said, he must beg leave, in asking the Question of which he had given notice, to make a brief statement of facts. Two months ago a gentleman at Kingston-upon-Thames received a letter from his son, dated New York, January 22, in which he expressed himself as extremely well pleased with his ship and his captain, under whom he had served with great comfort for eight years. A few days ago the father received a letter from his son's captain, dated New York, March 11, saying—

"We arrived at this port on the 20th of January; your son was missing a few days after. He went on shore a little the worse for drink, and has not since returned. I fear he has been kidnapped by some of the runners of this port, and sent to sea… I have forwarded his effects to the Board of Trade, in London.… You will obtain all information about effects, &c., at —, Mark Lane."

The wretched father hurried to Mark Lane, where he received a confirmation of the captain's story, the agent adding that New York had become a horrible place hundreds of young men had been kidnapped, and never after heard of. Of his own son's fate this gentleman was still in entire ignorance. He, therefore, begged to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether Her Majesty's Government have received any Reports from Consular Officers in the United States of America, stating that British Subjects have been kidnapped, detained, or otherwise outraged with the object of forcing them to serve as soldiers in the Federal Army?

said, he must beg to state, in answer to his hon. Friend, that Her Majesty's Government had received Reports from our Consuls at Boston, Port- land, and New York, on the subject of the kidnapping of Irishmen who had been induced to go to the United States on various pleas. These Reports agreed in the main with the information which the public had been able to derive from the newspapers. At Portland 7 and at Boston 102 British subjects had, it appeared, been kidnapped. Those persons had been tempted, under various pretences, to leave Ireland, and on arriving in the United States were actually imprisoned for some time, kept without sufficient food, and then plied with whisky. When in a state of intoxication they were prevailed upon to enter the army of the United States. Lord Lyons had already made a Report on the subject to Her Majesty's Government. As soon as the Government received information of what had taken place at New York, instructions were sent to Lord Lyons to make inquiry and to ask for redress; and further, to call on the United States' Government, in future, to protect British subjects who might be induced, under false pretences, to proceed to the United States. He trusted soon to receive from Lord Lyons an account of what he had been able to do in the case of the persons who had been so ill-used at New York.

said, he would beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether, as tobacco juice for sheep-dressing is allowed to be made at Glasgow from tobacco free of Duty, he will allow the same privilege to be granted to parties applying there for in Dublin, Belfast, Cork, and the other principal ports of Ireland?

replied, that he was glad the noble Lord had put the question, as it might, perhaps, draw the attention of parties interested to an arrangement with which it was possible they might not be sufficiently acquainted. The Treasury had extended the privilege to which the noble Lord had referred, and which was originally granted by way of experiment to a particular individual, to tobacco manufacturers and other persons who might apply for it in Glasgow, Leith, or any other port at which tobacco might be legally imported, under the regulations laid down in the first instance, and on condition that suitable premises were provided, and that the Crown was put to no additional expense thereby. That privilege was common, in principle, to all the ports of the three Kingdoms at which tobacco could be imported, and Dublin, Belfast, and Cork were among the number.

said, the Government having increased the allowance towards the maintenance in County and Borough Gaols of Convicts sentenced to Penal Servitude from a maximum of 4s. per head per week to a maximum of 8s., for such a period as they may be detained in prison, beyond two calendar months from the time of conviction, he wished to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether it is intended to keep such Convicts in County Gaols for any time longer than at present, as it will in Shropshire necessitate an increase of accommodation and in staff, there being no means of giving hard labour for any greater number than at present?

, in reply, said, it was certainly not intended to detain convicts sentenced to penal servitude for a longer time than at present in county or other local prisons; but, on the contrary, it was hoped that they would be kept there for a shorter time. In consequence of the increase of penal servitude sentences in 1861–2, it was difficult to provide for the convicts in the Government prisons, and some of them were therefore detained longer than usual in the local gaols. Last year, however, there was some decrease in the number of penal servitude sentences, and it was expected that arrangements would be made to remove convicts from the local prisons at an earlier period than hitherto.

said, he rose to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he has received Mr. Rawlinson's Report on the state of the Bradford Reservoirs; if so, whether he has reported them to be safe; if not, which are reported unsafe; and, in the event of any of them being unsafe, whether the Government will take immediate steps to protect those persons whose lives are endangered; and whether he will lay the Report upon the table of the House.

said, in reply, that Mr. Rawlinson had not yet made his detailed Report of the result of his inspection of the Bradford Reservoirs, which are eleven in number, but he intended to do so as soon as he could. He was at present engaged in his other duties. He had, however, informed him (Sir George Grey) that in two out of the eleven Reservoirs—Doe Park and Bradfield—the embankments were imperfect, but, the water having been drawn off while they were repairing, there was no present danger, and the corporation undertook that they should not be filled again till they were made properly safe. All the rest Mr. Rawlinson deemed to be sound.

said, he should be glad to know whether when Mr. Rawlinson's Report is sent in it will be laid on the table?

said, he should think there could be no objection to presenting it.

said, he -would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether Sub-Inspectors of Factories must be at least twenty-five years of age before being appointed; whether it is true that the new scale of salary to be paid does not give them any annual increase of pay, but requires thirty years of service before the scale of £500 a year is reached, and limits the recipients of £500 a year to two Sub-Inspectors out of twenty; and whether it is true that the allowance for personal expenses when absent from home is only 12s, a night for a Sub-Inspector of Factories, while the same allowance in other Departments is 15s., and in some instance £1 per day; and, if so, why this allowance to Sub-Inspectors of Factories has not been raised to the average standard?

replied, that it was required by the Factory Regulations that Sub - Inspectors should be at least twenty-five years of age at the time of their appointment. The new scale of salaries recommended by the Chief-Inspectors, and submitted to the Treasury, would not give an annual increase of pay; but there were five classes, the lowest begining with £300 a year, with an increase at the rate of £50 per annum in each case, after a certain number of years' service, and reaching £500 after thirty years' service. It was true that only two could be at the same time in the highest class. As to the allowance for expenses, Sub-Inspectors received in addition to their travelling expenses, 12s. a day, which was the same allowance as that granted to Inspectors of Mines, and he had no reason to believe that it was insufficient.

said, he wished to know, whether the increased scale of salaries has received the recommendation of the two Chief Inspectors?

believed it was adopted on the joint recommendation of the two Chief Inspectors.

said: Mr. Speaker, it will be in the recollection of those Members of the House and of the Government, who were present here at the close of last Session, (I mean during the two last days of the Session,) that I gave notice of my intention to put a question to the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department, with respect to the circumstances under which the right hon. Gentleman had granted a licence for the Use of a certain piece of ground at Sydenham, for the purposes of burial by a religious community known as the Oratorians, who possess an establishment at Brompton, and declare themselves to be of the Roman Catholic order of St. Philip Neri. In order that I might have an opportunity of entering into an explanation of the circumstances which had led me to think it my duty to put this question (the statement of which appears to excite some feelings of irritation among Members on the other side of the House, and on this side of the House, who are connected with the Roman Catholic body), I moved the adjournment of the House. This afforded the right hon. Member for the County of Limerick (Mr. Monsell), and the hon. and learned Member for Dundalk (Sir George Bowyer), an opportunity to speak, and the right hon. Member for Limerick thought fit to accuse me of having hounded to death a Mr. Turnbull, who had been appointed one of the Calendarers in the State Paper Office, but was afterwards removed, through the intervention of the noble Lord at the bead of the Government, at the instance of a large number of gentlemen, who thought that Mr. Turnbull's antecedents, particularly as connected with certain Roman Catholic publishing societies, were not such as to render it advisable that he should be continued in that office. This House being summoned to the House of Lords for the purpose of prorogation, prevented my then replying to the accusation which had been levelled against me, but in a letter, which after the close of the Session I addressed to the right hon. Member for Limerick, and which appeared in The Times and other newspapers, I think I completely disposed of the imputation that I had joined in "hounding Mr. Turnbull to death." I believe, Sir, that that gentleman died under the pressure of difficulties that affected his health; but these were caused by his connection with these Roman Catholic publishing societies. I wish now to call the attention of the House to the subject of the Motion before it, which is connected with the circumstances that induced me to put the question at the end of last Session, to which I have alluded, since by the termination of the last Session the discussion of this subject was then precluded. There are some singular circumstances connected with this burial ground at Sydenham, and with the burials which have taken place within it. And, first, let me state that so secretly was the application made for licence to perform burials in this ground—made at the instance of the late Duke of Norfolk—that none but the parties immediately concerned was aware of the application having been made to the right hon. Baronet at the head of the Home Department. It appears, Sir, the right hon. Baronet sent down an Inspector, who subsequently reported that, as the burials were likely to be few—those only of members of the community of St. Philip Neri—he thought that the piece of ground might be used with safety, although the situation of the soil was not eminently favourable for the purpose. Thereupon the right hon. Baronet granted a licence, but that licence was never published in the Gazette, and I have the authority of Mr. Saxton, whose property and land adjoin the ground belonging to this community, that neither he nor the incumbent of the parish of Sydenham, nor the rate-collectors, nor any of the neighbours, nor, as I have been informed, the persons who have conducted the ordnance survey of that vicinity, had the slightest idea that the application had been made, or that the licence had been granted for the use of this piece of ground, or any part of it, as a burial ground. Now, in the Acts of Parliament which regulate burials, particularly within the metropolitan district, there are very stringent provisions that notice shall be given to the neighbouring proprietors and to the residents in the immediate neighbourhood, of any ground which is to be constituted a burial ground, in order that if there are any valid objections to the use of such ground, the persons who will be affected should have the opportunity of stating them. In the present case, no such opportunity was afforded; and, Sir, this matter might have passed without notice, but that a Mr. William Hutchison, who was brother-in-law of Mr. Smee, the medical officer to the Bank of England, died, and was buried in this piece of ground at Sydenham. I believe that many Members of the House are by this time familiar with the circumstances under which this Mr. William Hutchison joined the community of St. Philip Neri. He was the relative of the late Mr. Smee, who was formerly a well known officer of the Bank of England, the eminent accountant in that great establishment. Mr. Smee, whose petition I presented, was brought up in his father's house with Mr. Hutchison, on terms of the greatest intimacy and affection: to use his own expression, they lived together as brothers; and eventually Mr. Smee married the sister of Mr. Hutchison. Well, Mr. Hutchison, after studying at King's College, and reading with an eminent Conveyancer in London, entered the University of Cambridge, and there he came into contact with the Rev. Mr. Faber, who, I am informed, is now no more. Here I may observe, that I remember this person (Mr. Faber) when I was an undergraduate at Christ Church, Oxford; he was one of the tutors of the College, and passed for a clergyman of the Church of England. There were surmises, however, that he was not in heart a member of that Church; his opinions were extreme; and finally he declared himself to be a member of the Church of Rome, and became a Roman Catholic priest. But, during his transition from one Church to the other, he seems to have been actively employed; for five or six of my own contemporaries at the University changed their religion, and one of them at least became a priest. I can easily understand, therefore, the influence which this Mr. Faber may have exercised on the mind of Mr. Hutchison. Suffice it, that he persuaded him to become a Roman Catholic. He then persuaded him to go to Birmingham, to the house of the Roman Catholic Bishop there. He next persuaded him, or rather Faber and his allies persuaded Mr. Hutchison, that it was his duty to leave his family; and then Mr. Faber took Mr. Hutchison to Rome, impressed with the idea that his eternal salvation depended upon his implicit obedience to Mr. Faber. And when they returned, Mr. Hutchison became a priest of the Church of Rome, and entered this community of St. Philip Neri. The attachment of Mr. Smee to his brother-in-law never failed. At all times his house was open to him: at all times his family were but too anxious to receive him back. About the period in this sad history to which I have brought my narrative, Mr. Smee, himself an eminent medical man, became very apprehensive that the discipline to which his relative was being subjected was undermining his health. Moreover, he became apprehensive, that the religious excitement to which he was exposed was affecting his intellect; he prayed him to come to his old home were it but for a short time. But no: Priest Faber's influence was supreme; obedience was exacted; there must be no change of life. The disease increased, and the health of Mr. Hutchison gradually failed under this process. About this time Mr. Faber told Mr. Hutchison that he would die, and that in virtue of the obedience which Mr. Hutchison owed him as head of the Oratory he must make his will, and Mr. Faber made Mr. Hutchison's will at first in favour of the late Duke of Norfolk, no doubt with the intention that the Duke of Norfolk should be trustee for the Order; but owing to some legal difficulties, I know not what, the intention was changed, and the will was made in favour of Mr. Faber by himself as the head of this Community. Now observe: a member of this Community, bound by this implicit obedience, makes a will at the bidding of his Superior, the document being witnessed by two other members of this Community in favour of whose Superior this instrument is executed. Now if this is a Community in the sense of having a community of property, every one of these persons—the person who made the will and the witnesses who attested it—had an interest in the property bequeathed under that document. In my belief there is in that establishment no community except the community of implicit obedience to the Superior, and the circumstances which are stated in the petition presented this night from Mr. Harrison, whose son, when captain of Westminster School, was induced by this same Mr. Faber to join the Oratory, convince me that there is no community but a community of implicit obedience to the Superior in this so-called Community, and that he has as much the sole control of the property, which may be devised to that Community, as if it were devised to him in his capacity of being the head of it. Thus, Sir, the will was executed, and the illness of Mr. Hutchison increased; but I will do the Oratorians the justice of saying, that when Mr. Hut- chison's illness was near its climax, they permitted his relative, Mr. Smee, as an eminent medical man, to attend him in this, which proved to be his last illness. Two years after Mr. Faber had told Mr. Hutchison that he would die, Mr, Hutchison did die, and was buried in this private burial ground — private as it is called, secret as I think I can show you that it should be termed—because, as I have stated to the House, before its inauguration none of the means of publicity were afforded which are by law treated necessary before a piece of ground is constituted a burial ground within the limits of the metropolitan district were used. At the funeral of this poor man there was, indeed, a ceremony. Mr. Smee states that members of the family of the Duke of Norfolk attended, but that when all was over, a day or two afterwards, as the representative of the nearest of kin to Mr. Hutchison, Mr. Smee adopted the course which is usual with the Bank of England and all the great Insurance Companies. He applied for an extract of the register of burials kept within this place, or a certificate of the burial of his relative contained therein, Mr. Smee, who is a person perfectly cognizant of the usual practice in these matters from his position as medical officer of the Bank of England, had observed and was distressed by this fact, that when he went to visit the grave of his relative, he found that his was the third burial in this secret burial ground. There was the mark of the grave of some one, but no tombstone to tell the antecedents of that man, or what his name had been. Mr. Smee inquired who was there buried. The Oratorian in attendance only said, "Oh! that is the grave of a lay brother." One grave with a tombstone was there previous to the; burial of Mr. Hutchison, that of a Mr, Wells, whose real names were "Frederick; Fortescue Wells," which were the names in his will, and by which he was known previous to his joining this Community; but the names on the tombstone are simply "Albanus Wells." And so with Mr. Hutchison's tombstone. The names were not simply "William Hutchison," the name by which he had been christened, the name on his will, but the name "Anthony" had been interpolated between the true Christian name and the surname, and so it read, on the tombstone, "William Anthony Hutchison." Now, any man who is cognizant of the practice in the courts will easily see the immense confusion that might be caused by the interpolation of another Christian name. The public means, the simplest public means, of identifying the dead, was destroyed by this change of name on the tombstone. Cases have been known where heirs of law have been enabled to discover and prove their right to large properties by means much less likely to afford information than the correct statement of a name upon a tomsbtone. But it appears that when persons join this Community or Order of St. Philip Neri, they are expected to adopt another Christian name, a proceeding which is typical of the fact that they have left the world, abandoned their families, and cut themselves off from all the natural relations which endear the life of man, for the purpose of absolute devotion to this Order and absolute submission to the obedience which it exacts. Such is the character of the proceeding recorded on the tombstone of this Mr. Hutchison by the change of his name. And all these circumstances raise the presumption that this Community, this Order, established at Brompton, with its country house and secret burial ground at Sydenham, is one of those Orders which under the clauses of the liberal Act of 1829, which gave relief from their civil disabilities to all the laity of the Roman Catholic persuasion in the kingdom, is illegal within this country. Beyond what I have stated, also, there is presumptive evidence for believing that those who have founded, those who inhabit, and those who have devised property to this establishment or community, are perfectly aware that it is illegal. For I am told that the trust deed or settlement, designate it as you will, under which this property is held is of a most complicated nature, evidently drawn up by the hand of some skilful lawyer intent upon evading some provisions of the general law. Now, all the circumstances to which I have ventured to call the attention of the House render this narrative peculiarly significant, and the number of petitions which I have to-day presented show that the people of England, in common with the people of Italy, and in common with the Legislature of France, are of opinion that the existence, the increase, and the nature of these Establishments, Societies, Communities, or Orders, which are now on the in crease in England and Wales, are matters that ought to be inquired into; because there is in all the actions which I have detailed the exhibition of a desire to evade the general operation of the law. For what is the law of England with respect to burials? Why, Sir, it is felony to tamper with the register of burials. In every public burial ground there must be kept a register of burials, free of access to every one upon payment of one shilling. For the same fee we can obtain a certificate from the authority in charge of the register, and if that register or the authorized certificate is tampered with, the crime is felony. That is the provision under the Burial Laws. But how stands the matter under the Forgery Laws? If any one tamper with a register of burials; if any one tamper with, change, or alter a certificate of burials for the purpose of presenting it, in order to deal with property in any court, the penalty is at the discretion of the court, varied from penal servitude for life to a minimum of penal servitude for three years. It is clear, therefore, that the law of England attaches no small importance to the registration of burials, for it was said to me by a competent authority, the registration of death may be evaded. It is sometimes difficult to prove the identity of the person who is dead. Therefore the Bank of England and the large Insurance Companies are not satisfied with the mere register of death, but insist upon the production of certified extracts from the register of the burial, because the means of identification after death are most important with a view to the due transmission of the property of the deceased to his heirs. Thus the practice of the great institutions of this country which deal with property and the law agree that the preservation of proper registers of burials and the due production of certificates is of the last importance to the transmission of property; aye, and it may be to the tracing of the cause of death. I ask the House, then, to grant a Committee; because, from the best advice I have been able to obtain, this place, this private, this secret burial ground has not been contemplated by the law and is beyond the law. I believe that no register is kept there. I believe there can be no legally produced certificates; and, unless the Legislature shall interpose, this burial ground may be a place for secret burials for ever, and others may be established characterized by the same objectionable features. That is one ground on which I ask for a Committee to inquire into the state of the law as to Burial. My belief is, that this burial ground and this community are both beyond the purview of the law, and that it is not consistent with the safety of England, that it is not right, that it is not safe, that any large number of persons combined under a rigid discipline should exist in this free country of England beyond the purview of the law. Sir, I come now to what may be termed the second part of the case. I have stated all I have to say with respect to the St. Mary's Sydenham Burial Ground, with respect to the late Mr. Hutchison, and with respect to Mr. Smee. Of the latter gentleman, however, I would add, that having been brought into contact with him by accident, he appears to me to be a person who is well deserving the confidence which is reposed in him by that great establishment whose servant, whose competent servant, he is. Mr. Smee has written a letter and published it yesterday which certainly grieves me; that letter he has addressed to the Duchess of Norfolk. Well, Sir, I think that that letter ought to have been written. I think that a man who has had such bitter experience of the effects of the practices of this Order in his own family, does right in publicly warning others to beware how they intrust the members of their families to the keeping of such Bodies. But, then, the letter should have been addressed to Mr. Hope Scott and Mr. Sergeant Bellasis, the guardians of the daughter of the Duchess of Norfolk, who has been consigned to a convent not in England but in Paris. Had Mr. Smee remonstrated with these gentlemen, he would have done right; I think, however, he has made a mistake in addressing his letter to the Duchess of Norfolk. I knew nothing of it myself, and deeply lament it. But I say this, that as a man versed and employed in so many matters connected with the transmission of property after death, having this sad experience in his own family, and knowing that Mr. Hutchison was a friend of the late Duke of Norfolk, Mr. Smee pursued a manly course in beseeching those who have charge of this poor lady not to allow her to fall a victim to the fate which is the lot of so many nuns, for a short-lived race are nuns, This I say upon the authority of Mr. Hobart Seymour, a gentleman and clergyman, who, some years ago, prosecuted a close inquiry in Italy with regard to the dowering of nuns who enter convents, and the terms upon which unhappy ladies were consigned to those establishments. He found that, on a calcu- lation of their average lives, the dowry, on the average, was so large, and the lives of the nuns so short, that a very handsome profit was left from year to year to these Communities, as they are called, and in the Papal States, through these Communities, to the Papal Treasury. Now all these nice calculations and details as to what may be got by the safe keeping, as it is called, but, as we believe, the imprisonment of these helpless women, grate upon our English feelings; and let me say to the Roman Catholic Members of this House that they must make allowance for those feelings. I sometimes think that they are uncharitable. They may be of opinion, that the consigning of ladies to these convents is, on the part of their families, a sacrifice grateful to their religion. They may think, when they procure a change of religion in the members of some of our families, when they induce those who were once Protestants, as in the case of Mr. Hutchison, to enter such a Community as that of St. Philip Neri, that it is a sacrifice which is due to religion. But that is not our feeling. Our feeling is, that a person who is consigned to one of these establishments is a dead loss to his family; is a dead loss to his country; is a dead loss to himself. Gentlemen who are of the Roman Catholic persuasion must there fore make allowance for the point of view in which we, Protestants, regard these establishments and their inmates. Now, last August, Cardinal Wiseman attended the Roman Catholic Congress which was held at Malines, and since I suppose the Roman Catholic Members of the House will accept him as an authority, with the permission of the House, I will show that Cardinal Wiseman boasts of the vast increase of these establishments of late years in England, Wales, and Scotland, where their existence, in the case of monasteries, is contrary to law. I hold in my hand the translation of part of the speech made by Cardinal Wiseman during the Roman Catholic Congress which sat at Malines from the 18th to the 22nd of August last. In that speech he said—

"Allow me now to present to you, by means of statistics, a rapid view of the effect produced by these different measures. The Census gives the population in England—

For the year 1831	13,896,797
For the year 1841	15,914,148
For the year 1851	17,927,609
For the year 1861	20,066,224

an increase of about two millions in each decennial period from 1831 to 1841. The population, therefore, increased 14 per cent. In the same period the number of priests increased about 25 per cent, or nearly double. During the following 10 years the population increased 13 per cent, the number of priests 45 percent. Lastly, from 1851 to 1861, while the population increased 12 per cent, the number of priests increased about 37 per cent. Here, again, are the precise statistics which will allow you to judge of the continued increase of the Roman Catholic Church in England. In 1830 we numbered but 434 priests for the whole of England. At present, we have 1,242, that is to say, three times as many. The number of our churches which was 410 has now increased to 872; from 16 convents which we possessed in 1830 in the United Kingdom, we have now, in 1863, 162. Lastly, in 1830 we had not a single religious house of men, in 1850 there were already 11, and to-day their number is 55."

He then goes on to mention other societies, such as the Society of St. Vincent de Paul, which I shall have to refer to afterwards,; showing the enormous proportion by which; the priests and the Communities of the Church of Rome had exceeded the rate of the increase of the population of this country. Sir, Cardinal Wiseman's statement is borne out by the facts. I have here an account taken from the Roman Catholic Directory of these religious houses—of these monasteries and convents. I find that the numbers given in this record exceed the numbers stated by the Cardinal; at Malines, for it gives for England, Wales, and Scotland, 186 convents and 58 monasteries, or communities of men; this. Sir, betokens a vast change and a great increase in those organizations, part of which continues illegal by the declaration of law. This is one of the characteristics of the present times, not only in England, but in France and Germany, I have no doubt that the attention of the Government has been drawn to the Report of a Committee of the Legislature of France in 1861, of which M. Dupin, then Procureur Général, was the chairman. This Committee, in their Report, advert in strong terms to the enormous increase, not of the communities—the orders, monasteries, and convents—which are sanctioned by law in France, but those which are unauthorized. I have made inquiries as to what are the terms of authorization in France; that is, the terms upon which, under the constitution of France, these establishments may be formed, and are protected by the law. France, be it remembered, is a Roman Catholic country, and I find, that under the law of 1852, the existence of monastic vows is recognized as rightful in the inhabitants of those convents and monasteries, but only for a period of five years. Five years after the acceptance of the vow, it ceases to be operative, and it is especially provided that if any person have taken these vows, whether monk or nun, may leave the convent and marry, aided by the civil power, which would have enforced that person's remaining within the convent during the five years for which the profession had been made. There are many other provisions, I have them all here, but I will not detain the House by reading them, which go to secure in every way the safe establishment of these religious houses. But with all this, what do we find? Why, that the ambitious spirit which now guides the Roman Catholic hierarchy and organizations in France will not accept the assistance of the State upon these terms, and that the number of unauthorized communities has vastly increased in that country. We see the same thing in England. Now, three works have lately been published in Paris, to which I wish particularly to draw the attention of the Government, and of Members of this House. The first of these is a work by M. Charles Habeneek, entitled Les Jesuites en 1861. The second is a work by M. Cayla, published by Dentu, intituled Ces bons Messieurs de St. Vincent de Paul; and the third is a work by M. Charles Souvestre, Instructions secretes des Jesuites. Now, in all these works, and they support each other by independent evidence, it is clearly shown that this Society of St. Vincent de Paul is organized on the principle of the ancient League, which existed in the 16th century, and like the League is under the auspices of the Jesuits. I need not remind the House how many troubles on the Continent, how many religious wars that League produced. This society is organized upon the principle of the Congregation des Messieurs, of which Louis XIV. became a member, and history records the ambition of that prince, the wars which he carried on, and the intolerance of which he was guilty. This society is organized upon the principle of the Congregation which was so active after the close of the war ended in 1816, that it obtained influence with the Court and Ministers of Charles X., and by its operation upon the people of France, its everlasting interference with their families, its rapacious spirit, its bigotry and its tyranny, brought about the Revolution of 1830. I think, Sir, it is clearly proved in these works that these unauthorized societies, particularly the society of St. Vincent de Paul, al- though that was formed originally by certain law students in the sacred cause of charity, have become subjected to a political influence, that of the Jesuits, of which it is enough to say that the strong Government of the Emperor of the French stands somewhat in awe of; and the proof of that fact is recorded in the Circular, Order, or Decree of M. Persigny, by which he strikes down, so far as the withdrawal of the legal authorization can do so, the central power of this association, declaring it to be unnecessary for the purposes of charity, and that politically it was inconsistent with the authority of the Emperor. Let me now come back to the community of St. Philip Neri, near our own doors—the establishment of the Oratory. When heard that these persons were members of the society of St. Philip Neri, I asked myself, "Who was this St. Philip Neri?" I thought I could learn something of the character of the community from that of their patron saint, and so I did. I found in a work by Mr. Samuel Phillips Day, who was himself formerly a member of the order of the Presentation, that Neri or Nerius, who was afterwards canonized, was born in Florence in the year 1515, during the pontificate of Leo X.; that his father followed the occupation of an attorney, and was a great friend of the monks, especially the Dominicans; and that his mother was the descendant of a noble family who held distinguished offices in the state in the time of the republic. It appears to me that these Oratorians, by the acquisitive disposition they have shown, manifest that they have succeeded to some of the "sharp practice" which their patron saint may be supposed to have derived from his father's occupation. The present Superior of this society, M. Dalgairns, has declared that its members are not bound by religious vows; but that seems to me an evasion, for we know that they are bound by that extraordinary obligation of obedience which seems stronger than any vow, and is especially characteristic of the Jesuit system. We see that they are subjected to all the influence by which the strict discipline of the regular orders in the Church of Rome has ever been maintained. And, Sir, I believe that M. Faber, in his work on this very Order of St. Philip Neri, told the truth when he said it is a society eminently adapted to work its way under the free constitution of this country, and to establish a power as alien to our laws, no less alien to our constitution, than this same power has proved itself to the Government of Prance in the political organization of the society of St. Vincent de Paul, which has a central organization conducted under the auspices of a Cardinal at Rome, and extends its ramifications throughout the Continent. The society of St. Vincent de Paul was founded on the pretence of charity, but is used for the dissemination of those Jesuit doctrines, and the extension of that Jesuit power, which have proved so often—aye, and are proving now—fatal to the peace of Europe, and destructive of human happiness, and I am convinced that this order of St. Philip Neri is of the same stamp and character. Then, I inquired, what are the laws in Germany and in Prussia with respect to these religious Communities, and what do I find? That in Prussia, up to the Revolution of 1850, due security had been taken by law for tracing these establishments, for ascertaining their property, and so far as may be necessary for limiting the operation of their discipline. But in 1850 a wild spirit of liberalism prevailed. All the former laws were swept away, and subsequently there has been an enormous increase of these establishments under laws so lax that the Prussian Government can no longer exercise the control essential for the preservation of the peace and good feeling among the various religionists of the country. The Jesuits have established themselves again in Prussia; and I ask this House whether they have heard nothing of the difficulties of the Prussian Government, and of their incapability to restrain the outburst of popular violence? Have we not had the weakness of that Government tendered to us as an excuse for the outrage which has been committed by that Prussian Government upon inoffensive Denmark, our neighbour just across the channel? That is the disposition which has grown up with the increase of these establishments. But now let us see what the Italians are doing. I have in my hand a copy of the Bill for suppressing many, and regulating some, of the Roman Catholic establishments which is now before the Italian Parliament, and with the permission of the House I will rend a few words from the preamble to that Bill, which will best explain to the House the feelings of the Roman Catholic population of Italy, and the measures that they deem it necessary to take, with a view to preserving among themselves the blessings of peace and that sanctity of the family which these religious orders have been too often known to violate. It says—

"The Government (of Italy) is not induced to promote the suppression of religious houses by motives of hostility or anger, but by the conviction that the nature and effects of such institutions are repugnant to the spirit of the times, and burdensome to the new political and economical position of the nation, against which tendency the Government, and you yourselves, gentlemen (addressing the Italian Parliament) desire to guard yourselves in tranquillity, and free from the prepossessions of party."

Thus we have the Italians, as a means of consolidating peace among themselves, suppressing many of these establishments. in no spirit of blind hostility, but, as it appears to me, acting much in accordance with the advice of the Rev. Canon Wordsworth, who has written an able book on the present state of Italy, recommending the retention of some few of these institutions, which are thought to be really useful for the purposes of charity or of education, but suppressing those which they find to be the organs of a power that is hostile to their domestic peace, hostile to their freedom, hostile to their national independence, and likely to bring them in collision with the other nations of Europe. Sir, I have to apologize to the House for the length of the remarks into which I have been drawn in directing your attention to the very peculiar circumstances which characterize the establishment of this secret burial ground at Sydenhnm; and in showing, that if you would avoid the establishment of other burial grounds under similar circumstances, it is necessary that a Committee of this House should consider and review the law of burials. Within the last ten years there has been an unprecedented increase of these monastic and conventual establishments in this country—of monastic establishments that are contrary to law—and I humbly trust that the House and the Government may be warned, may be induced by these circumstances and by the conduct of Foreign Governments — the other Governments of Europe—to follow the example of the Government of France; and that, bearing in mind the misfortunes that are opening up to Prussia, for they are misfortunes, and the measures which the Italians find necessary for consolidating their polity, that this House will permit a Select Committee to examine these matters, with a view to their reporting the evidence taken before them, and their opinion thereon for the further consideration of the House.

said, it appeared to him that the petition of Mr. Smee, which had been printed upon the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman opposite, the Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate), upon which this Motion was founded, did not in itself afford sufficient reasons for the appointment of the Committee which had been asked for. He must express the same opinion with regard to the correspondence which had taken place between Mr. Smee and the Home Office which had been laid before the House. At the same time, he could not but sympathize with that gentleman's feelings when he found that a near relative with whom he had been brought up on terms of intimacy, and with whom he afterwards became closely connected by ties of marriage, had been induced to change the religion in which he had been brought up, and to adopt the creed of a Church from which Mr. Smee, no doubt, conscientiously dissented. Referring to the oilier circumstances mentioned by the hon. Gentleman, it was much to be regretted that a youth imperfectly instructed in the truths and doctrines of his own Church should, on his first entrance into active life, be exposed to the influence of a man of deep learning, great persuasive powers, and very attractive manners, such as was the late Dr. Faber; but he scarcely thought the House could be recommended to agree to a Committee for the purpose of considering and suggesting measures to counteract such influence. The only practicable way of counteracting that influence would be by taking care that, as far as possible, the youth of this country should be well grounded in the doctrines and truths of their own Church before sending them out into the world, and should thus be better enabled to resist such influence. Having said this, it appeared to him that the hon. Gentleman had wrongly interpreted the object and effect of the Act for the regulation of Burial Grounds, an Act which was framed entirely on sanitary grounds, and solely for the pur- pose of affording protection to the health of the public; and that he also entertained an erroneous opinion as to the powers by that Act vested in the Secretary of State. Although the Secretary of State was required to give his consent to the opening of burial grounds within the metropolitan district, it was never intended that this power should be exercised arbitrarily, and still less that it should be exercised with reference to the religious creed of the persons applying. The approval of cemeteries had never been granted or withheld by the Government on account of the religious creeds of the parties for whose use they were intended. In this case the requisite application had been made to the Home Office, and referred to an Inspector, who, after examining the ground, made, as was usual, a detailed Report, from which it appeared there was no objection to the burial ground in a sanitary point of view. Mr. Smee was evidently under the impression that some extraordinary course had been adopted with regard to the cemetery at Sydenham, and that the permission of the Government had been unfairly obtained. That was not the case, and he hoped the publication of the correspondence would remove the impression. He regretted that the hon. Member should have thought it necessary to associate the name of the late Duke of Norfolk with these proceedings. The facts were simply as follows:—Dr. Faber, being at the time the principal of this Roman Catholic College at Brompton, made application to the Home Office to be permitted to open a burial ground for the use of the college. On receipt of the application the matter was referred in the usual manner to the Inspector, who, being then occupied with other matters, did not make his Report for some time. The Duke of Norfolk then wrote a letter, which was now before the House, calling attention to the application, and stating the importance which the members of the Roman Catholic Church attached to the privilege of having such a burial ground. That letter was sent to the Inspector, who afterwards reported in detail and showed that, as regarded sanitary objects, there was not the slightest cause for apprehension; and accordingly, as in several other cases, both Roman Catholic and Protestant, the burial ground was granted for the exclusive use of the religious community on whose behalf the application was made. The hon. Gentleman had said that the members of the community referred to had belonged to the order of St. Philip Neri. He did not know whether the statement was correct or not; but there was nothing on the face of the proceedings to show him that the college for which the burial ground was required was an institution not recognized by law, or that the members were of the order of St. Philip Neri. In order to establish the illegality of such a society, it would be necessary to ascertain by whom vows were administered and by whom they were received before any proceedings could be taken against them for a violation of the law. Last year, upon Mr. Smee making a complaint as to certain irregularities in the management of the burial ground, the Inspector was ordered to report upon that complaint; but the Report was to the effect that, in the course of seven years, only three interments had taken place in the cemetery, so that persons living in the neighbourhood could not have been at all affected on account of their proximity to the ground. So far, therefore, there was no reason for the appointment of a Committee. He was informed that access was given to the friends of persons buried there, as in any other burial ground. With respect to the inscriptions upon the tombstones, that was a matter with respect to which the Government had no right to interfere. If real names were not inscribed upon the graves, no doubt that might be productive of inconvenience in cases where it might be necessary to establish a title to property. But they all knew the inconvenience was much greater when no names at all were inscribed upon them, and there was no law in this country compelling the erection of tombstones, or providing for the nature of the inscription to be put upon them if erected. The hon. Gentleman had alluded to the case of Mr. Hutchison, who, according to Mr. Smee's account, was possessed of considerable property, and had been induced by undue spiritual influence to dispose of it in a manner different from that in which he would otherwise have done had he been free from that influence. That might, or might not, be true; but, if correct, the law provided a remedy.

said, he rose to explain. He believed the law to be totally inefficient in the present case.

said, that could only be so if the Court should decide that no undue influence had been exercised upon the mind of Mr. Hutchison. If undue influence of a spiritual nature were exercised upon a man in his dying moments for the purpose of affecting the disposal of his property, that would be a reason for setting aside the will. The hon. Gentleman had stated that the Italian Parliament had legislated for the suppression of monasteries, but he must remember that this country possessed a remedy in the statute of Mortmain against the serious evils which had arisen in Italy from the large amount of property acquired and held by monasteries. He did not think that any good results would arise from an inquiry into the subject, but that it would rather tend to foster religious discussions and disputes; and, so far as the documents before the House were concerned, he did not consider that there was any ground for granting the Select Committee asked for by the hon. Gentleman.

Sir, I would willingly have been spared intruding myself upon the House on this occasion. I beg to observe that in anything I may say, it will be remembered I speak in defence. I, and those connected with me, have been attacked, and it is proper I should defend my family from the charges brought against it. No one can deprecate more than myself the introduction of discussions on religious subjects into this House; but if they are to be brought on at all, they ought to be conducted in the same manner as other discussions, and to be accompanied by the same gentlemanlike feeling and propriety of bearing which characterize all the proceedings of the House, and which are more or less adhered to in all ranks and conditions of life. Even prize-fighters shake hands before they begin their contest, and give some semblance of an adherence to formality and decorum. In the present case, however, there has been manifested a most remarkable want of that propriety, inasmuch as a violent personal attack has been made upon a family to whom I am nearly related; but not one word of previous intimation has been given to me on the matter, and the broadest assertions have been made by the hon. Member for Warwickshire, without any attempt at proof. Not only have the hon. Gentleman's calumnies been aimed at the gentlemen who lived at the Oratory, but they have been, by implication, extended to myself. I feel sure that the House will, with its usual generosity and kindliness of feeling, permit me to reply, which I wish to do in no strenuous manner, to the slan- derous statements which the hon. Gentleman has been made the vehicle for publishing. In this petition, with which the hon. Gentleman by presenting it to the House has identified himself, the statement has been made, that the family of the Duke of Norfolk has been, and is, in close connection with the members of the Order of St. Philip Neri, at Brompton, and assist them in their various schemes. A little further down it adds, that young men of position and wealth are concealed from their friends by the members of that Order. What is this but an assertion that the family to which I have the honour to belong, is engaged with others in conspiracy, in fraud, and in concealment? Upon this part of the case I shall really dwell no further, because I do trust that both my family and myself have many valued friends among members of all religious persuasions; and I am quite sure that no person in this country, except Mr. Smee and the hon. Gentleman, would give any member of my family, or myself, credit for taking part in such disgraceful proceedings. In another clause of the petition it is stated that the heir to the dukedom of Norfolk—and I think it says his brother also—have been seen assisting in ecclesiastical garments in the public performance of services at the Oratory. Now, I think the hon. Gentleman stated that he belonged to the University of Oxford. I myself belonged to Cambridge, and when I went to the chapel in the University, which I did, I was in the habit of putting on a surplice, and I should suppose that the hon. Gentleman also wore his surplice on the same occasions. Is there anything disgraceful in assisting in the public service of a public Church? And, if not, if the hon. Gentleman wore a surplice while attending his College chapel service, might not other people, in a public church like the Oratory at Brompton, also take part in the service clad in the same way? I have seen my nephew assisting there; and, perhaps I may also say, that on that occasion when I saw him assisting there—perhaps more than once—I then had a little boy who had grown to an age when one's feelings are bound up very deeply with his well-being, as a son who promised to be a hope to one's family, and a prop to one's declining years. I am proud to say that that little boy also assisted in the service with my nephew, dressed in the garments which the hon. Gentleman has described. That little boy died within a short period of so assisting at the public services of the church; and I can tell the hon. Gentleman that, so far from being ashamed of it, it is the greatest possible comfort to me that, at the solicitation of his mother, I allowed him to pay that small meed of devotion and service to his Creator. He has passed to his account, into a purer world, where certainly there is no malignity like that to which my family has been to-night exposed. I do not believe he has a less bright place there because in that instance he paid his little meed of homage to his God; nor do I believe that his mother, who since then has also died, has a less bright place there, because she wished that he should take that part in the service of the church. The grief which I have had to sustain in the loss of these two loved ones, coupled within the short space of twenty months with the loss of the father of the young Duke, one of the best of brothers—that grief is to be ripped open, the lids of the coffins of those who are gone are, as it were, to be torn away, and their graves are to be exposed to public desecration because such a person as Mr. Smee chooses to allege these untruths in a petition for which the hon. Member for Warwickshire becomes the sponsor to this House. Having said so much on matters which affect me personally, although I am not at all undertaking the defence of the Oratory, still it is, perhaps, fair that I should advert to one or two points mentioned by the hon. Gentleman. He stated the case of a Mr. Harrison. As I understand it, Mr. Harrison was brought to the Oratory by an elder brother, who was an officer in the army; he became a convert, returned to Westminster School the same night, and a very short time afterwards he returned to his father's house. What took place was clear and open. Respecting the case with which Mr. Smee's name is connected in the petition, it certainly does seem to me extraordinary that an hon. Gentleman, in the position of a county Member, should endeavour, by animadversions in this House, to influence a case which is before the ordinary tribunals of the country. Whatever the will to which reference has been made may be, and I know nothing of it, it will no doubt be properly decided upon by the high authorities before whom it has now been placed. Then the hon. Gentleman endeavoured to make a strong case out of the omission of names on the tombstones in the burial ground at Sydenham. But it is the register of deaths by the properly cer- tified officers, and not the names on tombstones, which are resorted to for the purposes of identification. On his way to this House, the hon. Member must have walked over the churchyard of St. Margaret's, where upon ninny of the stones not a single name can be traced. This is the same in other places. The tombstone inscription may be obliterated by time, and it is the public and official record by which identification is established. I pass now from the petition to one of the most extraordinary documents which I certainly ever read—"The Public Appeal to the Duchess of Norfolk," dated from Finsbury Circus, April 9. I had been detained in the country, and on arriving in town last night, I found to my great surprise a copy of this letter. I believe it has been published elsewhere. The hon. Gentleman says, he does not object to the writing of this letter; but, while he condemns its address to the Duchess, he thinks it should have been addressed to two gentlemen of the learned profession whom he inaccurately described as the guardians of a certain person. [Mr. NEWDEGATE: I said they were the trustees.] One of the statements in the letter is—

"But the high position of your Grace's family has been used to assist the schemes of the members of the Oratory, to obtain his money from his family."

Now, the truth no doubt was, that Mr. Hutchison, whose fortune has been exaggerated, was a charitable and generous man, and chose to give his money accordingly. Some persons squander their money; others dispose of it in charity. Some even sacrifice their lives in works of charity. But who blames Howard for such a sacrifice? Who blames Wilberforce and Clarkson for their efforts in the cause of the slave? And who blames those benevolent persons who give bountifully of the means at their disposal to promote works of charity? Why, we do not even blame those persons who leave their money to help to pay off the National Debt, and why should Mr. Hutchison be blamed because he chose to give some of his fortune in charity, mid some of it to the Oratory for certain purposes indicated? Sir, I deny that, so far as the Duchess of Norfolk is concerned, there is the smallest ground for this calumny, which is so improperly brought forward in this letter, and with which, in some degree, the hon. Gentleman identifies himself.

I knew nothing about the letters.

I am glad to hear it, and I trust, then, that this will be a caution in future to the hon. Member as to the company in which he trusts himself, and the use to which he allows himself and his name to be put by others. We all hear of young men coming to the metropolis and there being taken advantage of by designing persons; but I should hardly have expected that a Gentleman of the age of the hon. Member would get into such a position as this. Allow me, Sir, in the most friendly way, to suggest to the hon. Member, that if he has not been prudent hitherto, he should henceforth take care that he is not led by others into such a position as to be made the medium for advancing, if not of countenancing, accusations of the most flagrant and unfounded character. In a further part of this letter—I am not quoting the words—the Duchess of Norfolk is accused by direct implication of the murder—the prospective murder—of her daughter, by immuring her in a certain convent into which she had gone. I should not, of course, think of saying a word in refutation of that. That young lady is my niece; and this I will say, that I never saw any person more anxious to enter a religious order than she was to enter the one which she has adopted. She was perfectly aware of the practice of that order, and she was most anxious to attach herself to it, I am quite sure, and all Catholics know, that there are many young women who could never be happy in the tumult of the world, but elect of themselves to enter a convent. This was the case with my niece; and no young woman ever took that step or any other with a greater prospect of happiness, Mr. Smee then goes on to say, "Your grace stood by the grave of my relative as the cold clay, sod by sod, was thrown upon his noble form, in a sort of ecstasy at the music of the requiem." Surely, if the Duchess attended this funeral she must have done so from the most praiseworthy motives. How absurd are those observations! Having taken the trouble to go down, was the Duchess to have laughed during the solemn ceremony? Is that the hon. Member for North Warwickshire's idea of the kind of behaviour becoming at a funeral? I do not know what his experience on those occasions has been, but mine would lead me to think that the observations contained in this letter with re- ference to the conduct of the Duchess of Norfolk are not only uncalled for, but absurd.. Then the hon. Member talks of the increase in the number of convents in this country. Now, this is a point on which, with the permission of the House. I should wish to say a word. The fact is, that in 99 cases out of 100, convents are established in this way:—Two or three nuns are invited by some philanthropic persons to come and teach at a school which may have been set up in their neighbourhood. Catholic ladies and gentlemen know by experience that nuns are the best instructors of children — that they generally succeed in winning them from evil courses, and accordingly they are glad to induce nuns to commence such schools. The hon. Member for North Warwickshire and other persons of his way of thinking are always accusing Catholics of keeping their people in ignorance and allowing them to become drunkards and commit offences which bring them before the police magistrates; but when Catholic gentlemen are doing all they can to make the poor of their creed good members of society, the hon. Gentleman and his friends not only will not help them, but seem to be actuated by a desire to hinder them from effecting that object. I wish to apologize to the House for the length of the statement I have made. It really has been a most painful one to me. Circumstances that have caused me sorrow deeper than can be described have been raked up in a manner most unjustifiable, and my duty was clear that I ought to come down to the House and defend my family and myself from such attacks. If I had allowed a feeling of diffidence to prevail, and had not relied on that kindness which the House has so generously extended to me, I must have submitted to be brow-beaten by those statements which the hon. Member has made in so positive a tone. The hon. Gentleman has spoken of those whom I feel it my duty to defend. Unfortunately my family has been diminished considerably of late by successive casualties; but I am happy that I have been spared to defend it from calumny; and I should have hoped that no hon. Member of this House would have stood godfather to such statements as those which the hon. Member for North Warwickshire has sanctioned. I can, however, assure him on behalf of my family, whether on the part of those who are now living, or of those who have departed from this life, that we wish him no further harm than that he may see the error of his ways, and that as he becomes an older he may also become a wiser, juster, and fairer man. Again, thanking the House most cordially for the manner in which it has received my explanation, I beg to express my confidence in the fairness and justness of the British public. It will know in what quarter to bestow its sympathy, and where to place its confidence; for, though the judgment of the people of this country is sometimes misled, it is, in the main, solid and sound. With the utmost confidence, I leave this case in the hands of the House.

said, that the hon. Gentleman the Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate) was not, in his opinion, fairly open to the charge made by the noble Lord the Member for Arundel (Lord Edward Howard), that he had brought on the present Motion without due notice. He had had no communication with the hon. Member, but he knew all the circumstances of this case, and that it would be brought forward; and the noble Lord himself seemed to know more about it than the hon. Member. It was no sufficient legal reason for setting aside a will that such will had been made under religious influence. The only question was whether such cases as that brought forward by the hon. Gentleman were sufficiently numerous to call for legislative interference; for, as the law stood, he believed it was quite possible to bring to bear upon a dying person religious influence which it might be found difficult to resist, and which might result in great injury being done to the relatives of a testator. He thought that, so far from deserving blame, the hon. Member for North Warwickshire was entitled to the thanks of the House for calling attention to an institution which in his opinion, in this and other similar instances, deserved the just reprobation of the House.

said, that the observations made by the bon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Oxford City (Mr. Neate) required a reply, and he thought it not unbecoming that he should give one. It had not been his intention to have interfered at all in the discussion, especially after the touching and beautiful address of the noble Lord the Member for Arundel, but that he had the honour and happiness of knowing some of the Members of that Community which, to adopt the words of the noble Lord, had been grossly slandered in the House that night. He would not follow the speech with which that discussion opened, in regard either to the living or the dead who had been assailed in that speech; he would not say a word in reference to the character of the late Father Faber, who, he believed, whether as a man of intellect or a man of conscience, or a distinguished Englishman, would always be spoken of with extreme respect. Every one belonging to his religious creed knew that which it was no shame to the hon. Member for North Warwickshire if he did not know, that the constitution of the Community at Brompton did not, in the smallest degree, bring them within the purview of the law. Persons who belonged to the Oratory at Brompton—those who belonged to any Community of that distinguished order—were not bound by vows such as the hon. Member appeared to suppose. It was a matter of perfect notoriety that they lived together in Community—they were secular priests associating voluntarily, not bound to remain together for a single hour, each holding his property, and able to dispose of it just as he desired. He would say nothing as to the burial ground; that point had been answered conclusively by the right hon. Baronet the Secretary for Home Affairs, although he could not for the life of him see that there was any illegality or ground for suspicion in the fact of the name adopted at confirmation being the one inscribed upon the tombstone of one of the members of the Oratory. He wished to reply to an observation made by the hon. and learned Member for Oxford City (Mr. Neate), that according to the law of this land no amount of spiritual influence would nullify a will. It was notorious, that in the Probate Courts of England as well as in Ireland, cases constantly arose where the question for the jury and the Court was whether undue religious influences had been exercised. The hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate), who introduced this Motion, had referred to the ease of Father Hutchison, a man of intellect and an accomplished scholar. That gentleman was forty years of age at the period of his death; he had been eighteen years a member of the Oratory, and died in full possession of his faculties. When he joined that Community he possessed a fortune of £30,000 or thereabouts. It was entirely under his own control, Portions of this property be devoted to the establishment of ragged schools in Holborn, and to the support of charities of various kinds; and at the period of his death, in his fortieth or forty-first year, he had by these acts of charity and benevolence denuded himself of the whole of the property, with the exception of £4,000 or £5,000. He was the friend of Father Faber, to whom he was deeply attached, and with whom he had lived for many years, trusting him, not only as a friend, but as a religious man; and he bequeathed this £4,000 or £5,000 to Father Faber, and that bequest was at this moment undergoing consideration in the Court of Probate. Was it not then monstrous that members of that distinguished religious Community—men of the highest character, men of the brightest accomplishments, men of the greatest devotion to their own religion, and also men of great devotion to the poor—should be assailed in the manner they had been, when the question upon which the charges were founded was before the properly constituted tribunal, to be determined there, not upon suggestion, not upon insinuations, not upon assertions without a particle of proof such as had been presented to the House and to the country that night, but on solemn inquiry and legal evidence? It did appear very monstrous. If, in this kingdom of England, twelve or twenty gentlemen of any other religious denomination than Roman Catholic chose to live together, no man would have ventured to assail those twelve or twenty gentlemen, as the priests of the Oratory had been assailed in that House. It was not manly thus to assail persons who were unable to defend themselves, who from their position, their character, and their profession had to be defended by others. So far as the present case went there was no evidence before the House, and no ground for the proposition of the hon. Member for North Warwickshire. It was a principle of British law that we had no right to assume guilt against any man; that we were not to assume that any individual of any Community whatever had broken the law of the land without hearing evidence in support of the charge, and afterwards what he had to say—in defence. Speaking now only of his own country he would say that if there was one thing which more than another mitigated the miseries of Ireland, it was the existence among its poor and wretched people of religious Communities, always ready to administer consolation and relief, to teach, to comfort, and to support the poor. Unless the Community of the Oratory at Brompton could be proved to be contrary to the law of the land, he trusted that the day was far distant when that House would assent to such a proposition as that of the hon. Member for North Warwickshire.

said, he would occupy the attention of the House for a few minutes only. One of the allegations of the hon. Member for North Warwickshire was that the Christian name of Father Hutchison inscribed on the tombstone was not the name by which he was baptized. The fact was that Father Hutchison changed his name at confirmation, or rather added to his existing name that of his particular patron saint. And he must tell the hon. Member for North Warwickshire that the law of England allowed any person to change his name at confirmation. If he would look into the highest legal authority, Coke upon Littleton, he would find it there laid down that any one could lawfully change his name at confirmation, and an instance was cited of a learned Judge who had done so, and the change was held valid in law. He would briefly touch upon one other point. It seemed to be inferred by the hon. Member for North Warwickshire, that some advantage of Father Hutchison in his dying moments was taken by the Oratorians. The fact was that the will of Father Hutchison, so far from being a death-bed will, was made three years before his death. He lived for fifteen years at the Oratory. And he would ask, what was more natural than that he should wish to leave his remaining property to those with whom he had so long lived, and from whom he had received daily acts of kindness for many years, rather than to Mr. Smee, between whom and himself there had long existed, in consequence of his change of religion, a want of cordiality.

said, that as his hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire was precluded, by the forms of the House, from replying, it was due to him that some hon. Member should stand up in his behalf, and say that nothing was further from his intention than to state anything that could be construed and twisted even by the disingenuous and tortuous practices of Roman Catholics into anything savouring of disrespect towards any member of the noble family of Howard. His hon. Friend's Motion was directed, not against individuals, but against institutions. At the outset of his remarks, his hon. Friend stated that he knew nothing of the letter alluding to the Duchess of Norfolk; and the noble Lord's speech, painful as it was to listen to, was a most ingenious perversion of the remarks of his hon. Friend. The points chiefly dwelt on by his hon. Friend were that there was no registrar's certificate, and that the name on the tombstone had been falsified. Were he a Roman Catholic he would not oppose the appointment of the Committee for an inquiry into conventual and monastic establishments. He thought the country was entitled to have evidence of the practices carried on within their walls. That very morning he had received a paper, which, no doubt, other hon. Members had seen, and which, if not true, was a libel. It was entitled "Facts; or, Nuns and Nunneries." Many instances were given of the maltreatment of unfortunate females in these establishments, he would call them prisons, in which their property was confiscated. These assertions were either true or false; and if he were a Roman Catholic he would defy the most bitter Protestant, as the Catholics would call him, to prove them. Instead of keeping those establishments hermetically sealed, he would have light let into them. At all events, let England have the same opportunity as was possessed in France, and even in bigoted Austria, of knowing what was going on in those establishments, and ascertaining whether any of the inmates were confined against their will, by the legal visitation of the civil power. That was all that was asked by the Motion of the hon. Member for North Warwickshire. Let the Committee be appointed, and he would undertake to prove instances of innocent, unfortunate, trusting females being seduced—he did not mean to use the word in its offensive sense — but cases of innocent, trusting girls drawn from their families by clever designing priests—drawn, into establishments, shut up there, kept there contrary to their will, their property confiscated, and their persons denied to their relations. Appoint a Committee, and they would prove that those assertions were facts. He did not wish to say anything offensive to Roman Catholic Members; but, were he a Catholic, that was the course lie would take. He could not sit still and hear the observations of his hon. Friend misrepresented and himself abused without offering those remarks.

I ask the hon. Member whether, in using the phrase "disingenuous and tortuous practices peculiar to Roman Catholics," he meant to apply it to me? [Cries of "Order!" and "Chair!"]

said that, as a Roman Catholic, he could not allow the observations of the hon. Member for North Wilts (Mr. Long) to pass without expressing the contempt which be felt for them. The hon. Member for North Warwickshire was a follower of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire (Mr. Disraeli). If the hon. Member had studied the speeches of his political leader, he might have seen in one of them a maxim which it would have been well for him to have borne in mind on the present occasion—namely, that "insolence is not sarcasm, and that violence is not invective." [Cries of "Order!" "Chair!" "Divide!"]

[amid renewed cries of "Order!" and "Chair," said: A violent attack has been made on me. I beg to explain that the Motion which I submit to the House is, as expressed in the terms of it, "for an inquiry into certain allegations made in the petition of Mr, Smee, the medical officer of the Bank of England;" and further, that, this Motion is "for an inquiry into the—[Cries of "Chair!")

If the hon. Member has been misunderstood on any point an opportunity of explanation is afforded to him. But he cannot go beyond explanation.

I beg your pardon, Sir, if I have erred; but I have been misrepresented, and I beg to explain that the Motion I submit to the House is a Motion for an inquiry into Monastic and Conventual establishments, and it is substantially the same as those which have been repeatedly supported by majorities in this House. ["No, no!"]

, who had given notice to move for a Select Committee to inquire into the Scientific Institutions of Dublin which were assisted by Government aid, said, that after the division which had just taken place it was not, he believed, possible for the Speaker to put the Motion which it had been his intention to submit to the House. What he proposed, therefore, to do was to take the discussion on his Motion at once, and if the Government should signify their readiness to assent to it, then to move for the Committee, pro formâ, on some future occasion. In the year 1862, applications were made to the Treasury by the Royal Dublin Society for a sum amounting in round numbers to £10,000, to put the Museum, the Botanic Gardens, and the agricultural department of the society into an efficient state, but, before entertaining the application, the Treasury considered that a Commission should be appointed to report upon the Royal Dublin Society and other scientific institutions in Dublin, and also into the system of scientific instruction in Ireland. It is unnecessary, at present, to enter into any general discussion of the Report of this Commission. It is sufficient to say that the main features of it are two recommendations, the first, a very proper one—namely, to increase the powers of the executive council acting on behalf of the society, inasmuch as it did not possess adequate control over the general management of the affairs of the society, and in particular over its officers, while its decisions were liable to be overruled and reversed by the accident of the popular vote of the whole body. On more than one occasion there has been a conflict between the Government, whose annual subsidy is the main support of the institution and the society; and there have also been conflicts between the council and the general body, in which the decisions of the council have been overruled. It was clear that such a state of things could not be continued, nor could it be suffered that large sums of public money should be annually voted, when at any moment the society might place itself in collision with the Government. With the view of having these chances of collision, increased power was recommended to be placed in the hands of the council, which thus became a central and executive authority, able to act immediately and without the necessity of consulting the members at large. No one could dispute the propriety of this suggestion. The second recommendation was very different—namely, that the Museum of Irish Industry should be totally abolished, with the exception of the Professors of Geology and Botany, who should be transferred to the Royal Dublin Society. That the Geological and Paleontological Collections should be transferred to Marsh's Library, belonging to the society, and the Technological collection distributed throughout the country. There was also this ominous sentence at the end of the Report—

"Some advantage would be gained if all the Parliamentary giants in aid of science and art al Dublin were included in the estimate of the Royal Dublin Society, and were paid through its medium inasmuch as they would annually be brought under consideration in one point of view, and the council of the Royal Dublin Society would have an opportunity of making any representation which the circumstances of the time might render proper in reference to them."

When this astounding recommendation go wind, alarm rose high among the scientific institutions in Dublin, more especially as this summary mode of extinguishing their independence had been adopted without any evidence whatever having been taken from them or about them. In fact, evidence seems to have been quite a secondary consideration with the Commissioners, who conclude their Report with the following extraordinary passage, perhaps one of the most extraordinary that was ever submitted in a Report to Her Majesty:—

"We submit the evidence taken by us, but it is proper to add that in the conclusions at which we have arrived we were partly influenced by a variety of documentary information as well as by our own knowledge of facts."

It would be difficult to find an instance in which the House of Commons was looked on to acquiesce in a Report based on documentary evidence of which it knew nothing, and on facts of which, though doubtless familiar to the Commissioners, and of great weight in their opinion, the House was equally ignorant. The Royal Irish Academy and other scientific institutions at once protested against the highhanded proceedings which were threatened, and the first-named society published a series of resolutions, and very stout and excellent resolutions they were, namely—

"That the Royal Irish Academy regards with surprise and alarm the suggestion contained in the Report of the Commissioners of Inquiry respecting scientific instruction in Ireland, that the academy should be placed under the superintendence, and to some extent under the control, of the council of the Royal Dublin Society.

"That the Commissioners appointed by the Treasury to inquire into a number of scientific institutions, including this Academy, have made the above recommendation without examining any of its officers, or even notifying their intention of taking evidence affecting its interests.

"In fact, the objections to such an arrangement felt by the members of the Royal Irish Academy are such as would be felt by the members of the Royal Society of London to a proposal to submit them, in any degree, to the control of the Society of Arts.

"That the Academy entirely dissents from the opinion expressed in the Report of the Commissioners, to the effect that real public benefit would ensue from affiliation of this Academy to any other society.

"That the only other reason assigned by the Commissioners for an innovation which would thus compromise the honour and interests of an important national institution is an alleged official convenience of the most inconsiderable kind."

It was felt quite clearly by the Government that this was a little too strong a measure even for Ireland, and accordingly these societies were re-assured by a pledge that the recommendation of the Report would not be applied to them. They were not to be devoured then, at all events. As regards the Museum of Irish Industry, however, there was to be no surrender—its destruction was resolved on by the Treasury and the Department of Science and Art, and the capital of Ireland, as regards scientific institutions, was to be reduced to the level of a provincial town. When, however, the fate that impended over this institution became known, general indignation prevailed. Petitions flowed in from all parts of Ireland, protesting against the destruction of an institution from which such benefit had been derived, and the utility of which was daily becoming more and more acknowledged. These petitions came from the Town Commissioners of Dundalk, Lismore, Ballymoney, Maryborough, Rathkeale, Guilford, Bally-shannon—from Dundalk, from the Limerick Athenaeum, Tralee, Waterford, and Clonmel Mechanics' Institute—Drogheda, Omagh, Cork, Croom, and Bandon. The Lord Lieutenant saw at once the unpopularity and the extreme impolicy of the measure. He objected to the details of the Report and to its tendency, stating, in a letter from Sir Thomas Larcom, February, 1863,

"That the consolidation of the Museum of Irish Industry and of the scientific lectures in the Royal Dublin Society would be considered, as regards industrial education, a reversion of the original intention, and of the policy which has been pursued for the last eighty years in Ireland." "As to the provincial lectures, his Excellency recognizes the merits of the system described in the Report as successful in England, but doubts whether Ireland is yet sufficiently advanced to receive it with advantage, and that it is more fitted to produce mediocrity in the many than high acquirements in individuals."

And representations were made to the Chancellor of the Exchequer by about sixty Irish Members, which clearly indicated the feeling of the country. The petitioners had good ground for their remonstrances. They argued against the recommendation on general grounds; but they argued also against it on the special ground of the composition of the Commission, and on the composition of the witnesses, and the House of Commons would be rather astonished when they heard the allegations. They were these:—That the Committee was essentially a packed Committee. It was composed of the representative of the Treasury, Sir Charles Trevelyan, and the Treasury had already determined on this amalgamation. No proof is required of this; the correspondence proves it; nor does there appear to be the least desire on the part of the Treasury to conceal that determination. The second member was Captain Donnelly, of the Department of Science and Art, also intent on the suppression of the Irish Industrial Museum, as it is also, not without reason, suspected of being equally intent on the suppression of the kindred institution in Jermyn Street. The policy of that Department has been to centralize everything at Kensington; to make Kensington, and it alone, the Cen- tral College of Science, leaving only secondary institutions to the provincial towns, among which it is intended that, ere long, Dublin should be reckoned. The other two Members of the Commission were actually both of them at the time members of the Royal Dublin Society. As this society had an immediate benefit in the increase of its sphere, its importance, and its funds by this amalgamation, it was natural enough that these gentlemen should be objected to. The objection was the more valid, as the Royal Dublin Society had invariably looked on the Museum of Irish Industry as a rival institution to be got rid of. Not to make allegations without proof, it would be sufficient to quote the letter of the Royal Dublin Society to the Government, in 1854, protesting against even the establishment of the Museum—

"It is a matter of great surprise and regret to the society that Government should have deemed it necessary or economical to have established in close proximity, and for nearly similar objects, such an Institution as the Irish Museum."

He wished to guard himself against anything that could give rise to the imputation of wishing to ascribe unfairness to Sir Richard Griffith, or Chief Justice Blackburn, of both of whom it was his desire to speak with the respect to which their eminent position and character entitled them. He wished to say nothing more than that the Commission was not impartial—on the contrary, that it was eminently partial, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer would support him in his objections to such a Commission when he recalled the discussion which took place on the Holy-head Committee of 1863. These were Mr. Gladstone's words—

"What I said was, that in my opinion, and in the opinion of the Government, the Committee had not been impartially constituted. I referred to the position occupied by many hon. Members on it."

The right hon. Gentleman refused to be bound by the Report of that Committee, assuring the House, at the same time, that he entertained the highest respect for the character of the Members composing it. But if this objection held good as regards the composition of a Committee, it was ten times worse as regards the composition of a Commission, because the right hon. Gentleman had the opportunity of objecting to the Committee at the time of its nomination, whereas no opportunity is given for objection to a Commission appointed by the Crown until the Report becomes the subject of discussion. The composition of the Commission was a pretty strong affair; but what would the hon. Gentleman think of the examination pursued — that, out of the seventeen witnesses examined, sixteen were connected with the Royal Dublin Society, eight members of Council, six officials, and two committee men. Sir Robert Kane was the only other person examined. No other persons were summoned to give evidence. Professor Jukes, the lecturer on geology to the Museum of Irish Industry, and the local director of the Geological Survey, never heard of the Commission save by report, nor was there a single person summoned from the other scientific societies, although the Report recommends, from the Commissioners' knowledge of facts, that these institutions should be affiliated, or, in reality, placed under the Royal Dublin Society. There was nothing like an illustration. Suppose a Commission were appointed to inquire into the London corporation with a view to ascertain whether that body should have its funds increased, whether it should retain its own police and have the police of the other districts of the metropolis put under its jurisdiction—suppose that Commission to be composed of two aldermen and of two Government officials, whose departments had notoriously and avowedly prejudged the question favourably—suppose the evidence as to the advisability of the annexation to have been derived from seventeen witnesses only, sixteen of whom were the Lord Mayor, aldermen, common council men and civic officials—could there be doubts of the result—and yet such a case would not be one whit more flagrant than the present. What is the institution that it is now proposed should be destroyed? One would suppose that it was some old outworn institution no longer adapted to the wants of the present age, but it is precisely the reverse. It is anew and vigorous institution, eminently successful, every day increasing in its efficiency and popularity, and the functions of which, instead of being smothered in the Royal Dublin Society, ought to be greatly extended. This Irish Museum was established by Sir Robert Peel, no mean judge of the requirements of Ireland, at the time when the Queen's Colleges were established, as, in deference to Trinity College, Dublin, a Queen's College was not established in that city, and I believe I have good reasons for stating that it was the intention of Sir Robert Peel to make this institution essentially a college for scientific instruction. The Museum galleries have only been finished ten years at great expense. Now it is proposed to dismantle them, and Professor Jukes will tell you that it will take three years to re-arrange them. The Museum of Irish Industry was originally called the Museum of Economic Geology, based on the same plan as that of Jermyn Street on the operation of the Geological Survey, but with a wider range. The suppression of this Museum would be to the Irish branch of the survey the same thing as the suppression of the Museum of Practical Geology to Great Britain. One of the main objects connected with the educational or instructional part of this institution was the carrying out of investigations connected with the industrial arts, and in deciding on the establishment of this museum. Lord Lincoln, then Secretary, said that one principal reason was, that it should be a school of instruction and research in the industrial arts. For that end a school of chemistry was established, and now two courses of systematic instruction in practical chemistry are given—one in the laboratory by day, the other in the evening, and the evening classes are generally composed of artizans and persons employed in shops. Now, let me show the progress of this institution as compared with another most successful institution, that of Jermyn Street. From 1855 to 1861 the Jermyn Street pupils increased from 104 to 140; from 1855 to 1861 the Irish Museum pupils increased from 15 to 50. Jermyn Street, 1861—cost of maintenance, £6.387; visitors 24,151; laboratory students, 140; students' school of science, 6; occasional students, 124; attendance on lectures 2,400. Stephen's Green Museum,]861—cost of maintenance, £4,062; visitors 28,843; laboratory students, 50; visitors to library, 140; attendance at lectures, 8,010. Now as to results. One example will suffice Mr. Dowling was a clerk in a humble establishment in Dublin. He became a pupil in the practical chemical class in the Irish Museum. Having passed the examination necessary for his qualification, he became a teacher under the art and science department, and established a school of chemistry at Cork; and what has been the success of that school?—why, something almost incredible. On reference to the 9th Report of Science and Art, it will be seen that at the science examinations for 1861, there were given for chemistry, one gold, two silver, and three bronze medals. Mr. Dowling's pupils carried away two silver and two bronze medals, leaving only two to be contended for by competitors from the whole of Great Britain. He also took eight first classes out of seventeen, although twenty-two other teachers of the United Kingdom brought up their schools. In the 10th Report we find these words, as regards the next year's examination of 1862—

"It exhibits the remarkable fact that the students of Irish schools, numbering only 374, were successful in obtaining 149 prizes, and 12 out of a total of 689 prizes and 34 medals."

In chemistry, out of the six medals of 1862—namely, one gold, two silver, and three bronze, Mr. Dowling's pupils took one gold, two silver, and one bronze. This is indeed incredible, and on a witness, a member of the Royal Dublin Society, being asked how this extraordinary success was to be accounted for, he said it was due to the taste being imparted to the young men of Ireland by lectures, and he instanced, in particular, the popularity of those of Professor Jukes at Belfast, Professor Jukes being professor of practical geology at the Irish Museum. We should pause before sweeping away a system marked with success, and the efficiency of which might be infinitely increased; but my Lords of the Deportment of Science and Art see no reason why this latent talent of Ireland should be encouraged, or why more than the merest elementary education should be given in Ireland. If that country is to obtain a higher education, let her children spend their money in London, and come to Jermyn Street and Kensington for their training. They and the Commissioners and the advocates of amalgamation, contend that the work might be done somewhat cheaper if the Irish Industrial Museum were abolished. One witness—namely, Mr. Foot, a vice-president of the Society—objects to the Museum because it has not the public confidence and regard—that the collections are in some respect duplicate collections, Mr. Steele, one of the Secretaries of the Society, says—

"There are, certainly, collections at the Irish Museum illustrative of the manufactures of porcelain, glass, iron, and various clays, which are of no practical value as there are no manufactures in Ireland."

Of course, the witness presumed there never would be any. Sir Thomas Larcom is of a different opinion. He says—

"It is dangerous to measure the industrial character of a country merely by its present condition. The remarkable circumstance mentioned by Sir R. Kane in his evidence of the German chemists finding occupation in the manufacturing establishments is a practical commentary on the importance of giving facilities for high industrial education, and his Excellency cannot but feel that it would be highly advantageous if young Irishmen were trained to fill such places, a career which has already been opened to one or more students from Stephen's Green."

Professor Haughton, who has the arrangement of the museum of the Society, thinks—

"That collections made by geological surveys ought not to be left together, but that all fossils should be brought together and arranged according to their zoological affinities without reference to where they came from."

That the Royal Dublin Society had for its members very many persons of high rank; that many people visit one museum, and few visit two; that you have the same lecturers giving the same class of lectures on the same subjects in both establishments. These are the objections to the existence of the Irish Museum. To these objections it is replied that the two institutions were founded for different purposes—the Royal Dublin Society for the encouragement of husbandry, which might fairly bring under its scope everything connected with agriculture, the vegetable and the animal kingdom. The Irish Museum was for economic geology—the one for all that is on the surface of the earth, the other for all that is below it. That it is admitted even in one of the Reports of the Society that the lectures of the Royal Dublin Society, when they trench on the province of the Irish Museum, are intended only to give popular elementary instruction in science, whereas the lectures of the Irish Museum are to give more advanced and technical instruction. That the numbers of persons visiting a museum, though it may be a test of its popularity, is no test of its utility; and, as such, Madame Tussaud is more popular than Jermyn Street. That when the Report speaks of many persons visiting one museum—few having time to visit two, one would imagine that the writer of the passage had an idea that a scientific museum was a raree show, and that good and profit were to be obtained from one visit to it—that scientific museums are not supported for the sake of having files of visitors passing through them, but for the use of scientific men or of students intending to become so, so that they repay their expense by additions which they make to the intellectual wealth of the country. That, as regards the composition of the society being of the salt of the earth, the very great personages of the land, there is no gain in that—that it is not a scientific Society—that it is a private Society, though maintained chiefly at the public expense—that it is entirely anomalous in its functions and principles, and has no parallel in England, Scotland, or Continental Europe, as in no country in the world are Botanic Gardens, schools of science and art, supported by the State—yet handed over to a private society—but that this experiment is characteristically reserved for Ireland; that the governing staff of the Irish Museum consists wholly of scientific men who are obviously the only persons to whom the management of a scientific institution can properly be trusted, and that there is nothing in the Report which hints at giving to the scientific officers of the Museum any place among the governing body of the Royal Dublin Society; that these scientific officers would be perfectly ready and proud to serve under a man eminent in science like Sir Roderick Murchison, but not under a shifting unscientific body as the Royal Dublin Society, which says of itself—

"They do not profess to be a scientific body nor to endeavour to enforce the vigorous co-operation of the lovers of abstract science. They do not see why the co-operation of eminent men of science should be estimated more highly by the Government than that of the landed professional and mercantile gentry of Ireland, with whom the society originated.' "

In the evidence before the Committee of 1836, they say that their scientific professors were not intended to make scientific discoveries, but were only for the purpose of giving popular scientific lectures. The original salaries of professors were £300 annually, they were subsequently reduced to £200, and then to £150. The idea of what a professor should be capable of was rather magnificent. On the death of Sir Charles Gesecke, it was resolved—

"That the new Professor should possess a thorough knowledge of mineralogy, geology, zoology, conchology, and comparative anatomy; he should also be practically acquainted with coal and metallic mining."

This was pretty well for £150 per annum, considering also that a rule was framed that he should pay for any gallipots he might break. So much for the scientific capabilities of the Society into which a really scientific institution is to be merged. That, as regards the mixing together of the rocks and fossils of both museums, no recommendation could be more prejudicial to science, or evince greater ignorance of the objects of the two institutions. The Royal Dublin Society's Museum is arranged according to biological affinities for the physiologist. The Irish Museum is arranged for the study of practical geology in stratigraphical order, according to the relative position of rock groups, and I the fossils according to their position in the various strata, the history of which they illustrate. In London the first arrangement is that of the British Museum, the second arrangement is that of the Museum in Jermyn Street, and Sir Roderick Murchison would be as aghast if he were called on to amalgamate his collections with the British Museum, as Professor Owen would be if called on to transfer his to Jermyn Street. Each, in fact, assists and supplements the other, and their very distinctness of arrangement constitutes their value. Lastly, as to the allegation that the Museum has not the public confidence and regard, as stated by Mr. Foot, the best reply to that are the remonstrances addressed to the Treasury, not only by the Irish Executive and by Irish Members, but by all the chief towns in Ireland, where scientific education has been commenced, and its good effects have made themselves felt. He (Mr. Gregory) could state from his own knowledge that this Report had given great alarm in Ireland, and that it had raised, and justly raised, great indignation, and that the composition of such a Commission as this, and such an examination as was pursued, would not for one moment have been tolerated in England or in Scotland. He (Mr. Gregory) protested against this summary manner of depriving Ireland of a high course of scientific instruction. He protested against Dublin, which he once represented, being reduced to the level of a provincial town, and compelled to seek the most elementary instruction at the hands of a clique at Kensington, which had become most odious to England, and wished to extend its offensiveness to Ireland. He rejoiced to find in the late correspondence with the Treasury and the Dublin Society, that the Society had had the wisdom and good taste to ask for the aid it required on the basis of its absolute exigencies, and not on the basis of aggression on a kindred institution. He wished well to the Royal Dublin Society with all his heart. He was convinced that if a fair inquiry was granted, it would be able to substantiate its claims for assistance, and that arrangements might be recommended defining the functions of each institution, putting an end to further temptations at aggression which are so craftily suggested to it, and laying the foundation for a material addition to the intellectual advancement of Ireland.

said, it might tend to curtail unnecessary discussion if, in the absence of his right hon Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he announced at once that the Government were prepared to agree to the Committee for which the hon. Gentleman the Member for Galway (Mr. Gregory) had just moved. He had no doubt that the result of the full inquiry which would take place as to the character of the institutions in question would be to place them in a different position from that which might have followed from the decision of the Commission of 1862. He agreed in very much which had fallen from his hon. Friend, but there were two points in which he was in error. His hon. Friend had repeatedly declared that the Government were desirous of making Dublin a provincial town and of destroying the Museum of Irish Industry by amalgamating it with the Royal Dublin Society. He was totally unaware of any such designs being entertained on the part of the Government in regard to Dublin, and he could state that they had come to no decision whatever with respect to the amalgamation of the two museums. It was true that the Commission of 1862 had in their Report recommended such a proceeding, but the Government had not resolved to adopt it. He owned frankly that the feeling against amalgamation was very strong in Ireland; and that, for his own part, he had never approved of the recommendation of the Commission. From the first he had deemed the constitution of the Commission rather singular, and he thought that the result of the inquiry was very partial; for, while several representatives of the Dublin Society had been examined, no one had been examined on the part of the Museum of Industry It was under that conviction that the Government were now willing to grant the Committee. The objects of the Royal Dublin Society and of the Museum of Irish Industry were quite separate, the former being, as he might say, exhibitional, while the other was intended to give education for industrial purposes. He should be very sorry to see the latter lose its dis- tinctive character, and he hoped the House would never sanction a measure which would deprive the country of the valuable services of so eminent a man as Sir Robert Kane.

said, the statement of the right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth would relieve the question of a great deal of difficulty. He had intended to second the Motion of his hon. Friend the Member for Galway. He felt that one of the institutions in question had not been fairly dealt with. The Government had agreed to contribute towards the erection of a new museum on ground belonging to the Royal Dublin Society, but the building was still in an unfinished condition. The shell had been erected, but all the internal fittings, the glass cases and other arrangements necessary to display the objects and specimens in the possession of the Society were wanting, and the educational means at the command of the Society were thus rendered valueless. In 1861, Captain Donelly, who had been sent over to Dublin by the Government on a mission of inquiry, reported in favour of making a grant to the society, but suggested that the constitution was not so perfect as it might be. Immediately afterwards the society were informed by the Treasury that the introduction of the changes proposed by Captain Donelly might be made a condition of the continuance of the public aid given to the institution. From that day to the present not a farthing had been given to the society, notwithstanding their frequently expressed readiness to assent to every condition which the Government might think fit to impose, and notwithstanding also that the Commission, appointed subsequently to the mission of Captain Donelly, had re-echoed his recommendation that a grant should be made. The Society had shown the utmost readiness to comply with the recommendations of the Commissioners. A special Committee to consider the changes to be made in the constitution and powers of the Council had been appointed; the Society agreed to adopt them; and, if the alterations in the constitution of the society had not been completed, it was only because the society had been requested by the Treasury not to proceed further, as the Government wished to institute an inquiry with respect to the proposal of amalgamation with the Mu- seum of Irish Industry. Within the present year the society had represented to the Treasury that they took no interest in the question of amalgamation, but simply wished for means to enable them to carry out the objects for which the society was founded. It would thus be seen that the society was not in fault. The absolute necessity of this grant to enable the Society to discharge its duties to the public had been admitted on all hands. They had over and over again intimated their willingness to meet the views of the Government with respect to a change in their constitution, but all their applications for pecuniary aid had been refused; because the Government were determined, in order to save a few pounds, to carry out the scheme of the amalgamation with the Museum of Irish Industry. The Dublin Society was made to suffer, in fact, for official indecision and procrastination. No such niggardliness was shown to public institutions in England. During the last few years enormous sums had been given to the British Museum and other establishments of a similar kind, though the private contributions were comparatively inconsiderable. But that was not the case with the Royal Dublin Society, for on one occasion, while the sum voted by Parliament for its support was only £5,500, no less than.£6,198 was collected for it among its own members. When people were found so liberal in supporting such an institution, they had reason to complain of the Government for withholding so small a sum as £10,000, to enable them to put to a proper use the large stores which they had collected for the public benefit.

said, he must complain of the extraordinary conduct of the Government in relation to the matter under discussion. The Royal Commission appointed by the Government had recommended a grant of public money amounting to only £10,000, in order to put a most valuable public institution in efficient working order. Notwithstanding which, the right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth (Sir Robert Peel) had now thrown overboard the Report of that Commission, and had proposed to refer the whole subject to the investigation of a Parliamentary Committee. That, in his opinion, was one of the most extraordinary proceedings in the present extraordinary age of which he had ever heard. Even the right hon. Baronet had said that the con- stitution of the Commission was somewhat curious, but he must remember that the Commissioners were of the Government's own selection. [Sir ROBERT PEEL: I merely referred to the opinion expressed by the hon. Member for Galway.] He certainly understood, as did other hon. Members, the right hon. Baronet to express that as his own opinion. The Commissioners had fully dealt with the subject; they had examined most competent witnesses, such as Professor Haughton and Lord Talbot de Malahide, than whom there was not a more patriotic nobleman in Ireland, and they had deliberately recommended the amalgamation between the Royal Society and the Museum of Industry. He could not understand why the Government should not carry out the recommendation which would enable them to maintain, at the least possible expense, an efficient national institution. And yet it had linen said that there was not evidence to justify the recommendations of the Commissioners Why, Sir Robert Kane himself, the President of the Museum of Irish Industry, had been summoned before the Commission, and in his evidence he made use of the following remarkable words: — "I fully believe if the amalgamation took place tomorrow the public would not lose by the change, and the country would not look upon it unfavourably." [Mr. GREGORY: His whole evidence was against it.] What could be stronger than the words he had quoted? He quite agreed with the right hon. Baronet the Member for the city of Dublin (Sir Edward Grogan), that the proper course to be taken would be for the Government to place on the Estimates for the present year the grant which the Royal Commission had recommended to be given to the Royal Dublin Society. The Royal Dublin Society did not shrink from inquiry; but, in the present proposal, what he complained of was the waste of time and money that would be involved, and the inconsistent conduct of the Government.

said, he must complain of the tone of the hon. Member for Galway (Mr. Gregory) and of the right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth (Sir Robert Peel), for they had both prejudged, to a certain extent, the recommendations of the Committee which it was proposed to appoint, when all they had to do was to make out a case for inquiry. The hon. Member for Galway had hardly spoken of the Royal Dublin Society with the same kindness as he would have shown had he continued a Member for the City. But that society had obtained the approval of successive Governments and Parliaments; it took a range of scientific inquiry more extensive than any other learned body in Europe, and was, to a certain extent, self-supporting. It had obtained a grant of something like £6,000 a year, but it collected more than that sum among its supporters. It had expended £4,700 upon a permanent agricultural hall, and £5,000 upon the building of a museum of natural history, and it only asked the Government for £6,000. It had a school of arts and a school of design, exhibited agricultural shows and gave large rewards, and now it was almost in extremis in consequence of the non-fulfilment of the promises of the Government. The Government had promised that, if the society complied with certain conditions, the grant should be made; they did comply with those conditions, and the Government, notwithstanding, had changed their minds on the most vital point, and had refused the grant. The citizens of Dublin and the people of Ireland demanded of that House that there should be some satisfactory settlement of the question. That a valuable collection of natural history, fine libraries, and a splendid museum of mineralogy should be left in such a state that it was impossible to exhibit them, was a perfect scandal to the Government. If Ireland had its own Parliament, which formerly made grants of £10.000 and £12,000 a year to that institution, the interests of the institution would have been protected, and he thought that the Imperial Government and Parliament ought not to refuse the small assistance now asked of them.

said, he would not enter upon the question of the amalgamation of the two societies, but would simply state that he believed they had been of great advantage to the people of Ireland. The present position of affairs was, however, most deplorable. There were fine collections of natural history scattered about the rooms and covered with dust, and many valuable books of the society had to be stowed away in the rafters for want of fitting accommodation. He hoped no delay would take place on the part of the Government in settling the question.

said, the primary question before the House was, whethe-those two institutions should be amalgamated. The Royal Commission had re- ported in favour of their amalgamation. He had been surprised that the right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth (Sir Robert Peel) should hare said that he quite acknowledged the justice of the argument against that Report of the hon. Member for Galway (Mr. Gregory). The right hon. Baronet appeared only too eager to throw over the recommendations of the Commission appointed by the Government of which he was a Member, and to appeal from their Report to a Select Committee of that House. The Report of the Government's own Commission was distasteful to Dublin, and therefore also to the right hon. Baronet; and no doubt they might constitute a Committee which would reverse that Report, and substitute for it another that would be more palatable. Of course, it was an unpopular measure in any locality to stop up one of two existing avenues to the Exchequer, but the broader interests of the public should not be forgotten in this House. He confessed he was surprised at not seeing the Vice President of the Committee of Privy Council in his place, for that question referred to his Department. But why was that right hon. Gentleman not there? Because he had compromised himself and expressed a strong opinion in favour of the Report of the Commission, and he therefore could hardly have taken the part so boldly taken by the right hon. Baronet. The right hon. Baronet, moreover, proposed to proceed in a somewhat Irish fashion, for he expressed his desire that they should have an inquiry, and then he went on to pronounce by anticipation the most decided opinions as to what the issue of that inquiry should be. He strongly condemned the Report of the Commissioners, by way of an argument for an inquiry into its subject, and professed himself astounded that anybody should recommend the amalgamation of the two societies, which is one of its alternative conclusions. The inquiry was thus to be a sham one, starting with a foregone conclusion. It could not be denied that those institutions were, to a great extent, identical. Neither could it be denied that both institutions had done a great deal of good, but the question was, whether they would not have done a great deal more if they had been amalgamated. If the argument of the hon. Member for Galway were good for anything, then, instead of amalgamating those institutions, the House ought to double or triple their number. He could not agree with the hon. Member that the metropolis of Ireland would be affronted or reduced to the level of a provincial town if those two identical institutions had one staff of officers and one principal by whom they might communicate with the Government, and one sucker to the Treasury. He was sorry the Government had thrown over the Report of their own Commission which had so recently inquired into the subject. All the evidence that could be useful had been taken, and the facts of the case were fully known, and it would be a waste of public money to ask the same witnesses to come to London and give their evidence over again. He feared that the Committee would be called together not for any practical object, but to assist in carrying out a foregone conclusion. The duplication of this institution was a simple and notorious job; the verdict of the Royal Commission was the only one impartial judges could give; and packing a Committee to reverse it would maintain, but in no way justify, a public imposition.

, who had given notice "To call the attention of the House to the working of the new Bankruptcy Act, and to move for a Select Committee to inquire and report thereon," said, the House could hardly be aware of the strong feeling that existed throughout the country with reference to the unhappy working of the new Bankruptcy Act. Since he had given notice of a Motion on the subject, his table had been covered with notes, letters, and communications, all complaining of the operation of the Act, exposing the gross frauds which it encouraged, and making suggestions for its amendment, which might usefully be considered by the Committee for which he moved. The transactions governed by the Bankrupt Act had attained an amount so marvellous as scarcely to be measured by figures. Taking the way in which the imports were turned over and over again in articles manufactured, sold and resold, passing from wholesale dealers to retail dealers, and thence to the consumer, in the daily trade of the kingdom, their aggregate value could scarcely be expressed in hundreds of millions. On the authority of an acute actuary, he believed that the amount of insolvency in this country annually exceeded £50,000,000—a sum approaching the yearly expendi- ture of the nation. That was a tax which fell exclusively on the mercantile classes, who did not, however, ask to be relieved of the burden, though they did ask Parliament not to increase it by such a mischievous legislation as now governed the whole question of debtor and creditor in this country. Only a few of this country's transactions rested immediately on a money basis. Most of them arose out of credits more or less extensive. In a trading country like England one would have supposed it to be the first duty of the Government to make the Law of Bankruptcy more perfect than any other part of the Commercial Code. Instead of that they had a law so inoperative and so prejudicial to the creditor, and often also to the debtor, that traders endeavoured to avoid its operation, as much as possible. Creditors had in many cases submitted to be wronged or robbed by their debtors, rather than avail themselves of the law as it stood prior to 1860–61. In that year the first Law Officer of the Crown gave his attention to this subject, and denounced the cost and delay of the then existing system; he showed how the costs reduced the assets 30 per cent, and how the officers of the court were obstructed in the administration of the law. In 1858 the total amount of money liabilities proved in bankruptcy was £8,200,000. In the same year the amount received by the official assignees was £1,800,000. The amount of the dividends declared was only £980,000, or about 2s. 4½d. in the pound on the proved debts. In 1860, the last year under the old Act, the debts proved were £4,479,000, the amount received by the official assignees £1,250,000, and the amount of dividend declared was only £590,000, or about 2s. 7½d. in the pound. Out of the whole amount received, that was the sum which, after months of delay, found its way into the pockets of the creditors. But that was a happy state of things, compared with what took place under the new Act. By the last Return the total amount received by the official and trade assignees was £650,000. In another direction an enormous increase had taken place under the new Bill. Instead of the number of bankruptcies being moderate, as in 1858, when they were 1,080, or as in 1860, when they were 1,430, they were nearly 10,000—the exact figures showed that 9,663 persons obtained quittance from their pecuniary liabilities, of whom nearly 7,000 paid not one farthing of dividend. With that enormous increase in the number of applications to Courts of Bankruptcy, the total amount of assets realized was only £616,000. The new Bankruptcy Act came into operation in 1861, and in a year nearly 10,000 persons availed themselves of its provisions; and the whole amount of receipts under those bankruptcies was only £600,000. He thought that when those figures were placed side by side, they formed the most complete and satisfactory proof that the Bankruptcy Law had better be eliminated from the statute book altogether than remain in its then form. If the Legislature could produce nothing better than that, it would be well to leave the trade and commerce of the country to shift for themselves. The only thing then a man would have to trust to, would be the character of him with whom he did business. That was really very much the case at present. If the creditor demurred to the terms proposed, the debtor replied, "If you don't accept I will go into the Bankruptcy Court;" and it was remarkable that out of 9,000, who had gone into that court, only 700 had gone in on petition of the creditors. The new Bankruptcy Bill, as brought into the House, had, he thought, very great merits. It was laid on the table, and amended after due consideration. It was a very great improvement on the old Bill. It grappled boldly with the question of the bankrupt's property. It gave every facility for agreements out of court; it had the great merit of clearing the gaols of insolvent debtors; it assimilated proceedings in insolvency and bankruptcy. It proposed a machinery by which all that it proposed would probably have been effected. After much discussion, the Bill left that House and went to another place. There it shared something like the fate of "the man who journeyed from Jerusalem to Jericho," for it returned to them in a very different state. The provisions, which would have tended to render the Bill effective, were cut out of it. The enactment, that there should be a High Court of Bankruptcy, with a Chief Judge in bankruptcy, was gone; whilst, on the other hand, the old machinery was retained, and every facility afforded to debtors to pass through the court without any effective check. The result was soon shown, for whilst in 1858 the total number of insolvents and bankrupts was 4,580, and in 1860 it was 4,250, the number in the year following the passing of the Bill was nearly 10,000. The Bill also originally proposed to deal very effectively with trust deeds, but nothing could be more defective than the provisions as they now stood. The mode of operation was this:—The debtor finding it to his advantage to come to some reckoning with his creditors, prepared a list of what he was pleased to call his debts and assets, placed the matter in the hands of a solicitor, telling him that certain persons who were set down as creditors had agreed to accept a composition of, say five shillings in the pound. It frequently happened that the persons so designated were sufficient in number and amount to bind the other creditors; and he (Mr. Moffatt) had been assured by commercial men that they had, under such circumstances, felt compelled to accept the composition, although their conviction was that the debts of the majority were mainly fictitious, and though it was clear that, at all events, they were not trade debts; in such cases all that could be done was for a creditor to insist on bankruptcy; but probably the whole assets were only £80 or £100, whilst the very initiation of proceedings in bankruptcy would cost £30, a cost to which the creditor might become personally liable, and for which risk he could ensure no corresponding advantage. It might be said that the creditors had a remedy, because the 197th section provided, that if it could be proved that a single false debt were inserted the whole arrangement was null; but the Commissioners, instead of examining the insolvent upon that matter, cast upon the creditors the onus of proof, and this made the enactment a sham and a delusion. In reference to compositions, the practice formerly was for the debtor to notify his difficulty to his creditors, and they appointed a solicitor to look into the matter and say whether there ought to be a bankruptcy or not; but now the course was, for the firm that was under the necessity of stopping payment to place their affairs in the hands of a friendly accountant, or a still more friendly solicitor, who signified to the creditors that he had their affairs in hand. The creditors were summoned, the accountant or solicitor made a statement for those who employed him. Having looked into the affairs, he assures the creditors, "though there has been misfortune, and perhaps indiscretion, there it is, and the best thing that can be done is to accept the composition of 5s. 10d.; if they don't, the thing must inevitably go into bankruptcy." If a demur be made, he says he will look again into the case: he does; the creditors think the matter over, and in the end the composition is accepted. These things were increasing, and would continue to increase unless the law put a stop to them. Dishonest debtors were reaping the benefit of the wonderful facility which the law now gave them. He should, then, like to know from the Attorney General, whether he was prepared to approve such a state of things, or whether, on the contrary, he agreed with him, that the law imperatively required inquiry and amendment? He believed they could scarcely overrate the importance of this subject to the trade, industry, commerce, and character of the country. The present law operated not only against creditors, but against honest debtors. When the law was found to give no security, it operated to limit the extent of credit. His belief was that the measure had been a thorough failure. It required entire re-organization, and it was the duty of the Government to take the initiative at the earliest opportunity. He moved the appointment of a Select Committee to inquire and report on the subject.

said, that in seconding the Motion, he wished to raise no objection to the principle of the Act of 1861, which he thought was a good one; but he did object to the mode in which the Act had been administered. Returns of the business in Bankruptcy during two years ending October 11, 1863, had been laid before the House, from which it appeared that 18,133 persons had become bankrupt, and of this number only 1,546, or 8½ per cent, had paid dividends. Of the 18,133 only 1,442 were made bankrupts by their creditors, while the remainder went to the court of their own motion. Upon looking to ascertain what became of these bankrupts, he found, that of the gross number he had mentioned, 12,844 had had their discharges granted, 913 or 5 per cent, had their discharges suspended, and only in 276 cases or 1½ per cent, were the discharges refused. Comparing these figures with the calculations made by the Attorney General in introducing the Bill of 1861, it was clear that, under the old system, certificates were refused to a greater extent than discharges were now withheld from bankrupts. The law, too, as at present administered, would not, unfortunately, reach many of the dishonest debtors. Every Commissioner exercised a separate judgment, and there was no fixed rule by which dishonesty could be detected, or, if detested, punished. That was not, however, the only evil, for the assets had considerably diminished. It was an extraordinary thing that out of the 18,133 who had passed through the Bankruptcy Court, 699 only had paid dividends under half-a-crown in the pound, 456 had contrived to pay dividends under 5s., and 212 under 7s. 6d., making a total of 1,367 out of the 1,546 to whom he had previously alluded. In the course of two years, five only had paid 20s, in the pound. The Act had also increased the expenses instead of diminishing them, for the charges at the court in the two years amounted to £183,214 8s. 8d. In that sum was included £4,933 paid to the registrars of the county courts, so that the cost of administering the Bankruptcy Law in this country was £178,281 8s. 8d. During the same period the retiring annuities and compensations had amounted to £45,325 10s. 6d., making a total of £224,000, or equal to a sixth of the value of all the bankrupts' and insolvents' estates in England and Wales. On the other hand, the figures he had cited had no reference to the legal, auctioneers', or other charges connected with the ordinary administration of a bankrupt's estate. In addition to these financial defects, the present system of audit was altogether inefficient. It was a matter of public notoriety that not long since one of the official assignees was a defaulter to the extent of several thousand pounds. As he understood the case, the excuse of the official assignee was that his accounts had not been properly audited by his Commissioner. He did not consider that that was an excuse which could be entertained for a moment for making away with the property of creditors, although it might serve to show that the Commissioner had not performed his duty. The instance he had alluded to, however, was not a solitary one, nor was it a solitary case in which the accounts had not been audited. There was no correct or satisfactory system of auditing Bankruptcy accounts in practice in this country, and it would be advisable if auditing were properly carried out on some system similar to that employed in Scotland, where an officer, called an accountant in Bankruptcy, not only examined every account, but also ascertained how much had been collected from the estate, and the cause why any property or debts was outstanding, and for this duty he and his clerks received £1,500 a year. In England there existed nothing of the kind, for the duty of looking after the estate was not confided to any one. If a better system were instituted, they would not hear of the defalcations of creditors' assignees, or of official assignees. He, therefore, cordially seconded the Motion, in the hope that some advantage might accrue from an alteration of the present system of the Bankruptcy Law in its administration, and that it might better enable creditors to obtain that to which they were justly entitled.

said, though it was not possible to put the Motion to the House, he could assure them that the Government felt that the subject brought forward by the hon. Member was one which deserved the fullest and most searching inquiry. It was the earnest desire of the Lord Chancellor that the bankruptcy system should be thoroughly investigated and understood by the country, and that with the assistance of the House its working might be made as perfect as possible. The Act referred to by the hon. Gentleman contained several useful provisions, and with respect to some of them he believed that it had undoubtedly succeeded, while with respect to some of the others it could not be denied that its effect had not been so satisfactory as was desirable. The House would remember that one most important step in advance was effected by the Bill be referred to the abolition of the distinction between bankruptcy and insolvency. That had been done once and for ever, and he had no hesitation in saying that if nothing else had been effected by the Act, that would still have been an important contribution to the cause of legal advancement. The remarkable figures quoted by the hon. Gentleman were, in the main, attributable to the fact of their having included among the bankrupts those who were formerly classed under the head of insolvents, and also to the fact that prolonged imprisonment for debt was done away with. He regarded as one of the chief benefits of the Act the opportunity it afforded a man of clearing himself in the world and getting rid of the load of debt hanging upon his shoulders. Although a man might not be able to satisfy the demands of his creditors, he believed it to be a benefit to society for him to have the means at his disposal of getting free in the world, and endeavouring for the future to earn his title to a name for honesty. He did not, therefore, look either with alarm or dissatisfaction upon the number of persons who had taken advantage of the Act without paying any dividend. The next point aimed at by the Act was to get rid of oppressive and unnecessary imprisonment of small debtors for debt. As the House was aware, under the provisions of that statute, the gaols were visited every fort night, and their inmates if confined for debt were compulsorily adjudged bankrupts, and then released. The result of that provision was that the Queen's prison had been entirely closed, and that imprisonment for debt was now all but abolished. The Lord Chancellor had in view an amendment of the law for the purpose of enabling some debtors to become bankrupts formâ pauperis without the necessity of going to prison, a plan which he believed many of them at present adopted for that purpose. Another object sought to be attained was the suitable regulation of estates administered under trust deeds: for in many instances the creditors as well as the debtors had no desire to incur too much publicity in respect to their business transactions. His hon. Friend was not satisfied with the operation of that portion of the Act, but he (the Attorney General) doubted whether the unsatisfactory trust deeds which had of late years become prevalent were fairly attributable to the operation of the law. He thought the mercantile community had a great deal to answer for in that respect. The object of the Act was to bring all such transactions under the cognizance of the court; and, in this respect also, if further improvements might still be made, a valuable step had been taken, and the Act might fairly be stated lo have been successful. The number of these deeds had been continually increasing; and if it happened, as it sometimes did, that persons not really creditors signed deeds, or signed them for amounts not really due to them, the clauses in the Act bearing on that point furnished easy means of bringing those frauds under the notice of the Court. With regard to the discharge of bankrupts, it appeared that the provisions on the subject had on the whole worked well. But in two other respects he admitted that the Act seemed to be deficient. For one of the changes he referred to—the system of administering the bankrupt's estates by trade assignees instead of by official assignees—the mercantile community were mainly responsible. They had desired that the management of the property should be left in their hands, on the ground that they could get in the assets better and more cheaply than was done before. But hitherto that change had not worked well; and, though he was far from saying that they ought to return to the old system of official assignees without any improvement, inasmuch as the want of an efficient audit was a blot upon that system, experience did not encourage them to persevere with the present plan of putting the whole collection of the assets into the hands of creditors' assignees. In the first place, he believed it was shown that assets were not better got in, that the amounts were not greater, and that the expenses of collection were not diminished. On the contrary, the ordinary operation was this:—A creditor's assignee was chosen, and he at once appointed a solicitor to do, with less responsibility and less security, and at greater cost, business which the official assignee before did better. He hoped that the inquiry of the Committee, to the appointment of which the Government did not object, would assist them in the correction of this evil. Another great feature originally contemplated in the Act of 1861, and one without which, as was pointed out at the time, it became nugatory to the public and was deprived of its fair chance of success, was the appointment of a chief Judge in bankruptcy. One of his first duties as Law Officer of the Crown was to endeavour to persuade that House to adhere to its decision in favour of a chief Judge, against the opinion of the House of Lords. He then said, "You are cutting off the head of the Bill; you are taking out the main spring of the machine, and the system cannot be expected to work well if you deprive it of its controlling and superintending power." The system of Commissioners had been found to work in a most unsatisfactory manner. The expense of that system was very great, and though he did not like to make any personal allusions, and though, no doubt, all the Commissioners intended to discharge their duties satisfactorily, the number who were able to discharge their duties with efficiency was by no means great, from health, age, and otherwise. The whole system wanted fresh blood infused into it; and, with all the imperfections in this measure—imperfections inseparable from a new machinery—if there had been an efficient and vigorous mind, addressing itself to the improvement and amendment of the administration in bankruptcy centrally in London, he believed that by that time we should have been deriving from the new Act benefits which everybody would be able to appreciate. Unfortunately, the country was deprived of that chance, and that had contributed materially to the disappointment of its expectations. He believed that if the Committee extended its inquiry into the matter they would find it cheaper and better for the country to assimilate the administration in bankruptcy to the administration of deceased person's estates in Chancery; and if even it were necessary to go to greater expense than could be involved in the appointment of one superior Judge (though one Judge would, he believed, be all that was necessary), still, in dispensing with, or greatly reducing the present enormous staff of Commissioners and Registrars throughout the country, there would be a saving of money along with a gain of real efficiency. The Lord Chancellor, as the author of the Act of 1861, was most desirous of seeing all the evils corrected which were complained of, and quite acceded to the desire for inquiry. His Lordship was most sensible that the expenses of bankruptcy administration were intolerably great, and ought to be diminished. These expenses arose from various causes. Among other things required was a greatly reduced scale of costs for attorneys and solicitors, and his Lordship had been directing his attention to that subject. No vote could be taken now upon the appointment of the Committee, but the Government would be glad to see it appointed at some future time.

said, that having been a strong supporter of the Bill of 1861, he was sorry that it had not worked more satisfactorily. But he entirely agreed with the Attorney General that the failure was mainly owing to the powers given to the creditors' assignee and the non-appointment of a chief Judge. His own opinion was so strong, that when the House of Lords declined to sanction the appointment of a chief Judge, he had recommended the Lord Chancellor to abandon the Bill altogether, rather than fail to secure the coherence and the one uniform system which a chief Judge alone could give, and which alone could make the Act successful. It was now high time the House should take the matter in hand, and revert to the principle sanctioned by it in 1861, but unfortunately rejected by the other House. He was glad to have a Committee, for the principle of the Bill was sound, and the machinery only was defective.

said, he rose to call the attention of Mr. Attorney General to—

"A rule obtained for a Commission to examine the Pacha of Egypt and other witnesses at Cairo, to obtain evidence against the Steam Rams detained at Birkenhead; and to ask how long this investigation is likely to take, and the probable expense of it: Whether the trial of the Birkenhead iron-clads will be postponed from May next, until this information be obtained: And, why this rule was not applied for when the vessels were first detained?"

He believed the Foreign Enlistment Act was framed to prevent armed ships from leaving our ports with the intention of taking part in a war against belligerents in amity with England. The question was intimately connected with the question of neutral and belligerent rights, and of these rights he could not give a better definition than was contained in a letter from Earl Russell to Lord Lyons, dated March 27, 1863. Now, Earl Russell wrote to Lord Lyons—

"I said to Mr. Adams that the most stringent orders had been given long ago to watch the proceedings of those who might be suspected of fitting out vessels of war for Confederate purposes; that if there were six vessels, as it was alleged, fitting out in British ports for such purposes, let evidence be forthcoming, and the Government would not hesitate to stop the vessels, and to bring the offenders before a court of justice; and that Mr. Adams was no doubt aware that the Government must proceed according to the regular process of law, and upon sworn testimony."

Now, although the Foreign Enlistment Act was framed in good faith, it was certainly not intended that the Government of the neutral should be bound to issue a roving Commission for the purpose of finding evidence to convict those who were connected with the supposed war vessel; but as Earl Russell expressed it, the evidence was to be forthcoming upon which the Government was to act in the matter. The evidence, in short, was to be brought before the neutral. Earl Russell wrote to Mr. Adams on the 14th of September—

"When the United States' Government assumes to hold the Government of Great Britain responsible for the captures made by vessels which may be fitted out as vessels of war in a foreign port, I have to observe that such pretensions are entirely at variance with the principles of international law, and with the decision of American Courts of the highest authority; and I have only, in conclusion, to express a hope that you may not be instructed again to put forward claims which Her Majesty's Government cannot admit to be founded on any grounds of law or justice."

It appeared to him that before the neutral Government could legally seize a ship on any grounds whatever, it was for the Government asking for the seizure to prove that the vessel was built, fitted out, and intended for the purpose of taking part in the war with a belligerent State. He thought it must be admitted that the onus probandi rested with the Government making the claim, and not with the neutral Government; but in the case of the iron-clad vessels there could not be any pretence for asserting that they had been built for any underhand purpose, because the Messrs. Laird had published a correspondence between them and Her Majesty's Government, ranging over a considerable period, and giving the Government the fullest information it was possible to give, affording them free access to the vessels whenever it was required, and pledging the Messrs. Laird, as mercantile men of honour, station, and repute, that no advantage should be taken of the Government. The Messrs. Laird had at all times faithfully performed that promise; and therefore he could not think they could be accused of having in any way misled the Government. A letter was written by the Secretary of the Treasury to those gentlemen on the 7th of October, which really was somewhat of a curiosity in literary correspondence. It stated—

"Gentlemen,—Referring to your ready acceptance of the offer of Her Majesty's Government to prevent any attempt at the forcible abduction of your property, the iron-clad vessel now nearly completed at Birkenhead, and understanding that the trial trip which has been the subject of former correspondence has been abandoned, I am directed by the Lords Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury to acquaint you that, from information which has been received, it has become necessary to take additional means for preventing any such attempt."

The House would observe that in the latter part of the letter a supposition was expressed that steps might be taken which the former part stated to have been abandoned. On the 1st of September, Earl Russell wrote to Mr. Adams—

"In the first place, Her Majesty's Government are advised that the information contained in the depositions is in great measure mere hearsay evidence, and generally that it is not such as to show the intent or purpose necessary to make the building or fitting out of these vessels illegal under the Foreign Enlistment Act. Secondly, it has been stated to Her Majesty's Government at one time, that these vessels have been built for Frenchmen, and at another that they belonged to the Viceroy of Egypt, and that they were not intended for the so-called Confederate States. It is true that in your letter of the 25th of July you maintain that this statement as regards French ownership is a pretence, but the inquiries set on foot by Her Majesty's Government have failed to show that it is without foundation. Whatever suspicion may be entertained by the United States' Consul at Liverpool as to the ultimate destination of these vessels, the fact remains that M. Bravay, a French merchant, residing at Paris, who is represented to be the person upon whose orders these ships have been built, has personally appeared, and has acted in that character at Liverpool. There is no legal evidence against M. Bravay's claim, nor anything to affect him with any illegal act or purpose; and the responsible agent of the Customs at Liverpool affirms his belief that these vessels have not been built for the Confederates. Under these circumstances, and having regard to the entire insufficiency of the depositions to prove any infraction of the law, Her Majesty's Government are advised that they cannot interfere in any way with these vessels."

Therefore, on the 1st of September, Her Majesty's Government were of opinion that, whatever suspicion might be entertained by the Government of the United States, the fact remained that a French merchant had ordered those vessels. He wanted to prove that, from the beginning to the end of this affair, Mr. Laird had stated that M. Bravay had ordered those vessels, and that as far as they were concerned the transaction was a bonâ fide one. He would show that by the despatches of the noble Earl the Secretary for Foreign Affairs, as also by a speech of the noble Lord at the head of the Government. He also contended that if there was any justification for the seizure in the first instance, that justification was still the same; and it was both unfair and prejudicial to the interests of commerce that delays should take place to obtain information in foreign countries where that information could not have anything to do with the question, and could not prove anything that might be alleged against those ships. On the 5th of September Mr. Adams, in an angry tone, wrote—

"In my belief, it is impossible that any nation retaining a proper degree of self-respect could tamely submit to a continuance of relations so utterly deficient in reciprocity. I have no idea that Great Britain would do so for a moment."

On the 11th of September, Earl Russell observed—

"But law, as you are well aware, is enforced here as in the United States, by independent Courts of Justice, which will not admit assertion for proof, nor conjecture for certainty.… With respect to the Egyptian Government, it was only on the 5th instant that Her Majesty's Government received a despatch from Mr. Colquhoun, Her Majesty's Consul General in Egypt, which is conclusive on the subject."

He should like to ask the Attorney General what had taken place since the 11th of September to render it desirable that a roving Commission should be sent to seek evidence in Egypt. On the 27th of October, after some more angry correspondence had taken place between Mr. Adams and the Foreign Office, the cupola ships were detained; and many months after a rule was obtained to issue a Commission to examine the Pasha of Egypt and other witnesses to find evidence against those vessels. On the 23rd of July, 1863, on the question that the Appropriation Bill do pass, the noble Lord at the head of the Government said—

"Now, what is the duty of a neutral in regard to two belligerents, and what are the rights of neutrals? The American Government have laid down the position for themselves, because they have declared that a neutral is at liberty to furnish a belligerent with anything that the belligerent may choose to buy, whether it be ships, arms, or anything else. I cannot, in the abstract, concur with my hon. Friend in thinking there is any distinction in principle between muskets, gunpowder, bullets, and cannon on the one side, and ships on the other. Those are things by which war is carried on, and you are equally assisting belligerents by supplying them with muskets, cannon, and ammunition as you are by furnishing them with ships that are to operate in war."

If it was the duty of a neutral to send a roving Commission to Egypt to obtain evidence, one would suppose it was their duty to act when there could be no difficulty in obtaining evidence at home that arms, cannon, and men were shipped for a belligerent. It appeared from a correspondence between Mr. Hammond, of the Foreign Office, and Mr. Hamilton, of the Treasury, that the Collector of Customs at Liverpool had stated to Messrs. Klengender and Co. that, if certain fort guns which they intended to ship on board the Gibraltar were for the Federal Government no obstacle would be placed in the way, and that such shipments to New York were very common. It appeared from the explanation given by Mr. Hamilton, that the collector referred to guns shipped as merchandise, and not as part of an armament of a vessel-of-war, so that, according to the policy of Her Majesty's Government, guns might be shipped as merchandise to New York—and were commonly—but that if the guns were intended for the Confederates, they would be contraband, and liable to seizure. So common was this shipment of guns and ammunition to the Federal States become, that it was only the other day that he had read an account of how the Germania was detained at Southampton for some time, shipping some heavy siege guns from the Low Moor Ironworks. If it was the duty of the Government to send out roving Commissioners to seek for evidence against the Confederate States, he should like to hear the Attorney General's idea of neutrality as regarded the Federals. As the hon. and learned Gentleman was so anxious to strain the law in all its fulness, strength, and majesty against the Confederates, he (Sir Lawrence Palk) should like to know upon what principle of justice and of law the permission was given to the Federals to ship guns and ammunition in the broad light of day? So long as the policy of England was plain, straightforward, and honest, the people would support the Government in sustaining neutrality, as long as it appeared conducive to the interests of the country. But he believed that nothing would be so unpopular or so distasteful to the country as to see a different measure of justice dealt out to the two belligerent parties. If he had a feeling for one more than another it was towards the Confederates, who were fighting for liberty, while the Federals were fighting to enslave them; but that was merely a matter of feeling, and had nothing to do with the merits of the case. He begged the noble Lord to look around him, and to observe where his foreign policy was leading him. He supported freedom where it cost nothing, but when his assistance was most wanted he deserted his friends, as he had deserted Poland. The Government professed to hate treachery, and to dislike the company of those who consorted with conspirators, but it was but the other day that the friend of Mazzini had been a member of the Government. They had given advice to Denmark on all occasions, and led her to believe that she would receive from us actual co-operation; but in the hour of danger the Government had deserted her, as they had deserted Poland. The consequence was that at that moment England had not an ally in the world, and all nations were anxious to avoid her friendship. The English spirit of this nation was the only thing left for them to insult, but he was perfectly convinced, that if the partiality to which he had referred were continued, the English people would arise as one man, and scatter the Government and their policy to the winds.

As I have already spoken, I will promise not to make a speech in answering the hon. Baronet.

It is only by the express permission of the House that the hon. and learned Gentleman can again address it, ["Go on!" "Go on!"]

I only thought of giving a simple answer to the question of the hon. Baronet, for I had no idea he would take so wide a circuit over all human affairs. My answer to him is that we did not send out a roving Commission, but having certain evidence—

said, he rose to order. If the Attorney General by the rules of the House could not fully answer his questions, he would rather take another opportunity of raising the question.

By the indulgence of the House, the Attorney General was replying to the hon. Baronet.

I will simply reply to the hon. Baronet's questions. With regard to his first question, I have to say that, of course, my attention has been called to a step which has been taken under my advice. The hon. Baronet seems to think that the Commission is a roving Commission to discover evidence. That probably arises from the fact that he does not understand the nature of these proceedings. There are persons in Egypt who, we believe, are able and willing to be witnesses for the Crown. Of course, we know perfectly well already what their evidence is, and when we got the Commission we were obliged to give particulars, and we gave a pretty full note to the other side. The hon. Baronet asks how long the investigation will take, and my answer to that is that the Commission is returnable on the 10th of May, which is earlier than the earliest day on which the trial could take place. Therefore, if the arrangements of the Court will permit of the trial taking place after next Easter Term, we shall be perfectly ready, and the Commission will cause no obstacle or delay. As to the expense of the proceedings, I really cannot undertake to say. The Crown has taken the least expensive mode of proceeding. A single Commissioner has been sent out—a consul from a neighbouring country. Of course, if the other side go to more expense, that is a voluntary action on their part. As to why we did not apply for a rule when the vessels were first detained, my answer is that we were not ready to proceed to trial at an earlier period than we are actually now proceeding to trial; and to apply for a rule earlier would have been unnecessary and useless.

said, he rose to call the attention of the House to a telegraphic despatch which appeared in The Times newspaper of the 6th instant, relative to the bombardment of Sönderborg by the Prussians without previous intimation, and to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, If Her Majesty's Government have received information whether the account given in that despatch is substantially correct; and, if so, what steps have been taken by Her Majesty's Government to recall the Prussian Government to a sense of the necessity of carrying on war in accordance with the usages of civilized nations? He should endeavour to disassociate the question of the bombardment, to which his question referred, as far as possible from that of the war which had unfortunately broken out between the allied Powers and Denmark. So far as the war was concerned, he did not wish, on the present occasion, to come forward as the advocate of one side or the other, further than to say, that, in his opinion, the Danes by not fulfilling the conditions of the Treaty of 1852 gave the Prussians the first cause of quarrel. At the same time, he could not help thinking that the demands of the Prussians on Denmark had been prosecuted in a violent and unjustifiable manner—a view of the case in which he was supported by no less an authority than that of the First Lord of the Treasury. He entertained no doubt that the existing feeling throughout the country was one of sympathy with the Danes, and detestation of the conduct of the Prussians. Indeed, he believed the feeling of the country would have been much more strongly expressed on the subject had it not been for the assurances of the noble Lord, as well as those of the Secretary for Foreign Affairs, taken in conjunction with the near relations which existed between the Prussian Court and the Royal family of this country. Had not the country thought that the arbitrary course of Prussia would have been stayed by those considerations and the brave words of the noble Lord, there would have undoubtedly been a stronger feeling of sym- pathy with the Danes. As it happened, however, the noble Lord had hardly condemned the conduct of Prussia when it became more outrageous and violent; and this state of things had been going on so long, that a strong feeling was arising throughout the country in favour of taking a more decided part in favour of the Danes. There had been a good deal said indeed, of late, about a Conference; but, for his own part, he did not much believe that it tended to good results. The country generally, however, entertained the hope, that if the great Powers were to enter into a Conference with the avowed desire of peace, the Prussians would in all probability become more amenable to the ordinary usages of civilized nations. That expectation had now been very rudely dispelled by a telegram which had appeared in The Times newspaper of the 6th of April, which was dated Ulkebol, April 4, and which came from the special correspondent of that paper, whose information was usually correct, and to which, therefore, the country at large attached great importance. The telegram to which he alluded described such a state of proceedings as had never been, he thought, laid before the House, and it was to the following effect—

"The Prussians have bombarded Sonderborg for forty-eight hours without any previous intimation. Eighty townspeople, women, and children, have been killed or wounded. Fifteen hundred shells have been thrown into the town, which is deserted. The cannonade suddenly and completely ceased this morning; it has, however, recommenced. The Danish position is uninjured."

Now, he did not know that an account of so dastardly an outrage—for he could call it by no other name—had ever been read in that House before; an outrage perpetrated by one civilized nation upon another, with whom they were not even at war, but whom they had professed to have taken under their protection. After that outrage, he would like to know, if the opinion of the people of Sönderborg could be taken, whether they would prefer to be under the dominion of the Prussians to that of the Danes. The concluding portion of the telegram was very significant, for it stated that the Danish position was uninjured, which showed that the attack could not have been made for any military purpose. The destruction of the town, in fact, could neither be looked upon as a military operation nor as the result of accident, because the Danish position, so far as he could make out from the map, was about two miles from the town of Sönderborg. Now, he thought that both our interests and our honour required that we should enter a most energetic protest against the conduct of a war in the manner to which he had drawn the attention of the House. We had a vast seaboard, and it was most assuredly our interest to recall to the mind of other countries the necessity of waging war in accordance with the usage of civilized nations. If we were not prepared to accept that principle, France or any other nation with which we happened to have a quarrel might send a fleet to bombard Brighton or any other of our towns which was exposed. Our honour was also to some extent involved. Our Government had made representations to the Danes which they had accepted and acted upon, and we were therefore bound to protect them against utter destruction. The allies had invaded Jutland upon one pretext, and, as they would never want a stick to beat a dog, they would probably soon find another, and cross over and attack the other Danish provinces. It was difficult to say what we ought to do. No man was more anxious to avoid war than he was; but he desired to see some measures adopted to prevent the rest of Denmark being swallowed up as Schleswig and Holstein had been. It was vain to hope that we should go to war to recover those Duchies. He supposed that Prussia meant to keep them for herself, but he should be sorry to see the rest of Denmark fall into the clutches of that unprincipled Power. What was the use of our Ambassador at Berlin? The noble Lord at the head of the Government had condemned the conduct of the Prussians in the strongest language, and they could not doubt that his condemnation was followed by remonstrances addressed to the Ministry at Berlin. If our remonstrances, instead of doing good, operated directly to the contrary, we had better recall our Ambassador, and with all his heart he wished that such a step might be taken. He should also like to see a portion of our fleet sent to the Baltic to help the Danes to protect their territory. He was for peace, but that would not be an act of war. We were told that Prussia was not at war with Denmark, she was only carrying out a little friendly intervention; and if that was so, it certainly could not be art act of war on our part to send a fleet to assist the Danes to protect their territory against an uncalled-for aggression without the excuse of war. He did not see how any one could say that that would be an act of war. At all events, it would not be half so hostile a measure as the invasion of the Danish territory by the Prussians. It was high time that the question was brought before the House, and he, for one, should be prepared to back the Government in any measures however strong to prevent the further decimation of the unfortunate Danes.

Sir, when I first read the notice of the very proper question which has been put by my hon. Friend, I had no idea that it was about to lead to such warlike results. The question is a natural one for a Member of the House of Commons to put with reference to what appears to be an outrage on humanity, and I had hoped that my hon. Friend, although he was somewhat confused in his argument, because he began by saying that he was against Denmark, but that, somehow or other, he was opposed to the Prussians.

explained that he had said that he thought Denmark was wrong in the first instance—in the first quarrel—but that the conduct of Prussia was unjustifiable.

I was under the impression that the hon. Gentleman would have contented himself with a simple protest; but, like the lion lashing himself into a fury with his own tail, he has imitated the example which was set him in another place, to the horror of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who was thinking of his surplus, which we disposed of, or shall dispose of, I hope, last night [Laughter]—or shall dispose of on a future evening; though I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman's speech last night would have convinced any one that we might have passed the Budget the same evening. But what was my astonishment to hear the hon. Gentleman, who had announced himself as a Dane, calmly propose that we should send our fleet to the Baltic for the protection of Denmark, without any discussion whatever having taken place in this House. The House will recollect that at the meeting of Parliament—and I must beg the attention of the junior Lord of the Treasury, the hon. and gallant Member for Kidderminster (Colonel White), who has lately addressed his constituents upon this question, and who has such confidence in her Majesty's Government — at the meeting of Parliament there was no sub- ject of such absorbing interest as the complication of affairs in the North of Europe. Various skirmishes occurred upon this subject, and enormous interest was taken in it by the leaders of the great party that I see opposite. But what has happened since? The House sat for six weeks, and no opinion whatever was expressed as to the policy of Her Majesty's Government; and to this day the House is liable to be led away by the raw head and bloody bones statements made by my hon. Friend. I contend that it is positively necessary that this question should be examined fully and calmly by this House in the face of the country. At first it was said, and said with great truth, that it was impossible to discuss this Dano-German question in the absence of the papers hearing upon it. It was complained that those papers were most unaccountably delayed. I have since seen the reason, and am able to give an explanation of that. Negotiations having been going on for months, it was not too much to expect that at the meeting of Parliament papers would have been immediately laid upon the table of this House. No such course was adopted by Her Majesty's Government. After a considerable interval had elapsed, a bulky volume was produced—Nos. I, 2, 3, and 4; but when a debate was about to take place upon those interesting papers, the noble Lord interposed with that specious plea which we so often hear from the Treasury Bench, of its being prejudicial to the interests of the country—and for "country," we may sometimes read "Ministry." The noble Lord deprecated any discussion, and announced to the House that a Conference—in which even the hon. Gentleman who has so much confidence in the noble Lord has no confidence—was about to take place upon the subject. Well, Sir, I yielded to the appeal of the noble Lord. On the re-assembling of Parliament after the holydays, other papers were laid upon the table—volume No. 5. These papers have issued from the press like the novel of Sir Charles Grandison, which was published in separate volumes. They are as lengthy, and certainly, on the whole, I may say as dull. But on reading No. 5 I perfectly acquit the Government. I quite understand the reasons for the delay in presenting the previous volumes. In fact, I will go further. I think the hon. Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs deserves great credit for his assiduity in revising, suppressing, and clipping these papers into a state in which they shall be fit for the Parliamentary mind. I believe there never was an instance where so many important papers have been subjected to such a clipping process as in this Dano-German correspondence. All the important documents—and they must have caused my hon. Friend a great deal of trouble—have been what is vulgarly called "through the mill," until they assume the shape of "elegant extracts." Well, Sir, and what is the present position of this matter? These papers strongly remind one of the character of the month which has just passed. The correspondence in Parts 1, 2, 3, and 4 was conducted by the Foreign Office with leonine vigour; No. 5, Sir, has concluded with most lamblike bleating. In studying what I may call the early style of the Foreign Office, I was impressed with fear lest the Government, in their hysteric fussiness and irritating industry in rending lectures to Germany and the Great Powers generally, might anticipate the suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, and immediately send a fleet to the Baltic. Luckily, No. 5 has been produced, and I am relieved, at least, of that anxiety; for in those papers their new style is perceptible, and I must say that a more striking contrast to the first four volumes, or a more remarkable avidity for feasting on humble pie, has never been displayed by any Government or any Ministry which has swayed the foreign destinies of this country. Let the House, before I put the question I am about to do, calmly consider the matter, and not be led away by the exciting statement of my hon. Friend; but let the House, I say, calmly consider what have been the results, I will not say of our policy, because it would be an affront to the word, but of our bungling diplomacy. We are told that we are to have a Conference, and the extraordinary thing is that, directly this Conference is announced, the war, which had hitherto languished, has became most sanguinary; so much so that in the same telegram announcing that M. Quaade and another Danish Minister are about to start to attend the Conference, the intelligence is continued that Sönderborg has very nearly been laid in ashes. The immediate effect of the approaching Congress upon the North of Europe, which we seek by its means to pacify, has been to lead the Prussians to redouble their attacks, adding immensely to the slaughter. Let us go a little further, and se6 what this Conference is. We are told that the attendance of all the signataries to that remarkable Treaty of 1852 has been promised; and, what is more, that a Plenipotentiary of the German Diet will attend—a Power, by-the-by, which has been treated by the Government of the noble Lord heretofore very much in the light of a poor relation—that is to say, not taken into account at all. Suddenly—and let the House mark that it was at the suggestion of the French Government, which declined, if there be any truth in the papers contained in No. 5, to be present without a plenipotentiary from the Diet attended—we have a statement that a plenipotentiary from the German Diet was also invited. Whether that plenipotentiary will attend or not we do not know exactly, but From the nature of the German Diet I think that we can foresee that, whatever day the noble Lord has named for his Conference, the German Diet, by reason of their sluggish mode of proceeding, will not be in a position to send an answer to the noble Lord's invitation for some weeks, if not for some months later. They will have to refer the matter to the 37 States which they represent; these will refer it back again, and the subject will then be entertained by a Select Committee; so that at the end of the Session, probably, the noble Lord will have an answer from the German Diet. The French Minister, with more foresight than our own, suggests that the protocol might be left open for the German plenipotentiary; and that, perhaps, might be the best course to pursue. But suppose the Conference meets, I want the House calmly to consider what it is to do. It appears to me that this Conference is nothing more nor less than a means of escape for Her Majesty's Ministers from their bungling proceedings and uncalled-for meddling in the North of Europe. It is, in fact, a political pic-nic given by the noble Lord, to which every country will be allowed to bring its basket of suggestions, with no pi`ce de resistance provided in the shape of a basis, but with perfect freedom—and indeed agreement—on the part of each one present to differ upon every point from everybody else. All this time, when the noble Lord is sending out his general invitations for an "At home" on a certain day—I want to know what the Foreign Office are about to do with the London Treaty of May 8,1852? We hear a great deal about this treaty in the early style of the Foreign Office; but by some extraordinary transmutation in No. 5, as laid upon the table of the House, the Treaty of 1852 has vanished altogether from the consideration of Her Majesty's Government. So thoroughly is this the case, that having put upon the paper a Motion for the 19th instant, relating to the Treaty of 1852, I now am seriously at a loss to know whether that treaty any longer applies to the treatment of this Dano-German question. It is really a curious study to trace what is the main thought running through the mind of Her Majesty's Government in their handling of this subject. In their place in Parliament I find them speaking what my hon. Friend called brave big words of menace to Germany, and clinging with desperate tenacity to what I call that ill-omened, unfortunate, and unjust Treaty of 1852; a treaty which I shall prove was made at the instigation of Russia, which compromised the interests of Denmark, and which, I think, compromised the honour of this country, in ignoring the liberties and rights of a free people. That treaty, however, as I will endeavour to prove, has been entirely laid aside. I will not inflict upon the House a passage from the blue-book, but if they will turn to page 732 of Part No. 5, they will perceive that in despatch 1,040, of February 23, the Foreign Minister, running away from his previous promises, wrote to Lord Bloomfield at Vienna, proposing a Conference without a basis. He had first insisted on a basis, but in that despatch he gives it up. I leave it to any sensible man to say, in the present state of feeling between the Powers, whether there is any likelihood of their coming to an agreement at such a Conference, even though the anxiety of the noble Lord to get them all into one room, like the Kilkenny cats, may be gratified. The despatch to which I have referred was dated February 23, and on February 26 a proposal in accordance with its terms was first made to the Danish Ministers by Sir A. Paget; and what was the state of things in the Danish Cabinet when that proposal was made? Why, so great was the consternation created among those unfortunate Danes, whom we have been leading astray all through with false hopes, and then deserting them in their extremity, so great, I say, was the consternation among them, that they said to Sir A. Paget, "For God's sake don't call on us for any immediate answer." Like gallant men, who do not think of themselves merely, they said, "If we agree at once to a Conference without a basis, not merely will our places be at stake, but probably the dynasty which you have taken so much trouble to set up." That is the feeling created at Copenhagen among the Danish Ministry by this proposal of a Conference without a basis. On the 9th of March—I go on to page 706—a fresh pressure was put on Denmark. It appears to have been felt that affairs had come to such a point in this House, that Her Majesty's Government could no longer resist taking action and putting a fresh pressure on Denmark. On March 15, Austria declares to our Ambassador, that though she had formerly agreed to the basis of the Treaty of 1852, she will now no longer be satisfied with the fulfilment by the Danes of the engagements of 1851–2; and that if she meets in Conference she will demand further engagements. On March 16, Denmark still asserts that she will only meet in Conference on the basis of the engagements of 1851–2; but she takes very little by this, for on the 17th of March, Sir Andrew Buchanan, at Berlin, announces to M, Bismark, that Her Majesty's Government had altogether given up the engagements of 1851–2 as the basis for the meeting of the Conference. But what happens after that? It is a most extraordinary thing, and it must strike every hon. Member with astonishment, that whenever we want any real information on foreign affairs we are not furnished with it by our own Government, who, while they do not pretend to legislate for home affairs, yet appeal to us for our support on account of the vigour and foresight of their foreign policy. Well, when anything remarkable is to be learnt respecting foreign policy, we do not find it in this blue-book. No. We must go to the foreign papers, and in the second edition of The Times published yesterday there appears a despatch from the French Minister for Foreign Affairs to the French Ambassador in London, which is not to be found in the blue book, though the despatch is dated as far back as March 20. The contents of that despatch are of so extraordinary a nature, that I think that some detailed statement is due from the noble Lord the Prime Minister, as to whether the Government are agreed to take the suggestion contained in that despatch as the basis of the Conference. The proposition of the French Minister involves such a serious principle, that I think the House should take it into consideration if the Government does not. M. Drouyn de Lhuys says he wishes to acquaint the Cabinet of London with the course intended to be taken by the French Government in reference to the Conference; and he goes on to say that, if the French Plenipotentiary attend, he thinks it his duty to inform Her Majesty's Government that he will propose as a basis, for the consideration of the Conference, the propriety of consulting the wishes of the population of Schleswig and Holstein, as to who should be their Sovereign. I take it that this is really a bonâ fide despatch, and that is the purport of it. I want to know, then, why it is not given in the blue-book, and whether the Government will lay a copy of it on the table of the House? I wish, too, that the noble Lord will tell the House whether he, or the representative of the British Government at the Conference, is prepared to concur in that basis laid down by the French Minister? In fact, the further we look into this question of the Conference, it appears impossible to hope that any good will result from it. None of the representatives about to enter the Conference, with the exception of the representatives of Austria and Prussia, who will of course be together, appear to have any setled ideas of any sort or kind, and they seem to have given up all previous pledges to abide by the Treaty of 1852. The Conference, therefore, so far from settling the peace of the North of Europe is more likely to embitter matters, and instead of localizing the war, is likely to extend it even over a larger area. I would wish to draw the attention of the House to the remarkable answer given by the noble Lord the Foreign Secretary to this country to the invitation to attend the Conference, which was proposed by the Emperor of the French to be held at Paris. The very reasons given for refusing to attend that Congress apply with equal force to the assembly of the Conference which is shortly to meet. I will only read two passages from the despatch of the noble Lord, but they are of so much importance that I am sure the House will excuse the time I shall occupy in doing so. At the same time, I must say that I shall always lament that the invitation to attend the Congress was not accepted; and I think, also, that it might have been responded to with somewhat more courtesy, without the answer being first published in The Times newspaper. But what were the reasons given for not attending that Conference? Earl Russell stated in last November to Earl Cowley that the British Government would feel more apprehension than confidence from the meeting of a Congress of Sovereigns and Ministers without fixed objects, ranging over the map of Europe, and exciting hopes and aspirations which they might feel themselves unable either to gratify or to quiet. But the noble Lord goes further. Let the House remember that the present Conference is to be held during a state of war and without an armistice or basis, and then consider how applicable to it are these words, used in reference to the Congress proposed by the French Emperor. The noble Lord, the Foreign Secretary, wrote, in November last, to Earl Cowley—

"Indeed it is to be apprehended that questions arising from day to day, coloured by the varying events of the hour, would give occasion rather for useless debate than for practical and useful deliberation in a Congress of twenty or thirty representatives, not acknowledging any supreme authority, and not guided by any fixed rules of proceeding."

That language held by the noble Lord in refusing to join the Congress for the pacification of Europe, and for lessening our armaments, is, I am afraid, more applicable on this occasion than when it was addressed to the Emperor of the French. I am very much inclined to believe that this whole Conference will only turn out a Parliamentary hoax, and it would have been much better, instead of meeting on the 12th of April, if the noble Lord had postponed it till the 1st of April next. But I really wish to know when this Conference will assemble? At present, it stands for the 12th of April, but I see by the foreign newspapers that it has no chance of meeting then. I want only to know what prospect there is, if it does meet at all, of any report of its proceedings being made before this House is dismissed for the long vacation. I can well understand that if this case is brought before the House In any shape, the plea will be urged that it would be prejudicial to the public service to discuss the question while the Conference is sitting; but, in my opinion, and in the opinion, I believe, of a great many Members of this House who take the trouble to rend the papers on the subject, we should be strengthening the hands of the Government by having a proper discussion on these questions. I want to know, and I hope the noble Lord at the head of the Government will give some proper account to the House, as to what has become of this Treaty of 1852. Does Her Majesty's Government intend to abide by that treaty, or are we to have another state of affairs by which there will be a temporary patching up of this system on the Continent, condemning these poor unfortunate Schleswig-Holsteiners to what the noble Lord calls the sway of their lawful Sovereign, but whom they do not acknowledge as their lawful Sovereign. It certainly is surprising that any man who pretends to lead a Liberal party should endeavour to force a Sovereign on a people who have never been consulted as to their choice. I hope the noble Lord will give an explanation, and not evade any of these points; but of this I am sure, that, whatever may be the present opinion of the country, in ignorance of the transactions which have taken place, it will hereafter regret that Germany has been irritated, Denmark cajoled, and England humiliated.

Sir, it is difficult to satisfy my hon. Friend, for he finds fault with the past, with the present, and with the future. I shall not, therefore, attempt to alter his opinions, but shall simply answer the questions which have been put to me. Now, Sir, my hon. Friend accuses Her Majesty's Government of having misled Denmark, and of having excited expectations which have not been fulfilled. I utterly deny these allegations. There is not a syllable in the blue-books with which my hon. Friend pretends to be familiar, but which I cannot believe he has read, which bears out the assertion he has made. Our policy, Sir, has been plain and simple from the beginning, and, as I think, honourable throughout. Our object has been first of all to prevent war, and, hostilities having commenced, to restore peace. My hon. Friend says we have thrown over the Treaty of 1852. No such thing. Again, I say my hon. Friend has not read a word of the blue-books, for there is not a syllable in them to justify such a statement. On the contrary, not only do we maintain the Treaty of 1852, but every one of the Powers who concluded that treaty equally maintains it. Therefore my hon. Friend must have been in a dream on this matter, and comes down here to expound his illusions, instead of telling us what he would have discovered if he had perused those documents which seem to weigh so much on his mind, but to dwell so little on his memory. My hon. Friend has fallen into some of those contradictions which men of his genius and imaginative powers are occasionally apt to stumble into. He has critized the Conference, and very naturally, being of an inquisitive turn of mind, he wants to know what the Conference will do when it assembles. I am not able to gratify his curiosity. If he wishes to know the past I furnish him with the blue-books. If he wishes to know the future he must apply somewhere else. My hon. Friend ridicules the Conference, which, by the way, he has invested with a function which I was not aware naturally belonged to it. He says a Conference cannot meet without a basis. When two Powers—two nations—two Governments begin to treat for peace it is, no doubt, essential that the plenipotentiaries should settle the terms on which they are to negotiate, and agree whether it is to be on the principle of uti possidetis or the status quo ante bellum. It is not, however, the peculiar function of a Conference to have a basis. A Conference is an assembly of plenipotentiaries of different powers, who meet for the purpose of ascertaining what is the state of things, and how they can be set right. That is a Conference. My hon. Friend objects to the Conference, which is to meet for the purpose of endeavouring to put an end to the hostilities that are raging, but which he says will only create more mischief. He pledges his political sagacity—and I beg you to bear that in mind—that the Conference can lead to no good result. I can only say I trust that next year on the day he has mentioned—namely, the first of April, he will remind us of what he has now predicted. My hon. Friend says we are wrong to agree to the Conference, but that we were equally wrong not to have agreed to the Congress. He thinks the reason we gave for not going to the Congress was absurd, I said there was no object for the Congress to deal with. Well, there was no object for the Congress, because there was no war which it was to bring to a close, and there was no particular subject to which the Congress was to direct attention. Here, however, there is a distinct object—to endeavour to reconcile parties who are differing, and to put an end to hostilities now raging. The cases are utterly different, and my hon. Friend would, I think, have shown more discrimination of mind if he had not drawn this distinction, which was exactly the wrong way. I repeat that all the parties who concluded the Treaty of 1852 agree in holding that they are bound by it to acknowledge King Christian as the Sovereign of Denmark, and to respect and maintain the integrity of that kingdom. You may say that is not a basis; at least it is an agreement. The Powers have all agreed that that is the condition on which they enter into the Conference with a view to reconcile the differences which hare arisen between Denmark and Germany. My hon. Friend confounds two things which are in themselves entirely separate—the agreements of 1851–2. and the Treaty of May, 1852. There are differences between Germany and Denmark as to the agreements of 1852, the main facts of which were that whereas, on the one hand, the German Powers agreed not to require what had formerly been demanded, namely, the administrative and political union of Holstein and Schleswig; on the other hand, the Danish Government agreed not to do anything which could tend to incorporate Holstein with Denmark. But these agreements are totally different and distinct from the Treaty of 1852, and it is quite essential to our understanding of the matter, that the distinction should be borne in mind. The agreements of 1851–2 may be settled either way, without at all infringing the Treaty of 1852, and the Treaty of 1852 may be adhered to by those who entertain different opinions as to the engagements which preceded it. Then my hon. Friend asks when the Conference is to meet. We have the assent of all the Powers who concluded—I do not say of those who acceded to the treaty—France, Austria, Prussia, Russia, Sweden, and, Denmark, The German Confederation was not a party to that treaty. [Mr. BERNAL OSBORNE: The Confederation was not asked.] No; and some of the Powers of Germany objected to proposing to the German Diet to become a party to the treaty. At one time Prussia was against it, although she afterwards changed her mind, and wished the treaty to be communicated to the Diet. The other Powers, however, would not consent to that, because they considered the questions which were to be settled by this treaty, namely, the succession to the Danish Crown, and the integrity of the Danish monarchy, to be European and not German questions. We have asked the Diet to send a plenipotentiary to the Conference. Whether they will be as long in giving an answer as my hon. Friend imagines, I cannot say; but in deference to the desires of Austria and Prussia, who are anxious to give them a little more time to consider their answer, the meeting of the Conference will be postponed from the 12th to the 20th of April. France, it is true, wishes the Diet to send a representative to the Conference, but does not make that a sine qua non. Even if the Diet does not appear in the Conference, it will still be possible to proceed with it, as the protocol may be left open for the Diet to accede to it. My hon. Friend alluded to a despatch from the French Government to the French Ambassador here, containing the suggestions of an appeal to the populations of Holstein and Schleswig. That is not, however, put forward as a basis, but is thrown out merely as a suggestion. There are obvious objections which may be raised to any such proceeding, and it is not likely that the other Powers will fall into the suggestion; nor, indeed, does France require it. The French Government state distinctly that they stand on the Treaty of 1852, and hold themselves hound by its engagements. Well, Sir, that is the state of the case. My hon. Friend has his opinions, but I do not think they are partaken by the country at large. Although my hon. Friend is very abundant in his criticisms, I am really quite at a loss to understand what he would have done if he had had the management of affairs. [Mr. BERNAL OSBORNE: Let it alone] My hon. Friend, therefore, would have been a party to a treaty—[Mr. BERNAL OSBORNE: I would not have made it]—by which this country was bound to acknowledge a certain Sovereign as King of the countries under the sway of the Danish Crown, and to respect the integrity of the Danish monarchy; and in spite of the general opinion that this country was hound in honour and in interest to endeavour to maintain that treaty, he would have done nothing but sit still with his hands in his pockets as he is doing now. I do not think that such a course would have been to the credit of the Government or to the satisfaction of the country at large. We may be wrong and he may be right, but such, at least, is our opinion of the matter. We endeavoured to persuade other countries to fall into our views, and we trust we have accomplished, or are about to accomplish, a considerable step in assembling a Conference with the object of restoring peace. That is the answer to my hon. Friend, and at this late hour I cannot go into the other matters to which he referred. My hon. Friend who opened the question to night, referred to a transaction at Sönderborg, which I am afraid there is no reason to doubt really took place. We have no official or authentic information, but we have reason to believe, without knowing the extent to which lives were sacrificed, that a bombardment of Sönderborg did take place, and that some of the citizens were killed. The invasion of Danish territory was, in our opinion, unjust and unjustifiable, and I am sorry to say that circumstances have occurred in connection with the conduct of the German troops during the invasion which are not in keeping with the practice of civilized nations in modern times. We have made an inquiry at Berlin, but we have not yet got an answer — an inquiry, first, as to whether the thing did take place; and next, by what authority, and under what orders, the bombardment was carried out. I do not think the British Government can presume to dictate to the Prussian army the manner in which they should conduct their operations, but there are opinions which men may express as to conduct pursued in violation of ordinary rule and humanity, though I hope we shall be allowed to determine what we shall say when we get an answer from the Government of Berlin.

said, he thought that if it should turn out that the Prussians had been guilty of bombarding Sönderborg in the manner described, and that the bombardment had taken place without provocation, they would find no defenders either in the House of Commons or in any part of the United Kingdom. But he would take leave to say, on the present occasion, something analogous to what he took the liberty of saying when the House was dealing with the affair at Kagosima. He then said that before passing a censure upon Admiral Kuper, it would be well for the House to hear in the first instance what Admiral Kuper might have to say for himself, and he thought the result in that case, which he now knew, entitled him to hold that the course thus suggested was the proper one to take. Certainly, he should be sorry to abandon the hope that the Prussians might have something to say either in disproof or in extenuation of an act which at present seemed to be highly discreditable to them. He could not agree with the hon. Member for Liskeard (Mr. Bernal Osborne), in endeavouring to pass a censure upon the Government for refusing to enter into the Congress proposed by the Government of France; nor could he concur with him in thinking that there was any analogy between that case and the present, because the objection which the Government took to going into a Congress was founded upon the supposition that the parties invited to send representatives could not see clearly what the objects sought to be attained were; whereas here, though he admitted that there was the greatest difficulty as to the bases of negotiation, yet on one point all Europe was agreed, because all Europe desired to see the restoration of peace. He presumed it was almost part of the duty of the noble Lord at the head of the Government to, in some manner, misunderstand the arguments and statements of the hon. Member for Liskeard; but what the hon. Gentleman endeavoured to convey to the House was this—That in the earlier stages of the negotiation the Government had, in the most earnest and persistent way, put forward the first Treaty of 1852 and then the integrity of the Danish monarchy as conditions without which nothing like a successful negotiation could take place. Then the hon. Member, perceiving that in the later portion of the papers the language used by the Government in this respect was moderated—and, perhaps, the House would think, properly moderated — permitted himself to quarrel with the change in their policy. He could not follow his hon. Friend in this, because the change, if any, was one which he hailed with great satisfaction. No doubt Her Majesty's Government had obtained the assent of foreign Powers to a Conference, but almost every Power which had so agreed, had annexed a distinct condition, and, therefore, the hon. Member for Liskeard very much understated his case when he said that there was an attempt to go into a Conference without a basis. The difficulty in which the Government were placed was not that there was no basis, but that there were three or four different bases, totally dissimilar the one from the other — nay, absolutely inconsistent one with the other. In language anxiously employed for the purpose of preventing any such misrepresentation, as was from time to time attempted, the Danish Government had declared that under no circumstances would they go into a Conference except upon the condition that the basis of the Conference was the arrangements of 1851 and 1852. On the other hand, both Austria and Prussia had said in terms equally distinct, that they would not go into the Conference if the arrangements of 1851 and 1852 were to be made the basis. It was, therefore, clear that no two parties agreeing to differ in terms as precise as possible, could find any language more perfectly representing the impossibility of their coming together than the language used by the Government of Copenhagen on the one side and by the Governments of Berlin and Vienna on the other. The matter consequently stood thus: That the Danish Government insisted that the basis should be the arrangements of 1851 and 1852, that the two great German Powers insisted that the Conference should take place without any such basis, and that England was proceeding upon the principle, or, at all events, in the hope, that the Conference was to have ultimately for its basis, though not as a preliminary, an adherence to the Treaty of 1852. Certainly the noble Lord at the head of the Government had to-night put that view of the case in a way which he ventured to say would tend to inflame the anger of the whole of Germany, for he had said, in terms as distinct as could be used, that the King of Denmark was the only lawful Sovereign of the two Duchies. There was going on what was virtually a war of succession — for he did not care for the pretences put forward by Austria and Prussia—and in the midst of that war, it being the avowed object of Her Majesty's Government to restore peace, they arrayed themselves, heroically it might be, on the side of one of the disputants, declaring in language which must be extremely displeasing to the German Powers, that the King of Denmark was the only lawful Sovereign of the Duchies. To hear the noble Lord one might imagine that he was a representative of Lord Liverpool's Government, announcing to the House that a congress of Sovereigns had disposed of nations and peoples by an arrangement which they had determined should last fur ever. It so happened that within a few minutes from the moment when the noble Lord made that rash statement to the House there was put into his hands a paper which showed that the King of Denmark, the "lawful Sovereign" of the noble Lord—had not only very difficult subjects to deal with, but had also a very disloyal Parliament. The Parliament of Schleswig-Holstein—if so he might term the estates—had by a unanimous vote determined to protest before Europe against the notion that they were to be handed over by foreign Powers to any Sovereign whom the Powers assembled in London might please to select. He deeply regretted that the noble Lord had used that language, for he had looked forward to the proposed Conference in the hope that if it could ever turn out of any use at all, it might be useful as furnishing a graceful mode of retreat for Her Majesty's Government, enabling them to recede from a long and persistent adherence to the Treaty of 1852, which, in his judgment; had been the cause of the disturbance; an adherence which was not required by the terms of the treaty itself, because the way in which the treaty was put forward was founded upon a misinterpretation of it. Be that, however, as it might, he thought it was very unfortunate that a policy most English—a policy which he should have thought most acceptable to the Liberal party in this country, had been recommended, not by Her Majesty's Government, but by a foreign Sovereign. He could only trust that the Conference might be found a mode of enabling the Government to retreat from the petition into which they had got, because he believed that to put forward the Treaty of 1852 in the way they did, and to endeavour to force it upon those who had never been consulted, was a policy entirely inconsistent with the principles which they themselves had loudly proclaimed.

I rise merely to say that the subject before the House is not a fit subject for ridicule. There is no portion of it at which the British House of Commons has any reason to laugh. The hon. Member for Swansea asked whether it was true that Sönderborg was bombarded without notice, and eighty of its inhabitants killed. He was followed by the hon. Member for Liskeard, who asked very proper questions, some of which have not been answered at all. Then the noble Lord got up, and the world will hear of the House of Commons being convulsed with laughter. I say that is adding insult to injury. The noble Lord at the head of the Government said there was nothing in the blue-books that could lead the Danes to believe they might expect assistance from this country. I am afraid there is a great deal that will not be found in the blue-books; but I well remember the words used by the noble Lord himself at the end of last Session, when he said, that if the Duchies were invaded Denmark would not stand alone. I thought at the moment that that was a very indiscreet declaration for the Prime Minister to make, but I entirely relied on it. I was abroad during the recess, and when I heard Germans talk very angrily about enforcing their claims against Denmark, I used to say, "Take care; we are bound to resist it." But their reply was, "Oh, no; you will not resist. Denmark will be left alone." And it appears they knew the noble Lord much better than I did. My only object in rising is this. I do not think that upon a question being asked on a Motion for going into Committee of Supply, whether a telegram addressed to a newspaper is true or not, is the proper time for entering into a discussion of a great question of this kind. I thought the omission of an assurance of our friendly relations with foreign Powers in the speech from the Throne at the opening of the Session very significant, and that that circumstance made it absolutely necessary for this House to inquire why the usual assurance was left out. Is it because Her Majesty's Government was no longer able to declare that they had received those friendly assurances? And has that arisen from any one act of the Government, or is it the natural consequence of the whole of the foreign policy which they have adopted since they came into office? These are questions which the House has a right to know, and I venture to promise the Government that they will get an opportunity of answering them.

said, he would not presume to give any answer to the question which was addressed to the noble Lord with respect to the bombardment of Sönderborg. He feared that the reply had been by no means satisfactory. He wished, however, to give an explanation which he had seen as to the cause of that bombardment. He had seen it stated in a Hamburg paper, that there was an understanding between the Danes and the Prussians that there should be no bombardment of Sönderborg or of West Dybböl, as the latter contained the sick and wounded of the Prussians, and the former was full of women and children. But, subsequently, a Danish officer was sent with a flag of truce to say that the Danes were going to bombard West Dybböl, and the reply was, "If you do so we will bombard Sönderborg." He did not defend the bombardment, because he believed it added to the horrors of war, but he was merely giving the account which he had seen in a paper from Hamburg, and there was one circumstance which made him hope that account was true. Hon. Gentlemen would recollect that about a month ago a shot was fired at a Danish vessel, and it went into Sönderborg. Immediately a flag of truce was sent by the Prussians to say that it was a mere accident, and the Danes were asked to take care that their vessels should not come in a line with Sönderborg. The noble Lord said be would stand upon the basis of the Treaty of 1852, but that treaty reserved the rights of the German Bund. One of those rights was, to reject any one who proposed to come into the Bund, and, therefore, they had the right to reject the King of Denmark coming into it as Duke of Holstein. His hon. Friend had said, and the right hon. Gentleman opposite (General Peel) repeated, that Her Majesty's Government had been making representations to Denmark, the effect of which had been to induce the Danish Government to rely upon the assistance of England. But he would ask any hon. Gentleman who had read the blue-books, whether the representations of Her Majesty's Government to Denmark had not been over and over again to this effect, "Perform your promises." The patience of Earl Russell, and the earnestness with which he had addressed these representations to the Danish Government, were beyond all praise; and his own opinion was that the despatch of September, 1862, was one of the wisest and most moderate of despatches, and really contained the basis of an arrangement which might have settled everything. But this country was not entirely without blame, for he believed the Danes would have acceded to the proposal of September, 1862, had they not believed there was such a strong Danish party in this country and the House of Commons that they might refuse the proposition of Earl Russell without exposing themselves to danger. But whatever they felt with regard to the war—and he did not defend the conduct of Austria and Prussia in the matter—they were bound to recognize the fact that it was caused by the Danes. There was one party, however, against whom nothing could be said, and that was the German inhabitants of Holstein. They had been the victims of oppression, and he trusted, that whatever they did, they would not lend themselves to a policy which would lead to the infliction of greater oppression and injury upon them. It appeared to him that the proposal of the Emperor of the French was more likely to lead to a happy result, and he must press upon Her Majesty's Government to give an answer to the question of his hon. Friend behind him, and state whether they would produce the despatch of the French Government. If not, he should feel it his duty to move for its production.

said, he believed that the country had been deeply disappointed that the House had so far abdicated its functions as not to have raised a discussion on that question since it met in February. He was extremely disappointed at the tone adopted by the noble Lord that evening, and also on a former occasion. The noble Lord told them that Austria and Prussia had commenced a most aggressive, unjust, and unnecessary war. The noble Lord also said that he considered we were bound, as parties to the Treaty of 1852, to guarantee the integrity of the Danish monarchy. Now, if the opinions of the noble Lord were that it was the duty of Her Majesty's Government to guarantee the integrity of the Danish monarchy, and if he believed that Austria and Prussia had commenced a most aggressive and unjust war, he (Mr. Peacocke) was very much surprised that the noble Lord did not, in opposition to his policy as displayed in the blue-book, give active aid to Denmark. He (Mr. Peacocke) did not advocate a war policy, for this reason—because he believed that Denmark was originally in the wrong, and that she had never put herself in the right. But he thought it most impolitic that the noble Lord should come down and use such strong and aggravating expressions towards Austria and Prussia at the very time that he was about to meet them at the table of a conference, with a view to settle the dispute in an amicable manner. If the noble Lord's language towards those Powers had been more conciliatory, it would have rendered more likely the attainment of a practical and pacific result. He believed that these Conferences would have no result at all, and for this reason. In the papers before the House, Denmark distinctly told them that she would make no concessions whatever—that she would agree to nothing like a union between Schleswig and Holstein until she was utterly exhausted. On the other hand, the German Powers distinctly told them that they could not consent to treat on the basis of the engagements of 1851–2. He regretted that the noble Lord had not felt it his duty to state whether it was true or not that the French Government had communicated to Her Majesty's Government the fact, that it intended at the Conference to advocate that which was virtually the principle of an appeal to nationalities by universal suffrage? The noble Lord stated that all the Powers which had accepted the Conference had agreed to the mainte- nance of the integrity of the Danish monarchy; but how could a Power which advocated the application of the principle of universal suffrage to the Duchies be said to agree to the maintenance of the integrity of the Danish monarchy? Was it to be believed that the answer of the population of Schleswig and Holstein would be in favour of the integrity of the Danish monarchy? He thought it was the duty of the Government to endeavour to maintain the integrity of that monarchy, but in doing so to call upon Denmark to fulfil the promises she mode to the German Powers in 1851 and 1852. The difficulties of that question were indeed great, but they would not be lessened by the irritating language which the noble Lord habitually employed.

said, that the noble Lord had talked of delusions; but when, at the end of last Session, he told Denmark that in case of the invasion of her territories she would not stand alone, he imparted to Denmark what she had since found out to be a delusion. He agreed with what had fallen from the hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Kinglake), and had hoped that they would that night have heard from the noble Lord something to indicate that he meant to represent the feelings of what ought to be the Liberal party on that question—something to indicate that he desired to consult the wishes of the people of these States before giving additional authority to treaties which had been the cause of so much disturbance in Northern Europe. It was difficult to get accurate information as to the state of feeling in Schleswig and Holstein; but, if they read the official papers before them, they could not help seeing that the people of those Duchies had substantial grounds for discontent with their "lawful Sovereign." He thought there was a great deal to be said both for Denmark and for the German Confederation on that question. It seemed to him that a country like Denmark, having attached to it two provinces under subjection to foreign Powers, occupied a very unfair and anomalous position; and he was not surprised that Denmark, with the spirit and courage which she had exhibited, should wish to free herself from a burden that was almost too much for her to bear. And if the noble Lord, instead of seeking to give further authority to treaty stipulations which had produced so much confusion, had sought to withdraw Denmark and the German Confederation from their un natural relation, he would have better deserved the thanks of the country than he now did. He had hoped that something might have come from these Conferences, but from what had been said that night he feared, with the hon. Member for Liskeard, that when the House sat there on the 1st of next April it would have nothing to do but make speeches over their decent burial.

, in moving the second reading of this Bill, said, the object of its first and most important clause was, to provide that all stock received by the Commissioners for the reduction of the National Debt, either on account of Life Assurances or on account of Deferred Annuities, should not be cancelled as it was under the provisions of the present law, but should be held by those Commissioners and kept alive, and dividends received upon it, so that there should be an adequate fund to meet the prospective obligations on those annuities or assurances when they arose.