the new Franco-Belgian Treaty came into operation. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, too, was deeply interested in the matter, for unless something was done to save this trade he would himself be disappointed in the sanguine Estimates of Customs revenue which he had formed, and which he (Mr. Heygate) earnestly hoped might not be unequal to the results hitherto anticipated.

wished to state that the depression in trade in the district which he represented, especially in Coventry and for eight miles round it, was not in the least degree abated. The manufacturers were in great measure ruined, and the operatives were now, as a last resource, emigrating. Several of them had emigrated lately from the parish adjoining that in which he resided, and from the parish adjoining. This rendered it the more important that their manufactures should have the advantages referred to by the hon. Member for Bradford, to whom he begged to offer his thanks for having called attention to the subject.

said, he could not altogether wonder at the complaints made with respect to the conduct of the Belgian Government. When early in the Her Majesty's Government applied to the Belgian Government they were told that they were negotiating a treaty of commerce with France, and that, until the terms of that treaty were arranged, it was not convenient to be negotiating with different Powers on the same subject at the same time. But at the same time they always assured Her Majesty's Government that whatever terms were granted with respect to French manufactures should also be conceded to English manufactures. On that assurance Her Majesty's Government relied—namely, that as soon as terms were arranged with France the Belgium Government would make the same terms with Great Britain. The negotiations between France and Belgium were considerably protracted, and it was not without difficulty that the provisions of the treaty in regard to the questions respecting woollen manufactures and other articles were carried through the Belgian Chambers. When the British Government again expressed their expectation that the same terms would be extended to this country, the Belgian Government answered that it was too late, at the end of the Session, to submit to the Belgian Chambers concessions to this country, and that without a law any concessions made by the Belgian Government would be of no value. According to that statement the Belgian Government had not chosen to introduce any Bill on the subject, and he thought that the British Government had reason to complain of that conduct. For his part he considered such conduct very unfriendly to this country; for he conceived that it might have been possible to protract the sitting of the Chambers for a fortnight or three weeks, and it appeared to him that the concession to this country of similar terms to those granted to France was what the British Govern- ment had a right to expect on grounds of general policy, and seemed, after the assurances given, to be only matter of good faith. The British Government had always behaved with the greatest liberality in these subjects. For the last ten years we had effected changes in the tariff without making them matter of bargain, and when we recently concluded a commercial treaty with France we extended the same terms to all the nations of Europe. Consequently, though the Belgian Government had not granted to this country all the advantages it had a right to expect, they enjoyed themselves all the advantages resulting from the changes made in the English tariff. The British Government had again very recently remonstrated with the Belgian Government, and had asked them immediately to conclude a treaty of commerce which would place this country on an equal footing with France, and he did not think that they could fairly take any objection to that course; but he was sorry to say that, as the Belgian Chambers were not sitting, nothing could yet be definitely done on the subject.

said, he rose to call the attention of the House to the Correspondence on the Affairs of Denmark, Schleswig and Holstein of 1860 and 1861. The hon. Baronet said he thought that England was called upon to interfere in the dispute as a mediating Power, and that we were in a much more advantageous position than France and other Powers for bringing about a peaceful solution. The hon. Baronet, whose statement was very imperfectly heard, referred at some length to the occurrences of 1849 and 1850, and said that the German Bund had undertaken to obtain for the Duchies the rights and privileges for which they had taken up arms, and that in 1852 the King of Denmark had engaged to maintain a separate national existence for Holstein, and equal rights for the Danish and German population of the kingdom. These promises had been openly and systematically broken, and the consequence was that there had been excited in Germany a strong feeling which might induce the German nation generally to take up arms to restore to Schleswig and Holstein those rights which they claimed to be entitled to. The hon. Gentleman then proceeded to read extracts from communications of Mr. Ward, who was now Consul-General at Hamburg, and whom he characterized as a most able and trustworthy public servant; of Mr. Howard, and others, to show that a considerable degree of oppression was exercised by the Danish Government towards the German inhabitants of Schleswig and Holstein. He had himself met with clergymen who had been compelled to leave their congregations because they refused to Danicize the German inhibitants of the Duchies. The German inhabitants of Schleswig were not permitted to approach the throne with a respectful statement of their grievances. It was stated that the Treaty of London was not binding; perhaps the noble Lord, if he made any reply to these observations, would give his opinion on that subject. The Treaty of London, he believed, was abrogated, so far as respected this country and France towards Russia, by the fact that war had intervened. The effect of that treaty was most hostile to Germany. It would bring a Russian prince to the throne of Denmark after the death of the present monarch. That would be very injurious to the small German interests, and he could not conceive that it would be beneficial to us. He was quite aware that the subject he had introduced to the notice of the House was not very interesting to many Members, but he could not help regarding it as one of the utmost importance, and he begged to thank them for the patience with which they had listened to the extracts he had read.

said, he was glad that, after having kept the question suspended for some time before the House, the hon. Baronet had at length brought it on for discussion. He could not quarrel with the hon. Baronet for the view he took of the question, but the (Lord Harry Vane) thought it would be desirable that the House should not be led away by partial statements. He did not intend to defend the Government of Denmark in the conduct which they had pursued towards Schleswig; but looking at the matter generally, he thought the House would come to a different conclusion from that arrived at by the hon. Baronet. The hon. Baronet seemed to be under the impression that the Treaty of London had been abrogated, and that it was no longer of any force or validity, because of the war which had since taken place between England and Russia. But the hon. Baronet was in error. Russia was only one of the parties to the treaty, and the subsequent war could not cancel it. Besides, there was an ancient treaty, dated in 1720, between France, England, and Germany, which was in force, and which guaranteed Schleswig and Holstein as part of the possessions of the throne of Denmark. Much might be said about the succession to the crown of Denmark. But it was thought at the time when there was a probability that the succession to Schleswig and Holstein might become doubtful, that it would be better it should be settled; and seeing that Denmark was but a small State and held the keys of the Baltic, it was, in his opinion, wisely decided by the great Powers, that the succession to Denmark and the Duchies should descend to the same Monarch rather than that Schleswig and Holstein should be separated from Denmark. The question of Schleswig and the question of Holstein were totally distinct. Holstein had, no doubt, been a part of the German Empire up to the time of its termination in 1806. But since 1815 the Duchy had been in the position it now occupied, and the rights of Denmark over Holstein were very limited. As regarded Schleswig the case was very different, and the difficulties between that Duchy and Denmark had arisen in consequence of a large German population having become inhabitants of the Duchy. There were in the Duchy two parties, which were to a certain extent hostile to each other, and unhappily nothing but time would entirely remedy all the complaints made, and smooth down the feelings which existed among the people. The Danish Government had lately shown a disposition to remedy all complaints which were well founded, and quite ready to do full and equal justice to both nationalities. In his opinion the best course to pursue would be for Denmark to allow the autonomy of Holstein, and for the Government to fix a certain sum as the contribution of the Duchy towards the general expenses of the kingdom. He also thought it right that new laws binding Holstein should be submitted to the Holstein Diet before being put into force. No Danish statesman would consent that Schleswig should be disunited from Denmark— Notice taken, that Forty Members were not present; House counted, and Forty Members being present The noble Lord proceeded:—When he was interrupted he was calling the attention of the House to the management of the finances of Denmark and Holstein, and he thought the only true mode would be to stipulate that there should be a vote of a certain sum by the Diet of Holstein for the general expenses of the Government, and that all votes required over and above that should be specially submitted to the Diet of Holstein. No doubt there was a very strong feeling on the question, both in North and South Germany. But the Germans were bound to respect in others the feeling of nationality that animated themselves. They were bound to respect the Scandinavian feeling, that was not confined to Denmark; Sweden had expressed its readiness, under certain circumstances, to come to the aid of Denmark. It was impolitic on the part of Germany to raise a question that might hereafter bring down an intervention with which she would find it difficult to contend. It was most desirable that some definitive measures should be taken to settle this question. He hoped the Foreign Secretary would be able to tell them that a disposition existed on the part of Germany to accept proposals for a settlement, but it could only be effected by Germany respecting the rights of Denmark.

said, he did not believe there was any part of Germany in which more liberty was enjoyed than in the Duchy of Holstein. All that had been said about the language to be used in schools and churches and the restrictions on private education no longer applied. The state of things that had been complained of had been done away with. He believed the Danish Government felt that it had been wrong to permit such a state of things to exist. Denmark wished to obtain the good offices of England, and was ready to grant the Duchies a liberal Constitution; but the great difficulty in the way of a settlement was the contribution of Holstein. He believed it might be necessary to separate the Customs' duties of Holstein and the Duchy of Schleswig. The people of Denmark were strongly impressed with the necessity of free trade; but in Holstein, as in the greater part of Germany, the feeling was of an opposite kind, and it might be necessary to establish a line of Customs on the Eider. As for personal freedom in the Duchy of Holstein it was complete. Such a thing as a permission to travel or a passport had been unknown for nine or ten years. He earnestly hoped that the good offices of the Government might be successful.

wished to ask a question as to the extent to which the Government held this country bound by the treaty of 1852. It was incomprehensible to him how any Government of this country should ever have entered into a treaty, the main effect of which was to open the way for the speedy accession of the Imperial family of Russia to the throne of Denmark. The possession of Denmark by Russia, and the command of the North Sea and the entrance to the Baltic by that Power, would be dangerous to the interests of this country. But under colour of a treaty for preventing a separation between Denmark Proper and the Duchies of Holstien and Schleswig, we had become parties to an arrangement by which nineteen heirs, standing between the present King of Denmark and the Emperor of Russia, were to be cut off from the right of succession, and only four left, with a limitation too, to heirs male exclusively, which made the failure of the intermediate heirs much more likely to happen. As to the Duchies, the succession was limited to males, while by the Lex Regia, intoduced into Denmark in the course of last century, the succession to the Kingdom of Denmark was thrown open to females. On the death, therefore, of the present King and his uncle, neither of whom had heirs male, there would have been a separation of the Duchies and the Kingdom. The simple way of preventing this would have been by doing at once what has been done since the treaty—namely, repeating the Lex Regia in Denmark. But this would not have suited the views of Russia, and so an agreement was come to between the Emperor and the King of Denmark by which the Prince of Ghuhsburg should be declared heir both of the Duchies and the Kingdom, disinheriting no less than nineteen intermediate heirs, and thereafter he himself was connected only by females, limiting the succession in future to heir male, and rendering much more probable the early extinction of his line, and the opening up of the succession to the Emperor of Russia. The consent of the States of Denmark had, after much resistance, been obtained to this scheme, but hitherto those of the Duchies had steadfastly refused to sanction it. Now the question he wished to put to the noble Lord, the Secretary for Foreign Affairs was this:—Did the Government consider that this country was by the treaty of 1852, bound, under all circumstances, on the death of the King of Denmark and his uncle, to recognize the Prince of Ghuhs- burg as Sovereign of Denmark and the Duchies, or was the obligation of the treaty simply this—that if the succession should be lawfully and constitutionally changed by the competent authorities in Denmark and the Duchies, this country would recognize their act to this effect, and not promote the cause of any of the disinherited heirs against the will of the nation? To illustrate what he meant he would suppose that before the death of George IV., he and the other Sovereigns of Europe had entered into a treaty for securing the succession to the throne of Britain as well as to that of Hanover, of the Duke of Cumberland to the exclusion of our present Queen. Such a treaty might be merely an engagement to recognize his succession provided the Legislature of this country should lawfully have adopted it, or it might be a combination to force on the people and Legislature of this country, the heir male in preference to the heir female. Now, he wished to know whether the Government considered this treaty of 1852 to be of the former or the latter character and import? It was a question of the highest moment to the future well-being of this country and to the cause of liberty in Europe, and he trusted that the noble Lord would be able to give a satisfactory answer.

The House will perhaps allow me, although I have already addressed it, to answer the appeal that has been made to me by the hon. Member for Buckingham and other hon. Members. In doing so it is not my intention either to enter into the arguments as to the rights of the different parties, or of the Germanic Confederation, or of the King of Denmark, or to point out the terms on which I think the existing differences might be terminated. I will confine myself to stating what I consider to be the present state of the question which the hon. Baronet has brought under our notice. I have myself been very anxious with respect to the question of Federal execution. The House is aware that the Germanic Confederation came to certain resolutions, to the effect that if the King of Denmark would not submit to certain propositions within a given time Federal execution would take place. I have been anxious on that subject, because it is one of such a delicate nature, and the passions of men are so much excited, that I could not but fear that it would endanger the peace in those provinces, and that it might eventually cause disturbance in the interior of the country. However, I am glad to hear that it is likely that the King of Denmark will make propositions, either to the Germanic Confederation, or to Austria and Russia, by which it is hoped that Federal execution may be postponed for the present year, and negotiations may be entered on. Now, what those negotiations or what the terms to be proposed by the King may be, I am not able to say, but I think it is perfectly fair and just, the Germanic Confederation having declared that a certain requirement should be complied with by the King, that His Majesty should, on his side, either announce his intention to comply, or give reasons why those requirements cannot be fairly placed before him as conditions to which he ought to subscribe. I conceive that those negotiations may end in a solution of the whole question. The subject is one on which a good deal of correspondence has taken place between the different Powers of Europe. All I can hope at present is that at least some time may be allowed for negotiations, and that Frederal execution may not immediately take place. Certainly the subject is one on which I think every State in Europe is entitled to take an interest. With regard to the question of my hon. Friend who last spoke (Mr. Dunlop) I shall not undertake to state on a hypothetical case what might be the interpretation of the treaty signed in 1852, in the negotiation of which I had no part, and the terms of which I have not accurately in my mind now; but, as to the general purpose and scope of that treaty, I may observe that it is quite different from what my hon. Friend apprehends it to be. I believe it was supposed that if different titles could be set up to the Danish monarchy on the death of the present Sovereign, in that case Russia might revive her claim as against other claimants, and that, if she did, she would not be likely to fare the worst among the contending parties. Therefore, it was thought desirable by other Powers of Europe—Russia assenting to the arrangement—that the Danish monarchy should pass in a certain direction, in order that the ambitious hopes of the various claimants—Russia included—might be terminated, and that Denmark might be preserved as one kingdom. No one can tell what may be the effect of that treaty at the time of the death of the King of Denmark. It is binding on the Powers that signed it. It is binding in this way: If the Emperor of Russia, on the death of the King of Denmark, should claim to add Holstein to his dominions, all the other Powers would be entitled to allege that Russia had signed a certain treaty by which she was precluded from putting in that claim. I cannot give any further answer. It is a treaty which is not cancelled. It is in vigour and in force, and it is a treaty to which Great Britain is a party. I will not now enter further into the subject, but will only say that it is not desirable to give any Correspondence at the present moment.

said, he rose to call attention to the several Addresses to the Crown by this House, and the Treasury Minutes issued thereon, empowering the Commissioners for Danish Claims to receive, examine, and judicially determine the claims of certain British subjects for losses arising out of the confiscation by the Danish Government of ships and cargoes in the year 1807; to the fact that after such losses had, in pursuance of Her Majesty's commands, been judicially determined, and the Commissioners' adjudication and Report thereon had been presented to the House, the House of Commons, by its Address, 10th June, 1841, prayed Her Majesty to advance to the claimants the amount of the losses so adjudged, with the assurance that the House would make good the same; to which Address Her Majesty returned a favourable answer; but that, nevertheless, such claims remain unliquidated; and to the Petitions of Thomas Ward and others (Presented 26th April, Appendix to Public Petitions, No. 524, also Parliamentary Paper, No. 257, of the present Session), fully setting out the facts, and praying for redress. The persons who urged these Danish claims were the relatives of those whose ships were confiscated on the occasion of the seizure by the English of the Danish fleet at Copenhagen in 1807. The hon. Member said that the subject had been so repeatedly discussed in Parliament, and were so familiar as matters of history that he would not attempt to open the case in any detail. He would only remind the House that an expedition was sent to Copenhagen by the British Government in August, 1807, and possession of the Danish fleet was demanded as a matter of precaution, it being suspected by the British Government, acting upon secret information, that there was an understanding between the Emperors of Russia and of France to take possession of that fleet and use it against this country. The object of the expedition was avowedly kept secret while it was being fitted out, and the Proclamation addressed to the Danes, on its arrival in the Danish waters, was couched in terms, not of hostility, but of friendship; and it was distinctly stated on the part of the English that it was for their own safety that they made the demand. The Danish Government refused the demand made upon them to deliver up their fleet—and, indeed, it was a demand which was scarcely, if at all, to be justified; and on August 16 they did that which was the most ordinary act of retailation—they ordered an embargo to be laid on British ships and property within their reach. On the other hand, on the 25th of August, by an Admiralty order, an embargo was laid by the British Government upon all the Danish property in the harbours of Great Britain, amounting to 850 ships. Ultimately that embargo was turned into confiscation, and the proceeds of the sales amounted to £1,300,000, which was paid into the Exchequer. Out of these proceedings sprung the claims of those who now prayed the House to consider their case. The case of the claimants was that the proceeds of the confiscated property ought to have been applied, in the first instance, to indemnifying those innocent sufferers, whose losses had been occasioned directly by the acts of the British Government. While the preparations connected with the Danish expedition were proceeding, not only was its destination kept secret, but licences were granted to English ships in the months of July and August to proceed to the Baltic; and which sailed, therefore, without any suspicion that hostilities were about to be commenced, and he believed there was no instance of an insurance being effected upon them. If the English Government thought the English ships in the Baltic were in danger of capture, it was their duty to have left a sufficient convoy to protect them; but, instead of this the whole English fleet left the Baltic, and many English merchant ships were snapped up by the cruisers of the Danish Government. If it was necessary that the Danish fleet should be seized under circumstances so peculiar, and if such reprisals were rendered inevitable on the part of the Danes, it was not right that private persons should be the sufferers, and the State should make good to them the loss brought upon them by a step deemed necessary for the safety of the empire. He was not aware that any legal refinements could be applicable here; but the case should be decided upon the principles of natural justice. This House had intervened time after time in favour of these claims, while the Crown had expressed its willingness that they should be met if the House would furnish the necessary funds. After the return of the English fleet from the Baltic, negotiations were still going on with the Danish envoy, who remained in London till the 16th of November—the bombardment of Copenhagen having taken place on September 7—and up to the middle of November all the acts done were committed without any expression of a determination to proceed to hostilities, unless an arrangement should be come to. It was not till November 4th that the Act for reprisals was issued in this country, and that was considered as the day when the war between England and Denmark commenced. The next step was to appoint a Commission to realize the enormous amount of Danish property on which the embargo had been laid. About this time the Crown Prince of Denmark was addressed by certain Danish merchants who thought their property would be endangered if the Danish Government maintained their embargo on British property. In his answer, dated the 27th November, the Crown Prince stated that the measures of the Government amounted to merely a sequestration of the property, so as not to lead to a condemnation of Danish property by way of retaliation. By this answer the Crown Prince limited the action of the Danish Government to a mere sequestration of the property of English merchants, in order that by so moderating their own measures the English Government might be induced to moderate theirs. He would now call attention to the manner in which those claims had been treated from 1807 up to the present time. In 1808 Lord Sidmouth brought them before the House of Lords in the form of Resolutions—[Hansard's Debates (First Series), vol. x., p. 645]—in which he called in question the justice of the proceedings —that there was neither right nor honesty in the seizure of this property—still less in the confiscation—unless it were done for the purpose of compensating those of our fellow-subjects who had suffered by the Danish confiscation. For a period of twenty years afterwards the English sufferers were inces- sant in their applications to the Treasury for compensation. It was the seizure under the embargo of the 16th August which formed the ground of those claims, and the claims put forward for compensation arose in three different ways—First, in respect of book debts due by Danish to English subjects; secondly, in respect to goods on shore belonging to English subjects; and thirdly, in respect to the property of English merchants in the shape of ships and cargo afloat. In 1834 the question was brought before the House of Commons by Mr. John Parker in the shape of a Motion for the appointment of a Committee. Lord Althorp, who was then Chancellor of the Exchequer, expressed himself very strongly against the right and title of those persons being considered by the Crown at all, but the tone of the House on that occasion was evidently in favour of something being done in the matter. Lord Althorp seeing that, induced Mr. Parker to withdraw his Motion, on the promise that the Government would take the matter into their consideration. The Executive took action by the appointment of a Commission. Several Treasury minutes followed, in which the Government expressed a readiness to carry out the wishes of the House, coupled, however, with a determination not to go beyond the limits prescribed by Parliament from time to time. Lord Althorp directed the Commissioners to inquire into the claims arising in regard to book debts and goods on shore, and drew a distinction adverse to the claims of those who had suffered from the seizure of their ships and cargoes afloat. The first Treasury Minute, dated November 4, 1834, authorized the Commissioners to receive, examine, and classify all the claims that might be brought before them, in order that the House of Commons might have the fullest information whenever its attention should again be drawn to the subject. The Commissioners were required also to bear in mind that all the Government undertook to do was to afford the parties the opportunity of establishing the fact of their losses, and that the Lords of the Treasury were not pledged to recommend the grant of compensation to any of them. Upon the issue of that Minute the Commissioners proceeded to adjudicate on the amount of book debts, and goods on shore, and between 1835 and 1837 Votes for compensation to the amount of £280,000 were passed by Parliament. The Commissioners, however, declined to examine beyond those claims for book debts and goods on shore. In 1838 Mr. Cresswell (the present distinguished Judge) brought before the House of Commons the case of the claimants in respect to the ships and the cargoes, and moved an Address to the Crown praying that the Commissioners might examine into their claims. On that occasion the whole merits of the matter were most amply discussed, and after two or three divisions the Motion for the Address was carried, and a favourable answer was received from the Crown, consequently the Government referred the examination of those claims to the Commissioners, and passed a Minute, dated June 22, 1838, desiring the Commissioners to report on the subject, in order that the Report might be laid before the House of Commons. Under this reference the Commissioners did not conceive themselves to be at liberty to proceed to a judicial investigation of the matters, but made a rough estimate of the claims, which was of no use to any one. After this, Mr. Cresswell, in 1839, moved another Address to the Crown praying that the Commissioners might be directed to proceed to a judicial investigation, and after one division the Address was carried; and on the 5th of April a Minute was passed by the Government directing the Commissioners to make an adjudication on each individual claim, but giving notice to the parties that they would not be bound by this adjudication to bring forward any Motion in the House of Commons for a Vote of money. Step by step the Government had, on the part of the Crown, acceded to each thing done by the House of Commons, avowing at the same time that they would go no further if they could help it. On the occasion of the Address of the adjudication of the claims being carried, Mr. Spring Rice, then Chancellor of the Exchequer, stated that he objected to the House requiring a judicial inquiry into the claims unless the House came to some Vote involving the grant of money; and he advised the House not to put the claimants into a fool's paradise by making them suppose that they would be compensated, when all that they would get would be the right to enter into an expensive process, which would end in nothing to them. The language of the then Chancellor of the Exchequer was in strict conformity with that which the Government had used in various Minutes. The adjudication, however, took place, and on the 12th of May 1840, the Commissioners presented their Report; but the Government took no steps in conse- quence of it. Thereupon Mr. Cresswell in 1841 moved an Address setting forth that if the Crown advanced to the claimants the amount of their respective claims, as ascertained by the Commissioners, the House would make good the same; and the answer to the Address expressed the readiness of the Crown to give effect to the wishes of the House whenever the means should be provided by Parliament. He asked the House whether that was not an acquiescence, as far as the Government were concerned, in the justice and propriety of fulfilling the prayer of the Address? The subject had since the date of that Address and answer been mooted in the House of Commons three or four times, but he was not responsible for the course which had been taken with respect to it on those occasions. Indeed, he very much doubted whether, the House having once addressed Her Majesty in the language which he had quoted, and having received a reply such as he had read, it was open to them to proceed to move another Address in the same form, and he, for one, should have expected that a Motion rather would have been made to the effect that, owing to the different measures which had been taken by the Crown on the one side, and the claimants in question on the other, the public faith had become effectually pledged to the liquidation of the claims of the latter, not as a mere matter of grace or favour on the part of the Crown, but by reason of the action of those responsible in the conduct of a suit on behalf of the State, as against those individuals by whom the claim on it was made. He did not know of any reason which had ever been urged for the non-fulfilment of these claims, except an argument that was used some years ago by the right hon. Gentleman the present Chief Secretary for Ireland (Mr. Cardwell). That right hon. Gentleman contended that as the seizure of the ships was not illegal, but was a fair act in war, therefore, the petitioners had no claim to compensation. But that was a total misapprehension of the case. The confusion arose in this way. There were two classes of seizures. There was first the ships afloat, and there was next the book debts and the goods ashore. In 1835 the Government agreed to give compensation for this latter class, because they said their seizure was illegal, and contrary to the law of nations; and as their predecessors had omitted to claim compensation from the Danish Government at the proper time they felt bound to make that compensation good. But he must observe that there was no written or public law which drew any distinction between the legality of seizing ships afloat and book debts and goods ashore; and the British Government in 1808, having their attention drawn to the matter, decided that no distinction could be drawn between the two cases. But whethere that were the case or no with the goods ashore, the present petitioners did not rest their claim on the illegality of the seizure, but on its high legality—on the ground that the Danes were justified in the seizure by the extreme step our Government had taken—very possibly for its own salvation; but still, according to the known principles of law, that the Government which gave occasion to the wrong was answerable for the wrong, therefore, the British Government ought to make good their claims. This was the view taken twenty years ago, and less, at least by two Gentlemen who were now high in Her Majesty's Councils, by that severe economist, Joseph Hume, and by Sir Stratford Canning, who was connected with the diplomatic transactions of the period. He did not propose to make any Motion, but he had great hopes that the renewed consideration of this matter by the Government would lead to a solution favourable to that which he believed to be a thoroughly honest and a thoroughly just claim.

said, his hon. and learned Friend had brought this subject before the House with great ability and in a very temperate spirit; but he had concluded without making any Motion. Having, therefore, no tangible issue with which to grapple, his observations in reply must necessarily be more general than they might have been had any precise Motion been submitted to the House. The circumstances of the case certainly suggested that it might be desirable to consider how long and to what extent questions of this kind could be seriously entertained. In courts of justice it was found necessary to impose some limitation of time by express enactment. And, although no mere lapse of time could be set up as a bar to any inquiry the House might think fit to enter upon, yer, when a matter so old as this, dating so far back as fiftyseven years ago, and which had slept profoundly for ten years past, was again brought before the House, it was incumbent on those who invited attention to it to show that a clear and decided case of injustice was made out. Now, he contended that the course adopted on this subject by successive Governments had been perfectly fair. Did his hon. and learned Friend venture to say, after the lapse of time that had taken place, and having regard to the facts and legal considerations attaching to them, that this case was so free from doubt and difficulty, and so clearly in favour of those whose claims he advocated, that it ought to be seriously entertained? His hon. and learned Friend had admitted fairly that there was a state of war, and that the Danes had belligerent rights. If so, the case of these claimants was untenable; for one of the most obvious of belligerent rights was the right to seize and confiscate the ships and property of the enemy afloat. His hon. and learned Friend was, therefore, driven to another argument—he would not call it another expedient. His hon. and learned Friend was driven to argue that there was something unjust and not to be defended in the conduct which the Government of that day pursued towards Denmark in commencing the war, and upon that absence of justice, and that alone, he had based his appeal to the House. The Circumstances of the capture of the Danish fleet were well known. It was the intention of this country, suddenly and without notice, to seize the fleet of Denmark, so as to make it impossible that that fleet could be made use of by an enemy. It was on that seizure of the fleet that the present case arose, and the argument his hon. and learned Friend relied on was that the proceedings of the British Government were unjust, and, therefore, these British subjects were entitled to compensation out of the public funds. It would be most alarming if the House were to act upon such a view, because it came to this —that a war being undertaken by the competent and responsible authorities of the country, involving, as any war with a naval Power of any strength would do, great injury and ruin to many of the merchants of this country by the confiscation of their property afloat, that House might 50 or 100 years afterwards be called upon to vote money out of the taxes of the country by way of compensation, because the persons whose vessels had been captured and confiscated or those representing them, thought that the British Government had been wrong in commencing the war, or in not submitting to requirements by yielding to which it might have been avoided. That was an entirely novel proposition, and one for which there was no authority whatever. This, however, was the substance of his hon. and learned Friend's argument, and but for some incidental observations which he had made, he should hardly have thought it necessary to trouble the House further upon the subject. His hon. and learned Friend had endeavoured to make out what in courts of law was called an estoppel, and had argued that, as the Government had paid claims No. 1 and No. 2, they were bound to pay No. 3, and ought not to be heard in refusal. That argument implied that No. 3 stood upon precisely the same footing as No. 1 and No. 2, which was by no means the case. Claims No.1 and No. 2 were made in respect of the confiscation by the Danish Government of book debts and goods on shore. This claim, No. 3, however, was made in respect of the confiscation of ships and cargoes afloat. It had not been laid down as a rigid and inflexible rule that book debts and goods on shore were not liable to confiscation; but that description of property, and ships and cargoes afloat, had been treated by writers on international law and belligerent rights in a very different manner. No writer of authority denied the right to confiscate the ships and cargoes of an enemy's subjects afloat; but great doubts had been expressed whether the seizure and confiscation of book debts and goods on shore were, under any circumstances, warranted by the law of nations. Vattel laid it down that a Sovereign declaring war could not retain in his dominions the subjects of the enemy, or their effects; and Mr. Wheaton said that it appeared to be the modern rule of international usage that the property of an enemy found within the territory of a belligerent State, and debts due to his subjects by the Government or by individuals at the commencement of hostilities, were not liable to be seized and confiscated as prize of war. In the two earlier cases, therefore, the Government was justified in contending that the Danish Government had violated the fundamental principles of international law, and a reasonable claim for compensation was made out in turn on the part of the British against the Danish Government, and by British subjects against their own Government. No such argument, however, could be advanced in favour of the third claim, which was now revived. It had been said that the claim might safely be acceded to, because the war in which the petitioners suffered broke out under very singular circumstances, and that a similar case never occurred before, and was never likely to occur again. But the establishment of a precedent involved the acknowledgment of a principle, which might be applied to other cases, even where the circumstances were somewhat different; and if the Government yielded in the present instance they could not, in any future war, consistently refuse to entertain the claims of sufferers who maintained that, as an unjust war was the cause of their losses, they were entitled to compensation. A most mischievous precedent would thus be created, quite at variance with the principles of international law. War, no doubt, was often the cause of heavy losses to individuals for which the State made no reparation, and the source of great gains which the State applied to its own purposes. It could not be maintained as suggested by the Petition before the House, that the State was bound to compensate the losses of its subjects out of the prizes of war. Such a proposition was as novel as it was untenable. Fifty-four years having elapsed since the occurrence of these events, and the parties interested having been engaged for at least forty-four years in agitating their claims, it was not surprising that the subject had been frequently before Parliament. Sometimes, no doubt, Parliament had been disposed to favour the claim; but it was to be observed that, on the admission of the petitioners themselves, the last three applications to the House had been unavailing. Having for ten years been allowed to slumber, the question was now again brought forward; but he believed that hon. Members would prefer to be guided by the more recent decisions of the House, rather than by any which might have been come to at a remote period, under circumstances which were now not very well understood.

said, that the arguments of the Attorney General amounted in fact to an attempt to set up the Statute of Limitations on behalf of the Government; but he hid not think that that plea would hold good in such a case in any court of law; and he (Mr. Locke) was not aware of any precedent for saying that the House was prevented from remedying an injustice because it had been committed more than a certain number of years ago. The Attorney General said, there might be an equitable right on the part of persons who had goods on shore; but it seemed extraordinary that for twenty-seven years those claims which were now admitted to be just should have been resisted. It might be the law of nations to make compensation for goods landed on the quays, and not for goods afloat; but it was not common sense, and he did not believe that it was the law of nations, as he presumed that all laws were founded on common sense. The Attorney General wished the House to suppose that all seizures of cargoes in ships afloat were seizures of cargoes on board ships on the high seas; but against his bare assertion was the fact that the Commissioners adjudicated on these claims, and set down the sums of money to which the claimants were entitled opposite their respective names. He believed that the right principle to be recognized in this case was that as the nation had committed a trespass, the nation, like an individual, should be held answerable for all the results of its illegal act. The Attorney General had not said a word in vindication of what he would venture to call this marauding expedition. By the treaties which existed in 1807 between England and Denmark merchants were to have six months' notice of war. No notice was given. A secret expedition was despatched, and those who suffered from that illegal act were clearly entitled to compensation. The English merchants did not ask to be recouped their losses out of the taxes of the country. Independently of ships of war the English Government seized Danish vessels which realized £1,300,000. In 1809 they paid out of it in prize money £348,261. In 1835 claimants classed as A and B were compensated with £286,000, and the Government put into their pockets £665,739. In 1841 the Chancellor of the Exchequer stated that the adjudication ought to be carried out upon just and honourable principles. The House of Commons voted an Address to the Crown upon the subject, and the Queen returned a favourable answer; all that was wanting was a Vote of the House of Commons. A dissolution of Parliament occurred, and if he were told that with the honour of the country pledged to a certain course a new Parliament was free from responsibility, all he could say was that it was a blot upon the Constitution. He thought that the answer of the Attorney General to-night did not at all meet the statement of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Cambridge, and that no subsequent Government or subsequent House of Commons ought to repudiate the decision which a former Par- liament conceived to be honourable and just.

said, that there were one or two points with regard to this subject to which he wished briefly to call the attention of the House. If, as had been stated, his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General had rested his case simply upon the Statute of Limitation, he did not think that argument would have been a very unsatisfactory ground for resisting the Motion; for it was a very serious matter that claims of this kind should be made without limitation of time and after a long course of years, when the impossible had changed hands and it was impossible to trace the proprietary rights. But it was not the Statute of Limitations simply or mainly on which his hon. and learned Friend took his stand—it was the Statute of Limitations plus the important fact that upon three occasions consecutively the House had distinctly refused to entertain these claims for compensation. When these claims were first raised, the House, no doubt, received them with considerable favour; but it had taken a less and less favourable view of those claims as the matter had been prolonged, and in the year 1851, when a very formal application was made by the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield (Mr. Roebuck), the number in favour of the claims was 49, and the number against them 126, or nearly three times those who voted in the minority. He thought this was a great fact in the consideration of the case. His hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Locke), said, he could not see the justice of making a distinction between the seizure of goods afloat and the seizure of goods on shore, and thought it better to fall back on common sense, whatever international law might say on the subject. It was true that nothing could be right which was at variance with common sense; but when they came to argue this controverted matter it was so difficult to discover where the common sense lay that every gentleman was firmly convinced that common sense was ranged entirely on the side which he himself espoused. In the difficulty, therefore, of discovering the whereabouts of common sense in these cases, the Attorney General thought it was not an unsafe course to fall back upon what was called the law of nations, which really meant the general practice of the civilized world, and be guided by the concentrated wisdom of those en- gaged in reducing the practice to rule. There could not be a higher authority than Sir James Macintosh, and what did he say about the distinction between goods afloat and goods on shore? Sir James wrote—

"I do not say there is a difference in abstract reasoning as applied to either, but that there is a difference according to the established practice of European nations. Maritime plunder is not in its nature as injurious as plunder on land; and in all European states there is a recognized difference between the seizure of property on the water and its seizure on the shore."

The hon. and learned Member for Southwark, however, said the Government had invented this distinction twenty years after the fact. He denied the Government were entitled to the invention. It belonged to the friends of the Danish claims, who put forward first those portions of their case on which they felt themselves strong, and declined to encumber themselves with that portion on which they felt they were weak. Then he understood his hon. and learned Friend to fall back upon the doctrine that the war made by great Britain in this case was to be distinguished from other wars by its injustice. He protested entirely against their occupying that ground, because it seemed to him nothing could be more destructive than to introduce into the practice of the House retrospective discussions as to the propriety of wars long gone by, and to endeavour to classify them as having been more or less unjust, and then to found on these distinctions claims for compensation for individuals who had suffered by them. The allegation was that there was no regular war at the time. It appeared that on the 2nd of September the British Government had laid an embargo on Danish vessels, and the doctrine of Lord Stowel with respect to such an embargo was that if instead of an accommodation following the embargo the differences continued and were inflamed into hostilities, in that case the hostilities had a retrospect effect upon the embargo itself, and the war must be held to have commenced from the date of the embargo. All acts done subsequent to the embargo must be judged by the laws of war, and no claim, therefore, could arise for compensation in respect to any act of the Danish Government which was thus justified by the law of nations. With regard to the answer to the Address in June, 1840, to which reference had been made, he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) was ready to make this amount of admission, namely, the terms of the answer had something of a peculiar character. He believed the true explanation of the terms used was to be found in the date of the answer. It seemed the answer to the Address was made by a Government which had been greatly distinguished by its energy in the work of legislation, but which was unhappily at the time in articulo mortis. In the same month a vote of want of confidence had been carried, and it only held office on the terms of dispatching the necessary business in order that an appeal might be made to the country. Under those circumstances it was natural that the Government should decline to bind their successors, but should have left them free to advise the Crown to whatever course they might think fit. It did not lie with the House of Commons alone to award compensation to these parties. By the salutary rule and practice of the Constitution there must be the concurrence of two authorities, the Executive Government and the House of Commons. Governments of whatever politics had denied the justice of these claims. As long as there existed a disposition to entertain them, and authority was divided upon the subject, their agitation in Parliament was quite legitimate; but for the last fifteen years the House of Commons, though often solemnly challenged, equally with the Executive Government had repudiated the demand. And, ably as the hon. and learned Gentleman had urged what could be said in favor of his case, he had laid no sufficient grounds to induce the Government to go in the teeth of such a course of precedents and combination of authority. Both on the grounds of prudence and justice he believed it would be wrong to give further encouragement to the discussion of these claims.

said, his argument had been entirely misunderstood by the right hon. Gentleman. He had not founded his arguments upon any contention that the war between England and Denmark was an unjust war; but upon the fact that the English expedition to Copenhagen being undertaken at a time when both Powers were in friendly relations, the expedition was, therefore, an admitted trespass on the part of England. That being so, it legally provoked a reprisal on the part of Denmark; and he had contended that, according to the rules of public law, when a sovereign State did anything which legally invited reprisals by another State, the State to which the subjects upon whom those reprisals were made belonged was bound to indemnify those subjects.

said, he rose to ask the Secretary of state for India, Whether Officers of the Indian Army who accept the invitation to volunteer for general service, or into the Staff Corps in India, in any way whatever compromise the rights guaranteed to them under the Act 21 & 22 Vict., c. 29, s. 56, of 1858, and the Act 23 & 24 Vict., c. 100, s. 1, of 1860, with respect to pay, pensions, allowances, privileges, promotions, and otherwise; and, whether the reported appointment of Colonel Highland, C.B., of Her Majesty's 56th Regiment, to command the 1st Bombay Fusiliers, in supercession of the Field Officers of that Regiment, had the sanction of the Secretary of State? The hon. and gallant Member was understood to say that in the Act which transferred the Government of India from the Company to the Crown, certain rights respecting pay, promotion, and allowance were guaranteed to the local European army, and that the discontent and mutiny of the European regiments were owing to faith not having been kept with them. Subsequently, faith had been broken in the case of the degradation of the three distinguished regiments of Bombay Regular Native Cavalry by their conversion into Irregulars. Nothing could be more explicit than the guarantees in the clauses of the Acts of 1858–60, which insured to officers, all allowances they then held, also prospects of command; successors to regimental staff situations, troop, and company allowances, and other regimental allowances. Nevertheless, the conversion of these regular regiments, with twenty-three officers, into irregulars, with only four or five officers each, deprived the captains and senior subalterns of the command of their troops and troop allowances, and the officers generally of successors to office on the regimental staff, and to ultimate command of their regiments. The proposed conversion of the regular infantry into irregulars would have similarly injurious results. Moreover, the Military Commission, sitting in Calcutta have reported, that of the 5,000 European officers of the local army 1,445 officers chiefly of the senior ranks will be thrown out of employment by the amalgamation, abrogating the privileges and allowances guaran- teed to them by the Acts of Parliament. Equally it would be a breach of faith to appoint officers from the Line to command the European regiments which have accepted bounty for general service, in supersession of the claims of the field officers of those troops to succeed to the command of their respective regiments. The above cases and others of a similar character have raised great distrust in the minds of the local officers, and with the exception of those officers who have volunteered with the European Artillery and Infantry, nine-tenths of the officers were deterred from volunteering either for general service or the Staff corps. He (Colonel Sykes), therefore, hoped his right hon. Friend would be able to state that, in case the officers volunteered, they would not compromise their guaranteed privileges.

said, that he should have no difficulty whatever in showing the House that the rights and privileges of Her Majesty's forces in India had been substantially maintained, it was proved by every communication which had been received from India. There was not the slightest reason for saying that the General Order had not given satisfaction; and so far as the returns had been received, the volunteering had exceeded all expectations, however sanguine they might have been. No returns had been received from Bombay and Madras; but those from the Bengal army showed that the troops had almost volunteered in a body. Of 8,000 men, upwards of 7,000 volunteered for general service; and about 300 declared for local service; and, of the remainder, most of those who claimed their discharge had afterwards applied to be enrolled. The whole of the officers who had volunteered certainly had not been called at once into general service, for the best of reasons—there was no possible mode of employing the whole of the officers of the Indian army in it; most of them would be employed in local duty. Of the Artillery of the Bengal army, 172 officers had volunteered for general service, 8 for local service, and 1 for the Staff Corps. Of the Cavalry, 62 officers had volunteered for general, and 17 for local service; of the Engineers, 1 officer had volunteered for local service; the others had not yet declared themselves. Of the infantry, 92 officers had volunteered for general, 102 for local service, and 47 for the Staff Corps. This showed the opinion of the officers of the Bengal army, and was the best possible proof that the question might be most satisfactorily answered. If these officers had thus volunteered for general service in the Staff Corps, it proved that they did not consider they compromised any rights by so doing. It was a perfectly voluntary transaction on their parts. They had a free choice, and they declared either for general service or the Staff Corps, according as they thought it most to their advantage. In conclusion, he must say it would be a great injustice to His Royal Highness the Commander-in-Chief not to state that he had, on every occasion, shown the most anxious desire to promote the wishes of the Indian officers.

I feel it my duty, Sir, to state to the House my objections to the Bill in its present form. It was my intention, when my hon. Friend first introduced it, to take no part in the discussion on the Bill, because I felt that the seat which I hold, and which has often been the subject of contest, would naturally cause any part which I might take, no matter what it might be, to be open to misconstruction. I also felt that the Bill of my hon. Friend was one of which much might be said in its favour, while much might be said against it; it undoubtedly involved a very great novelty in principle—and on the whole, I think that the balance was against it. At the same time I admit that there was a strong primâ facie presumption in favour of a Bill the object of which was stated to be to increase the facilities possessed by certain peculiar constituencies for exercising the franchises with which they had been intrusted. I did not approve the principle of the Bill which my hon. Friend introduced, but I think he is entitled to say that the House acceded to it on the second reading without the expression of any marked difference of opinion. It is not my intention to make any Motion on the present occasion, though I feel it is my duty to say "No" to the third reading, because I think the better course to take—if the House be so inclined—is to move the recommittal of the Bill. ["No, no!"] I have merely stated that, in my opinion, that would be the right course, and Gentlemen who say "No" simply assert that in my opinion that is not the right course. Being an authority on that point, I must say' "Yes." I think the proper mode of proceeding would be to recommit the Bill, with a view of raising the question as between the principle of the Bill as now before us; and the principle of the Bill as introduced by my hon. Friend, and assented to by the House. I want hon. Gentlemen to understand what I really mean when I desire the principle of the Bill at the present moment as being different from what it was when the Bill was introduced by my hon. Friend. I may be wrong; but I do not believe that many hon. Gentlemen in this House are aware of the extent to which the Bill has been altered, and how deep these alterations have cut into its very essence. As I understand, the principle of the measure was this:—My hon. Friend said, "Parliament had chosen to create constituencies, of which a large number are non-resident; and, that being so, it is fit to give those non-residents facilities for tendering their votes without their personal presence, which facilities would not be necessary in the case of constituencies in which the bulk of the electors are resident. I will introduce a Bill to enable them to give their votes by voting papers." I must say that I think the Bill of my hon. Friend was prudently and well drawn for the purpose of effecting the object which he had in view. My hon. Friend did not leave it to chance in what way the votes were to be given or transmitted, he provided that the votes should be given in the form of a written declaration made before a justice of the peace, who was obliged to declare that the voter was personally known to him, and that the vote so given should be transmitted to the returning officer through the medium of a registered letter, the effect of which was to make the Postmaster General, a public officer, responsible for the delivery of the voting paper to the returning officer. Now, how did the Committee deal with this Bill? It is no longer a Bill to enable non-residents to vote by means of voting papers instead of by personal attendance. That is supposed to be its object; but it is cer- tainly not the essence of the present Bill; and I must say that I have heard no attempt to justify the Bill as it now stands with reference to the peculiar constitution and needs of the University. The Bill is one to authorize all electors, resident or non-resident, to adopt proxies which are to give an authority to the holders either to vote or not, as they may think proper. That proposition certainly is of a most extraordinary character, and as strange and startling an innovation on our electoral law as has ever come before us. I am aware—and I admit it at once—that the change was made by a Select Committee entitled to great authority in this House, and I trust the House will not think their time wasted in the discussion of a measure of this kind, in respect to which, though it is primarily applicable only to a University constituency, the day may come when the precedent established by the Bill may be taken by those who wish to adopt it as applicable to other constituencies in the country. I believe the object of the Select Committee was to make a provision against errors in the form of the voting papers, and they, likewise, wished to make some further provision for the purpose of ascertaining the identity of the person, and the genuineness of the vote. Now, in my opinion, as regards the first of these objects, the Bill is totally ineffective; and as regards the second, it is entirely unnecessary. There is no reason why we should not have been satisfied as respects the identity of the voter with the proposal of my hon. Friend; and with respect to the prevention of errors, the mere fact of the transmission and re-transmission of the voting paper not only greatly increases the risks of error but of fraud. There is no security for the delivering of the voting papers, they may be lost or duplicated, and how could the voter who was called on to sign a new paper declare conscientiously that he was not called upon to sign it because it was cancelled? It appears to me that very great difficulties, indeed, will arise from the transmission and re-transmission of these voting papers between the proxies and principals, notwithstanding that the object of the Committee may have been to give increased security and correctness in the voting papers. The paper may be lost, and the voter will not know how the fact is. [Mr. HUNT: Oh!] I do not know why the hon. Member for Northampton should take this extraordinary course.

rose, but the Chancellor of the Exchequer declined to give way. In resuming his seat, the hon. Gentleman said, I only rose to say that I meant no discourtesy.

I am much obliged to the hon. Gentleman. Now, just let us see how this extraordinary system—as I must call it—of voting by proxy is likely to work. And, first, I must consider the case of possible fraud, for the Bill takes in that view by providing penalties against it. However unlikely—I may say impossible—the case of fraud may be in a University election, yet we must include it. If we sanction these principles in University elections in consequence of what we may think of the high character and intelligence of the constituency, it will not be easy to deny to others what we give to Universities, even though we may think them of low character and intelligence. Now, let us consider the provisions of the Bill. In the first place, there is no limit to the number of proxies one person may hold. Any number of voters, without any limit what ever of a numerical description, may empower any voter to become their proxy. The only limit is that the proxy shall be able to say, on presenting the vote, that the voter is personally known to him—that he is personally acquainted with the voter. Now, take the case of the Master of Trinity College, Cambridge. The Master of Trinity is brought into acquaintance every year with, perhaps, 150 young men, a large proportion of whom become part of the constituency of that University; so that the gentleman holding that office would be able to say that he was acquainted with, perhaps, not less than 1,000 of the constituency. He would, therefore, in all probability, become the holder by proxy of many hundred votes. What is the next provision? It is that any number of voters may delegate their power of voting to any single proxy; that every voter may choose any number of proxies he pleases, and may indicate in the voting paper any number of names, by any one of which persons his vote may be tendered at the poll. I believe an unlimited number of proxies may be named by any one voter, just as any number of voting papers may be held by any one proxy. That is not all. Besides this provision, every voter who has thus given a proxy may run a race against his own proxy, and it may depend upon the accident of who gets first to the poll who shall give the vote. That appears to me to be an extraordinary provision, for which I have not heard the shadow of a reason assigned. But further than that—under the singular provisions of the Bill, the voter and the proxy may both come to the poll at once, and may both, at different polling places, tender the same vote without the possibility of any objection; and, to complete the ridiculous effect of the provision as it stands, this may happen:—A B, the voter, may go, and may in one polling place honestly tender his vote for C, while D E, the proxy, may, at another polling place, honestly tender the vote of A B for F. ["No, no!"] It must be remembered that, of late, power has been given to the Vice- Chancellor to increase the number of polling places. [Mr. DODSON: Not exceeding three.] Clause 2 says that the vote may be given by proxy at any one of these polling places, and the voter may also vote at any of the polling places. I think I have shown the climax of the errors and inconveniences which have been forced upon my hon. Friend. I have stated the effect of the provision, which would be to give occasion to an immense amount of error and inconvenience for no purpose whatever connected with the object of the Bill; and, if we are to suppose the existence of fraud, to open the door to the perpetration of frauds innumerable. Let the House remember that there is already one vicious element in a University constituency with which all those who have been connected with University elections cannot fail to be practically acquainted. It may not hitherto have told so much in Parliamentary as in other elections, but under this Bill I think it would be found more conspicuous in Parliamentary elections. I refer to the disposition towards College combinations, and the working out, through those combinations, of selfish wishes and limited views, instead of adopting the broader views connected with the whole University. College organization is in fatal conformity with the other injurious provisions of the Bill as it now stands, because, of course, the authorities of a College would be able to say that they were personally acquainted with all who had passed through the college, although their acquaintance may have diminished to the lowest degree, and a number of proxies may be accumulated in the hands of these authorities which may be intrigued with, or used as a means of obtaining an illegitimate influence over a candidate, to obtain pledges from him, and to destroy the pure and honest freedom of all parties at such elections. These are consequences for which I am determined to be in no degree responsible. I was not favourable to the original principle of the Bill, because, although the present mode of University elections has its inconveniences, still I think it has the effect of keeping up the academical constituencies in contact with academical influences; but under the system proposed by my hon. Friend, we should cease to see this accademical influence operate as before. However, I do not now raise the point for contest. I challenge my hon. Friend to state why he has acceded to his extraordinary scheme, which is quite apart from the principle of his Bill—introducing between the voter and the recording of his vote a third and independent party, who may actually frustrate the intentions of the voter, subject to the almost ridiculous remedy that the voter may compete with his proxy who shall be soonest at the poll. I shall not detain the House longer, and thank it for its patient attention to a statement of details. As far as my own academical interests are concerned as a Member of this House, I do not know that it should at any time have any material interest in the provisions of this Bill. At all contested elections in which I have taken part in the University of Oxford, I have always been returned by a majority both of the resident and of the non-resident voters, conjointly and separately. I have no idea what the operation of these provisions would be as regards myself at future elections, but they are so extraordinary in their character, and so needless for the professed object my hon. Friend has in view, that I trust they will not receive the sanction of the House.

said, he could not congratulate the right hon. Gentleman upon the accuracy of his reading of either the original or the amended Bill. The right hon. Gentleman spoke in high-sounding words and grandiloquent phrases of the strange and startling innovation introduced by this Bill. But the provision he especially objected to was discussed in Committee for three hours last week, and the most arrange and startling thing connected with that discussion was the absence of the right hon. Gentleman. If the right hon. Gentleman felt so strongly on the subject, how was it that he was not present to express his opinion and divide the Committee? Not only was there a discussion of three hours, but there was a division in which the right hon. Gentleman took no part; but within half an hour afterwards there was another division upon an Amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Youghal, and upon that the Chancellor of the Exchequer voted. It would be an interesting fact to learn how far off was the right hon. Gentleman when the first division took place. When it was wanted to get rid of anything. people had only to give it a bad name, and so the right hon. Gentleman grounded his attack on this Bill by calling it the introduction of the proxy system of voting papers was the system of voting by proxy. The legal definition of a proxy was "one person appointed by another to represent him." That is not the description of a man who hands in a letter. The form of voting given in the schedule was as follows:—"I, A B, do hereby declare that I have signed no other voting paper at this election, and do hereby give my vote at this election for" so and so. The Cambridge University Reform Bill, on the other hand, allowed any member of the Senate to vote at the election for Chancellor or High Steward of the University by proxy. The schedule in that Act gave the form of a real proxy, which was as follows:—"I, A B, a Member of the Senate, do hereby appoint C D to vote in my name for Chancellor (or High Steward) in such manner as the said C D may think proper." The right hon. Gentleman declared that the bearer of the voting paper under this Act was a proxy, pointing out that the Act imposed no pecuniary penalty if he failed to deliver it. But if an elector had the privilege given him of voting without attending in person, it was not too much to require him to find a man on whom he could rely to deliver his voting paper. The right hon. Gentleman thought it strange and startling that the arrival of the vote at the poll should depend on the will of another. But this was very much the condition of things at present. If a voter, living ten or twenty miles from the polling place, depended upon a friend to call for him with his carriage, or to lend him a horse, or a pair of boots, and if that friend changed his mind and did not come, he must be, according to the right hon. Gentleman, the proxy; for it depended upon him whether the voter reached the poll or not. The right hon. Gentleman's next objection was the concentration of votes in a few hands at the University. He thought that this apprehension was exaggerated. The resident members of the University were continually changing. He took his M.A. degree ten years ago, and there was now only one single resident at Oxford who knew him sufficiently well to make the declaration that he was personally acquainted with him, and as this gentleman was opposed to him in politics he was not likely to send his voting paper to him. For himself, therefore, he should not send his voting paper to the head of a College, but should select some neighbour of his own who might be going to Oxford to take charge of his vote. The right hon. Gentleman had spoken of College combinations as likely to take place under this Bill. But were such things never heard of now? As to concentration of votes in a few hands, why, under the present system promises were asked for and obtained for particular persons even before they had declared themselves candidates. He held in his hand a circular issued yesterday from the University of Oxford. It was dated "Balliol College," and set forth that it was generally understood to be the intention of Mr. Gladstone to retire from the University of Oxford as soon as the Bill giving an additional seat to South Lancashire was passed. This vacancy would give members of Convocation (it continued) an opportunity of vindicating the character of the University. Sir Stafford Northcote and Mr. Roundell Palmer were likely, it was added, to be put into nomination, and, as it was desirable to secure Sir Stafford Northcote's return, voters were requested to announce their determination to vote for that Gentleman. Then followed the names of four leading gentleman who were willing to receive promises for Sir Stafford Northcote. Now, a thousand written promises might be concentrated in the hands of one gentleman, who would thus exercise quite as much influence on an election as if he had received a few voting papers; but with this difference, that many of the promises for Sir Stafford Northcote would be coupled with the condition—"I will come and vote if you will pay my expenses." The voting papers would get rid of the travelling expenses, which, as they all knew, operated as an inducement for electors to give their votes for particular candidates. The right hon. Gentleman had also urged the number of transmissions and retransmissions of the voting paper which might take place between the elector and the bearer. The House were not bound, he thought, to inquire into this point. It was for the deliberation of the voter how his vote was to be conveyed to the poll, and if the voter complied with the provisions of the Bill he did not see that it was a matter of more concern which of the voter's friends was selected to convey the vote for him than which train he travelled by if he attended in person. Then, again, the time within which the papers were to be signed was strictly limited. The vote was not to be signed until after the returning officer had given the three clear days' notice of the day for proceeding to the election, and until that notice was given the voter could not go before the justice. Another objection urged by the right hon. Gentleman to the Bill was that the voting paper might go up to one polling place and the voter himself to another to deliver his oral vote. [The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER: At the same time.] But Clause 2 provided that the voting paper was to be delivered at "one of the appointed polling places." Now, by the 16 & 17 Vict., the Vice Chancellor might appoint any number of polling places, not exceeding four in all, and declare what Colleges were to poll at those polling places. He apprehended that if the voting paper of a Christ Church man were presented at the polling place for Lincoln, the bearer would be told that was not the appointed polling place. [The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER: That is not stated in the Bill.] No, but the Bill provided that the votes were to be received by the Vice Chancellor or his deputy, "in the manner heretofore used, in all respects as if such votes had been given by the electors attending in person." Now, would it be recording a vote "in the manner heretofore used" if it were received at the polling place not appointed for receiving the votes of a particular College? The right hon. Gentleman's objection in regard to possible frauds went off altogether, for the right hon. Gentleman did not allege any danger of fraud under this Bill, but only apprehended it might be a precedent for the introduction of voting papers for other constituencies where they might lead to fraud. But the House were dealing in the present Bill solely with the University constituencies, and it would be quite sufficient if they took precautions against fraud in the case before them. The adoption of voting papers in University elections would form no precedent for their adoption in other cases, because the University elec- tors, being chiefly non-resident, and voting in virtue of an educational franchise, presented no possible analogy with other constituencies. The right hon. Gentleman had also spoken of the measure destroying corporate or academical action; but how could he reconcile that objection with the approval he had given to the Bill as it originally stood? That supposed academical influence of University electors over each other was a pure figment of the right hon. Gentleman's own brain. Was it to be imagined that men would spend their time and money in going up to the University in order to deliberate with other people as to how they should vote? Men who were so politically undecided of indifferent as that would surely stay at home. The right hon. Gentleman talked of pledges being extorted by the heads of Houses. [The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER made an observation.] He believed he had rightly understood the right hon. Gentleman's words, and the right hon. Gentleman's constituents would hardly feel flattered when they read his remarks in The Times to-morrow. For his own part, he had that confidence in the character of the University electors that he did not believe either that they would seek unfairly to extract pledges from their brother electors, or that their brother electors were in such a defenceless position as to submit to such a proceeding. He had now dealt with all the right hon. Gentleman's objections. That was a Bill simply intended to enable persons recognized as having a right to vote to exercise the privilege with that reasonable facility which they were at present denied. He believed it would have the effect not only of increasing the number of electors who polled at the University elections, but that before long it would very much enlarge and improve these constituencies, because when they found that they could easily exercise their franchise by means of voting papers many men who now took their names off the books would allow their names to remain there. It was rather ungracious that the right hon. Gentleman should object to a measure tending in fact to the enfranchisement of his own constituents. The vote of the right hon. Gentlemen's colleague, the Home Secretary, might at all events be claimed in favour of the Bill, on the ground of what he stated the other night in reference to the Scotch Universities. The Home Secretary had said that until lately it would have been a great objection to enfranchising the Scotch Universities, that their con- stituencies, unlike those of Oxford and Cambridge, would consist only of a small body of professors and very limited number of graduates. By this measure that large body of non-resident graduates in whom the right hon. Baronet took such interest would be enabled to exercise the same influence as was now almost exclusively enjoyed by about 10 per cent of the entire constituency. He, therefore, trusted that the House would now read the Bill the third time.

said, he had confounded the first with the second printed edition of the Bill. He had, in consequence, described the first version as containing good securities which he was now bound to confess he did not think it provided.

rose to address the House; but the repeated cries for a division rendered his observations almost undistinguishable. He was understood to say that he had no wish to speak in opposition to the desire of the House, but having taken a great interest in the measure, and introduced some Amendments into it in Committee, he trusted the House would indulge him for a few moments whilst he replied to some of the objections urged by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. In the first place, he was anxious to set himself right with the right hon. Gentleman and the House in reference to the interruption which he had noticed. He (Mr. Hunt) stated at the time that he intended no discourtesy to the right hon. Gentleman. On the contrary, he could assure him that he valued too highly any criticisms he made to think of interrupting him, if he had not felt that the right hon. Gentleman was misrepresenting the provisions of the Bill. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said if the voting paper was lost, the voter might sign another paper. Now, according to the provisions of the Bill, whether the voting paper was lost or not, it was impossible for him to give a second paper. The only way left to him to correct the matter would be to come up and give his vote in person. There was an objection to the papers being sent direct to the returning officer, on which the right hon. Gentleman had not touched—and that was that votes so sent, and of which no public notice was taken at the hustings, was neither more nor less than the ballot. Besides, it did not provide any security against forgery, which, though not likely to happen, was still a contingency to be guarded against.

said, he would not detain the House by any argument, as his right hon. Friend seemed to him to have exhausted all that could be said on the subject. But he was unwilling that the House should go to a vote on the third reading without his explaining that he concurred in the objection taken to the measure by his right hon. Friend. He thought its principle entirely new, and liable to great abuse; and if the House should agree to it, and it should be carried into practice, he believed they would soon see reason to repent of their decision.

expressed extreme objections to the principle of the Bill, but the cries of the House for a division were so loud and persistent that his observations were totally inaudible. The hon. Member concluded by moving, as an Amendment, that the Bill be re-committed.

moved for leave to introduce a Bill to prevent the disfranchisement of Parliamentary electors in Ireland by reason of their letting out portions of their holdings in the ordinary course of the occupation of the same.

opposed the introduction of the Bill at the present late period of the Session, when many Irish Members were absent.