Sir, I rise to move that these papers be printed. In doing so, I am quite aware that there never was an occasion, probably, on which a Minister of the Crown had to make a statement—short and simple as I intend to make it—to this House of Parliament, and through it to the public, on which the feelings of the country, the sympathies of the country, the aspirations, and, I may say, the anxieties of the country, were more deeply engaged than in the question on which it will be my duty for a short time to detain the House. Sir, the sympathies which the British nation feel in the cause of Denmark will do honour to them in all time wherever they are recorded. ["Hear, hear!"] I stand here, however, not to excite those sympathies or to profit by them. I stand here upon this occasion simply to communicate to the House in a short abstract the substance of those proceedings of the Conference, which are recorded in detail in the papers now laid upon the table—and although on Friday I doubted whether the record of the proceedings of Saturday would be sufficiently ready to be laid before Parliament in conjunction with the papers relating to the preceding events, I am now able to say that they will be delivered to Members to-morrow morning, together with the papers relating to the other proceedings of the Conference. Among them will be found an abstract of the proceedings of the Conference drawn up by one of the Plenipotentiaries, which will greatly assist hon. Members in making themselves masters of the more detailed negotiations recorded in the Protocols. But, to explain more fully, and to make this House understand completely the nature of the questions which were treated of in the Conference, it will be necessary for me to go a little further back, and to offer some remarks as to the points upon which the subsequent controversies and the proceedings of the Conference turned. The House, however, is sufficiently familiar with those transactions and their origin to make it unnecessary for me to do more than give a general outline of the affairs to which I refer. The Treaty of 1852 was negotiated by myself and by Lord Granville, who succeeded me, and was concluded by Lord Malmesbury, who succeeded him; so that, as far as the policy of that treaty is concerned, all parties in this country are equally bound by it. It was founded upon European considerations. It did not originate simply with England—it was an arrangement dictated by European interests. ["Hear, hear!"] The state of the matter was this:—The law of succession in Denmark admitted females to the throne; the law of succession in Holstein confined the right to males. If, therefore, any case should arise in which there was a default of issue male in Denmark, it was clear that, by the operation of those conflicting laws, Denmark and Holstein would be separated. But the late King of Denmark, being advanced in years, had no offspring; the Prince who would have been his immediate successor, had he outlived the King, had no offspring either; and therefore the Powers of Europe felt it necessary to take into consideration the threatened splitting up of the Danish monarchy, which they held to be inconsistent with the general interests and the balance of power in Europe. For this purpose it was necessary to assimilate the law of succession in the two parts of the Danish monarchy. To alter the law in Holstein was impossible, because it was the law of the Germanic Confederation of which Holstein is a member. The other expedient therefore was adopted, and it was agreed that the lex regia of Denmark should be altered so that males only should succeed to the Crown. It was also agreed that the King of Denmark should have the power of naming his successor to the throne of Denmark, and that arrangements should be made by which that successor should inherit the Duchy of Holstein. These arrangements were the object of the Treaty of 1852. The King of Denmark chose as his successor Prince Christian of Glucksburg; and there being a question of the right of the Duke of Augustenburg to Holstein, that right was commuted by a pecuniary indemnity. The Duke of Augustenburg having been in rebellion against his Sovereign on a former occasion, his estates were confiscated; but the value of those estates was now given to him on condition that he renounced for himself, his heirs, and successors all claim to the Duchy of Holstein. The Treaty of 1852 provided, therefore, as far as the foresight of the parties to it could go, for the maintenance of the integrity of the Danish monarchy as then constituted, by the possession on the part of Denmark of the Duchies of Schleswig and Holstein. That treaty was greatly approved by all the parties who were concerned in it. A question, however, arose whether, as Holstein was affected by the treaty, it should be submitted for the concurrence of the Diet at Frankfort? The asking for that concurrence was at first objected to by all the Powers concerned—by the German Powers, by Russia, by Sweden, and by Denmark. My noble Friend Lord Granville, when he held the seals of the Foreign Office, did, however, propose that the treaty before it was concluded should be submitted to the Frankfort Diet. But that proposal met with no assent. On the contrary, as will be seen by the papers now in the hands of Members, some parties expressed their dismay at such a proposal—dismay arising from the delay which they held would be the consequence of such an application—and a different course was adopted, namely, that, whereas the Diet consists only of representatives of the different German Powers, application should be made to those Powers themselves to accede to the treaty which had been concluded. The application was made, and several States acceded; but it is right to say that some other States, including Bavaria and Baden, declined to assent to the treaty in consequence of feelings connected with German opinion as bearing upon the Duchies of Holstein and Schleswig. Well, Sir, that treaty was preceded by certain diplomatic communications between Germany and Denmark, which led to various arrangements; but the material arrangement was this—that whereas, on the one hand, the great object of Denmark had always been to incorporate Schleswig with Denmark, and whereas, on the other hand, the great object for which the Germans had always contended was the political and administrative union of Schleswig with Holstein, both should give up their respective pretensions—that the King of Denmark, on the one hand, should engage not to incorporate Schleswig with Denmark, and the Germans, on the other, agree no longer to require the political union of Schleswig with Holstein. So stood matters at the conclusion of the treaty, in which, if all the parties had been equally animated by a spirit of conciliation—and I must say of justice—it would have been better for them, and I am not aware that any serious complications would have arisen. But during the ten years which elapsed between the conclusion of that treaty and the death of the late King of Denmark a series of mutual complaints arose between the parties. The Germans contended, and I am afraid not without some reason, that the Danish Government had not acted fairly in its treatment of the German population of Schleswig—that in their extreme desire to extend Danish influence and rule they had in some degree interfered with the free exercise by the German population of that duchy of those privileges which belonged to them as the subjects of a free State. It is also to be borne in mind that in March of last year a Patent—that is to say, a Constitution—for Holstein was proclaimed by the late King of Denmark, which the German Confederation stated to be in its details at variance with the general laws of the Confederation. Moreover, in November a Constitution was passed by the Parliament at Copenhagen for Denmark and Schleswig which the Germans contended was at variance with the engagements given by Denmark in 1851–1852 not to incorporate Schleswig with Denmark. It was contended that an arrangement for united representation and the united action of deputies at Copenhagen was virtually an incorporation pro tanto of Schleswig with Denmark, The late King of Denmark died while these questions were still under discussion between Germany and Denmark. The Patent of March for Holstein in the meantime remained in force; and the present King, from considerations connected with internal matters, found it necessary upon his recent accession to the throne to give his sanction to that Constitution of November, which up to that period had wanted the Royal Assent, and was not complete until the Royal Assent had been given. Germany remonstrated against all those arrangements. In October the Frankfort Diet had passed a Resolution that Federal troops should enter Holstein for the purpose of compelling the late King of Denmark, as Duke of Holstein, to revoke the Patent of March. I will deal with the political question first. Matters stood in the position which I have described towards the conclusion of the year. Her Majesty's Government, thinking and believing that there were grounds for the German objections to that Patent, urged the Danish Government to revoke it, and by so doing to place them selves in the right in regard to that question. The Danish Government did so, ["Hear, hear!" from the Opposition.] But the Diet changed its ground, and, instead of contenting itself, as it had done up to the death of the late King, with disputing the right of the Duke of Holstein to give a Constitution which they maintained was at variance with the Federal law, they took up another ground, and contended that the question had fairly arisen who should be Duke of Holstein; they denied that the King of Denmark had succeeded legally to the Duchy of Holstein; and a proposal was made in the Diet to occupy Holstein by Federal troops until that question should be decided by the Diet. In my opinion the Diet had and has no right to consider and decide that question. There is nothing, in my opinion, either in the Treaty of 1815 constituting the Diet and giving to it birth and origin, or in the final Act of 1820 completing the Diet arrangements, which entitles the Diet to determine who should succeed in any State within the Confederation; and I am not aware that when an Emperor of Austria resigned, and was succeeded by a member of his family, the Diet claimed any right to interfere in that matter. But Austria and Prussia moved in the Diet, not that the Federal troops should not enter Holstein, but that the entrance of these troops should be what is called an "execution" and not an "occupation." By the term "execution" is meant an act of the Diet, in accordance with the Powers of the Diet and German law, to compel any Sovereign of territory belonging to the Con-federation to adapt his legislation to the laws of the Confederation, if those laws should have been broken. Austria and Prussia carried their proposal, and the Diet resolved, not that the entrance of the troops should bear the character of an occupation to hold the Duchy of Holstein until the rightful heir should be determined, but that the entrance of the troops should be an act of execution, to compel the existing Duke to alter the Patent and revoke it as not being in accordance with German law. The entrance, therefore, of the Federal troops into Holstein as a measure of execution was a distinct acknowledgment by the Diet at that time that the King of Denmark was Duke of Holstein, and it was to compel him to alter or revoke the Patent of March that that execution took place. It is also to be remembered that whereas it would have been perfectly legitimate for an execution to take place if the King of Denmark had persisted in refusing to revoke the Patent, yet in point of fact the Patent was revoked before the German troops entered the Duchy of Holstein; and consequently that entrance was unjust in itself, though founded on a plea which would have given a warrant to it had the plea still held good. Well, these troops having entered on the distinct understanding that they were there to compel the King of Denmark (Duke of Holstein) to revoke the Patent, those proceedings then took place which are known to everybody, and which led to the super session of the authority of the King Duke, and to a declaration in favour of the Duke of Augustenburg. Then came the case of the Constitution, uniting to a certain degree, as we were compelled to admit, Schleswig with Denmark, in violation of the engagements entered into by Denmark in 1852. Her Ma- jesty's Government felt all the evils which would arise from an occupation of the territory of Schleswig by the German troops. I should say that though the Government of Denmark had engaged, at the suggestion of England and, I believe, the other Powers, to take the earliest means constitutionally possible to revoke that Constitution, the Germans determined to enter into and take possession of Schleswig as a material guarantee for the performance of that engagement. We proposed that some diplomatic transaction—some engagement on the part of Denmark taken in the presence of the other Powers parties to the treaty—should be accepted by the Germans as a sufficient security that the engagement would be fulfilled: but that proposal was not accepted, and the German troops entered Schleswig. When the Federal troops entered Holstein, the Danish Government, partly on advice and partly from considerations of prudence, refrained from offering any resistance to the Germans, and there was no war arising on that occasion; but when the German troops entered Schleswig the feelings of the Danish nation were too strong to admit of a similar course being pursued, and resistance—an obstinate and heroic resistance—was made against the very superior numbers which the Germans brought to bear. Up to that time, all the parties who had signed the Treaty of 1852 continued to admit its validity, and to acknowledge that they were bound by its engagements, so far as related to the acknowledgment of Christian IX. as King of Denmark and to the maintenance of the integrity of Denmark, and all the territories then held by the King, Even Prussia up to that time did not refuse to admit the binding nature of the treaty; but it is only fair to say that she intimated that if resistance should arise, and if different events should take place, then it would be possible that the German Powers might have to reconsider the engagements of the treaty. Not to weary the House by a recital of military operations which are familiar to everyone, I will state that the course of war led to the occupation by the Germans of the whole of the continental part of Schleswig, and such part of Jutland as they thought fit and expedient to occupy. In this state of things it occurred to the Powers who were parties to the treaty and not engaged in the war, that it was desirable that a Conference should assem- ble, composed of the Plenipotentiaries of the belligerents, and of the four neutral Powers—England, France, Russia, and Sweden—to consider the means of reestablishing peace on a solid and permanent footing. That proposal was agreed to, and on the 25th of April the Conference met. It continued its labours until last Saturday. The first proposal made in the Conference was for a suspension of hostilities, because it was felt by the neutral Powers, England, France, Russia, and Sweden, that until the fighting ceased there was no fair prospect of a satisfactory conclusion being come to. We wished that a suspension of arms should precede the Conference; but we found it impossible to obtain an assent to such an arrangement. Well, after some delay, and a good deal of discussion when the Conference had met, a suspension of hostilities was agreed upon, to take place on the 12th of May, and to last for a month. The next thing was, that the belligerent Powers were asked on what conditions they were willing to put an end to the war and come to an amicable conclusion. The Germans, of course, were the parties on whom the question was pressed. There was some delay in extracting from the German Powers what their intentions were. They first proposed—still maintaining the principle of the integrity of the Danish Monarchy as settled by the Treaty of 1852, or at least not departing from it in words, though in substance they were thought to do so—that there should be a political and legislative union between Schleswig and Holstein, and that the connection between these united Duchies with Denmark should be the link, simply, of the Crown. They coupled that, however, with another condition, namely, that the arrangement should be reserved for the approbation of the Diet; and there was some reason to suppose that under that condition it was intended to include a discretion on the part of the Diet to decide whether the united Duchies should still continue united with Denmark, or whether the claims of some other party pretending to their possession should be considered. The Danish Government would not agree to that proposal. The German Powers then made a different proposal, but one far more objectionable—namely, that Schleswig and Holstein should be separated from the Danish Crown. That, of course, the Danes would not agree to. The neutral Powers con- certed among themselves, and—seeing that Schleswig and Holstein were actually in the occupation of an overpowering military force, that it did not suit the views of Franco or Russia to take any active steps to dislodge that force, that Denmark was unable to do so, and that, I need not I say, England was not willing singly to enter into the undertaking ["Hear, hear!"]—agreed to propose to Denmark the separation of Holstein from the Danish Crown, together with such parts of Schleswig as might be agreed upon; and the line of separation settled and proposed on the part of the neutral Powers was the line running along the Schlei down to Husum on the other coast. That proposal, coupled with other conditions which I shall not trouble the House by going into, but which will be found in the Protocol, was accepted by Denmark. Denmark said that, however unwilling to make a territorial cession, she was willing to agree to the proposal ["Hear, hear!"]; that, feeling all the inconvenience of perpetual disputes between herself and Germany, she wished to be quit of all interference on the part of the Diet in her internal affairs; and, provided she had assigned to her a frontier which in a military and commercial point of view was consistent with her interests, she was willing to accept the line I have mentioned, separating Holstein and the southern part of Schleswig from the Danish territory. The German Powers refused that arrangement. [Opposition cheers.] They asserted that the line would not include a sufficient amount of the purely German population; that there would still be a large number of Germans subject to Danish rule, and that their desire was to draw such a boundary that the great bulk of the German population should be included with Holstein. In regard to Schleswig, the fact, I take it, is this—that the extreme northern part is entirely Danish; that the extreme southern part is purely German; and that between the two there is a large extent of district in which the population is mixed—mixed not only as villages, but even as streets in the villages. It is, therefore, absolutely impossible to draw any line in the centre of Schleswig which shall entirely separate the German population from the Danish. Consequently the ground taken by the Danish Government appeared to be a fair one—that, it being impossible to draw the line with regard to nationality, it should be drawn so as to give to Denmark such a frontier as was susceptible of military defence, and would insure those commercial advantages which she was naturally anxious to secure. The Danish Government, therefore, I say, accepted the line of the Schlei. ["Hear!"] The German Plenipotentiaries, on the contrary, having given up part of Schleswig, were directed to insist on the line from Apenrade on the cast to Tondern on the west coast. Between these two lines lies a district of considerable extent as compared with the extent of Schleswig, but in an European point of view of no great importance. In the course of the discussions the Prussian Plenipotentiary, Count Bernstorff, on his own authority, stated that, seeing how small the difference was which prevailed between the two parties, he would undertake to recommend to his Government to depart from the northern line of Apenrade and Tondern, and to be content with a line drawn from Flensburg to the west coast. That recommendation, however, his Government rejected, and he was obliged to say that his Government and Austria stood by the northern line, originally proposed, from Apenrade to Tondern. In the meanwhile, time pressing, the Plenipotentiaries naturally wished for a prolongation of the armistice—or, rather, I should say—for there is a technical difference between the two—the suspension of hostilities, which was to expire on the 12th of June; and with great difficulty Denmark was induced to agree to an extension for another fortnight. The German Powers were willing, as might have been expected, to extend the suspension to the beginning of winter. [Opposition cheers.] Denmark, on the other hand, grudged every fortnight of the summer that was withdrawn from her naval operations. ["Hear!"] The Danes, therefore, said they would not prolong the suspension beyond the fortnight, unless in the meanwhile some agreement should have been come to, with regard to the frontier and other things, that gave an assurance that the negotiations would result in a peaceful and satisfactory arrangement. The suspension was accordingly extended for a fortnight, which ended yesterday. In the whole course of these negotiations I may say there was perfect unanimity between the neutral Powers—[Ministerial cheers]—between England, France, Russia, and Sweden; and although my noble Friend Earl Russell was chosen as President by the Conference at the outset, and although it may therefore have fallen to him to make several of the proposals which were submitted, these proposals must all be regarded as the proposals of the neutral Powers, because they were discussed, arranged, and settled, at meetings of the neutral Powers before they were brought before the Conference. [Ministerial cheers.] That is a very important point. ["Hear, hear!"] As there was no possibility of bringing Germany and Denmark to agree upon any middle line between the two lines which they respectively stood by—the Schlei line being demanded by Denmark, and the Apenrade line by Germany—a last attempt was made by the neutral Powers to induce the belligerents to refer the question in dispute to arbitration. The dispute, it will be observed, had really been narrowed to a comparatively small point. It was no longer whether Holstein should be governed in a particular manner; it was no longer whether or not Schleswig should be united politically and administratively with Holstein, and whether the two Duchies should be connected by the link of the Crown with Denmark. Denmark had consented to the alienation of territory, Germany had been content with that arrangement, and the only question was, whether that arrangement should be carried out by dividing Schleswig in one part or by dividing it in another. It appeared to the neutral Powers that the territory lying between the two lines proposed was not so important to either party as to justify the resumption of the war, and that it might fairly be deemed, in accordance with the recommendation of the Conference of Paris, a question for the decision of an arbiter. Accordingly my noble Friend, as the organ of the neutral Powers, proposed that arrangement to the belligerent Plenipotentiaries. Each party, naturally, took time to refer the question to their respective Governments, and on Friday their answers were to be given. The answer of the German Powers was that they looked to the words of the Conference of Paris, which recommended the "good offices" of a friendly Power, and that the Protocol having been quoted by the neutrals, they accepted the reference of the question in dispute to a friendly Power, provided they were allowed to reserve their decision as to whether they should accept or refuse the line which the friendly Power might fix upon. [Laughter, and ironicalcheers from the Opposition.] That was at variance with the proposal made ["Hear, hear!"]; because my noble Friend, as the organ of the neutral Powers, in recommending the adoption of a reference as suggested by the Conference of Paris, distinctly stated that it was with the object that a friendly Power might decide and determine the line to be drawn between the two parts of Schleswig. ["Hear, hear!"] Therefore, the answer of the German Powers would have been more frank and candid if they had simply declined the proposal, instead of accepting it with a condition which nullified it. ["Hear, hear!"] On the other hand, the Danes, who throughout the whole transactions have certainly clung more to their decision and principles than they have shown pliability in adapting themselves to the force of circumstances, declined the arbitration, and said that they had accepted the line of the Schlei, and further north they would not consent to go. [Opposition cheers] There seemed now to be an end to all further attempts to effect an understanding; but the Ambassador of France, by order of his Government, made another and a last effort. He proposed that, whereas the Danes had agreed to give up as far as the Schlei, and the Germans not to pass northward beyond the Apenrade line, an appeal should be made to the population of the intermediate district in order to ascertain, first of all, their relative nationality, and then what their wishes were and what arrangement they would like. ["Hear!"] That proposal the British Plenipotentiaries agreed to; but it was negatived by Denmark. [Opposition cheers] A proposal of the same sort had been made in an earlier stage of the negotiations, but had not found favour with any party, except Prussia, who was willing to try it; Austria and Russia had decided objections to it [a laugh]; and, therefore, the idea of ascertaining the views of the population in that way was not adopted at any time in the course of the proceedings. My right hon. Friend near me reminds me that a portion of the proposal was, of course, that there should be perfect freedom of choice on the part of the population, and that such freedom could not exist unless the occupying troops were withdrawn during the voting. Prussia, as I have said, would have been willing to accept, but Austria took a different view, and thus the labours of the Confer- ence were brought to a close. We have endeavoured by every possible means, in conjunction with the other neutral Powers, to bring the two parties to an agreement, and we now lament, as everybody must, that war should begin again, for a matter which might so easily, we think, have been adjusted, and on a question not involving the existence of a nation or of a Government, but simply relating to the possession of a comparatively small strip of territory. Sir, the Conference having unfortunately ended in the manner I have stated, it became the duty of Her Majesty's Government to take into serious consideration the course which it behoved them to adopt. We felt great sympathy for Denmark; we remembered that, although she had at the beginning been in the wrong, yet another Sovereign had succeeded to the throne, a different Ministry had the direction of her affairs, and that there had been manifested by acts a strong desire to set right that which had been wrong [cheers]; we believed that, from the commencement to the end of these last events, Denmark had been ill-used [cheers]; that might had overridden right [renewed cheering]; and we knew also that the sympathies of almost the whole of the British nation were on her side. [Continued cheering] There is a natural disposition in all who have proper feelings to take part with the weak against the strong, especially if the weak are oppressed, and if the strong are acting unjustly and tyrannically. We should, therefore, for these reasons have been glad if we had found it possible to advise our Sovereign to take part with Denmark in the approaching struggle, lint then, on the other hand, it was to be considered that, whatever wrongs Denmark may have sustained—and they are many—she had in the beginning been wrong herself ["Hear, hear!"]; that at the very last of the Conferences she had rejected a proposal reasonable in itself, and one which, if accepted by the two parties, would necessarily have led to a peaceful solution of the question in dispute. ["Hear!"] Her fault in that, no doubt, was equally shared by her antagonists [cheers]; but still, in considering the position which England ought to occupy, that matter could not altogether be left out of sight. we had also to consider what really was the matter in dispute for which hostilities were to be begun, and it did not appear to us to be one of very great im- portance. It did not involve the independence of Denmark; it went little beyond what Denmark had herself agreed to, and related simply as to whom a particular strip of territory should belong. On the other hand, as men who were considering what advice in a very important European crisis—and I do not wish to disguise its importance—should be given to their Sovereign, we could not lose sight of the magnitude of the resistance which had to be overcome, and the comparative means which England and her supposed antagonists would be able to bring to bear in the struggle. It had been ascertained early in these transactions that France—for reasons of which she was entitled to be the judge—declined to take any active measures in support of Denmark, and we knew that her resolution in that respect still continued unchanged. We had likewise ascertained that Russia, for reasons of which she also was entitled to be the judge, was not inclined to take any active measures in support of Denmark. We knew, therefore, that the whole brunt of the effort, whatever it might be, requisite for dislodging the German troops and those which might come to their assistance from the rest of Germany, from Schleswig and Holstein, would fall upon this country alone. Under the circumstances, we have not thought it consistent with our duty to advise our Sovereign to undertake such a task. We know the honourable sympathy which the people of this nation feel for the unhappy condition of Denmark; but, at the same time, we do not think it consistent with our duty to recommend Parliament and the country to make those great exertions, and to undergo those great sacrifices, which would have been the necessary consequence of entering into a conflict with the whole of Germany. I assume that, in the present state of things upon which our decision was made, the real contest lies between Germany and Denmark with respect to—I am afraid I can hardly say that part only of Schleswig which was in dispute before the Conference closed, because it is not impossible that the whole of Schleswig may be involved in the struggle. It would be more honourable on the part of the German Powers to be satisfied with that they have demanded, but we know that strength and success frequently carry men beyond the line which, on cool reflection, they might be disposed to stand upon. Still, the contest is as regards Schleswig, and not as regards the independence of Denmark, or the safety of the capital of the Danish monarchy. I do not mean to say, therefore—I think it right, indeed, to put in this reservation—that if the war should assume a different character; if the existence of Denmark as an independent Power in Europe should be at stake; if we had reason to expect to see at Copenhagen the horrors of a town taken by assault, the destruction of property, the sacrifice of the lives, not only of its defenders, but of its peaceful inhabitants, the confiscations which would ensue, the capture of the Sovereign as a prisoner of war, and other humiliations of that kind—I do not mean to say that if any of those events were likely to happen the position of this country might not be a subject for re-consideration—[Renewed cries of "Oh!" laughter, and ironical cheering from the Opposition followed by counter cheers from the Ministerial Benches]—we might then think it our duty to adopt another course. But this I say on the part of the Government, that if any change of policy be thought advisable, such change shall be communicated to Parliament if Parliament is sitting, and in any case the earliest opportunity shall be taken of asking the judgment of Parliament upon the matter. ["Hear, hear!"] I have now to apologize to the House for having gone so much into detail. It was not my wish to provoke discussion. My desire simply was to explain as fully as I could the state of the matter. The papers, which will be in the hands of hon. Members to-morrow morning, contain full accounts of all that passed in the Conference. All the events which took place before are recorded in the papers which have now for some time been before Parliament; and, therefore, every hon. Member upon looking at those two sets of documents, will be capable of forming a proper opinion of the conduct pursued by Her Majesty's Government in regard to Danish affairs. [Cheers]

I quite agree with the noble Lord that it would be very inconvenient if the House on this occasion were to enter into a general discussion respecting the transactions that have taken place between Denmark and Germany, and the policy of the English Government with regard to them. One of the reasons why I now rise is to remind the House of the exact position which it occupies at this moment. As far as the negotiations of Her Majesty's Government with respect to the dispute between Denmark and Germany are concerned, the House has incurred no responsibility whatever. ["Hear, hear!"] Since the end of last Session the House has given no opinion upon the subject. ["Hear, hear!"] Considering that I have myself taken some part in bringing about the position which the House now occupies, I trust I may not be deemed presumptuous in reminding the House of it. On the first night of the Session, interpreting the feelings of Gentlemen on this side, I expressed my want of confidence in the foreign policy of the Government, and my disapprobation of the manner in which their negotiations had been carried on, especially in the North of Europe, as well as of the results which had been realized. Had the papers been presented to the House on the meeting of Parliament, according to custom, and as we now know they might have been, there would have been no difficulty before April in asking the opinion of the House upon the conduct of these negotiations; and, indeed, what has occurred in the Conference—judging from the narrative, perspicuous though not satisfactory [a laugh],which the noble Lord has given of it, and from what otherwise has reached the ears of many Gentlemen—has very little to do with the great question upon which the House ought to give its decision. I may say here, by the way, that the origin of the Conference has not been correctly described by the noble Lord. The Conference was not called at the desire of the neutral Powers, but was called by one neutral Power, and that Power was Great Britain. ["Hear, hear!"] It met without hope, and it rises without hope; it met without a basis, and therefore it leads to no result. ["Hear, hear!"] But let me remind the House that from the period when Parliament met until the meeting of the Conference the House expressed no approbation whatever of the conduct of Her Majesty's Government with respect to these transactions. On one occasion alone its opinion was asked for in the shape of a formal Motion by an hon. Gentleman opposite. On that occasion I myself interposed, and moved the Previous Question, on the ground that the circumstances which prevailed rendered it, in my judgment, not expedient for Parliament to give any opinion on the subject. And, therefore, Her Majesty's Ministers did not enter the Conference with the confidence of Parliament, but with the Previous Question. That was the basis, as far as Parliament was concerned, on which they entered into the Conference. Well, it is necessary that the House should understand clearly they are not in any way committed to any approbation of the conduct of Her Majesty's Ministers in the matter. But, Sir, I think that the time has arrived when some opinion ought to be pronounced by this House. [Cheers] Although five months have elapsed since the period at which, as it now appears, that opinion might conveniently and properly have been taken, I myself do not regret the delays that were occasioned, because they were occasioned on both sides of this House by those feelings which, I think, do honour to the House of Commons. I have always believed that one of the principal reasons why the House of Commons, as a political institution, has been so successful and so marked out in its practical character from all other popular assemblies may be found in the respect which it entertains for the prerogatives of the Crown and the functions of constitutional Ministers. Therefore, Sir, I think that the course we then pursued was a wise, a temperate, and a patriotic course. ["Hear, hear!"] At the same time, I must say it is my conviction that we should forfeit all claim to the respect of our countrymen, and not fulfil one of the most important functions of Parliament, if, in the present critical position of affairs, we hesitated to give our opinion upon the conduct of Her Majesty's Ministers on this question. [Cheers] And having on several occasions expressed that conviction, I must say now that it is my intention on an early—I would say even the earliest—opportunity to ask the opinion of the House on that subject. I have no doubt that I shall find no difficulty raised by the noble Lord opposite in fixing on the period which I may think most convenient to the House for that purpose. [Viscount PALMERSTON: Not a bit.] Sir, I would add no more were it not for the closing observations of the noble Lord, which, it appears to me, ought not to pass unnoticed. I must say that I heard them with astonishment. [Renewed cheers] Are we, then, to be taught to-night by the noble Lord that it is the Islands only of Denmark that are necessary to the independence of that country? Then why is it that we have been committed to a policy which has so long and so pertinaciously declared that the possession of Holstein and Schleswig by the Crown of Denmark was necessary to the balance of power and to the maintenance of the public law of Europe. Sir, it is too much for us now to hear, under those circumstances, that war may be impending at any moment, and that the Parliament, which is soon to be prorogued, may be suddenly called together because the noble Lord and his Colleagues, who for a considerable period have been defining the grounds upon which the balance of power and the maintenance of the public law of Europe alone depend and ought to be vindicated, find at the last moment, while they recede from the scene of action, the possibility of a smaller issue which may arise, and in the interval agitate Europe and distract the public mind. ["Hear, hear!"] After the experience that we have had on this subject, I can really look on this only—and it is some consolation to adopt that view of the question—I can look on this only as a continuation of those senseless and spiritless menaces [loud cheers], which have impaired the just influence of this country in the councils of Europe, and, by impairing that influence, have diminished, the most effectual means of maintaining peace. [Cheers] I think that the noble Lord might have spared that contingent menace to the House, to the country, and to Europe. I must say myself that, judging from the past, I would prefer that the affairs of this country should be conducted on the principle of the hon. Members for Rochdale and Birmingham than on the policy which is avowed and announced at least by the noble Lord. [Cheers] I think that in that case, as the consequences would almost be the same, our position would be more consistent; it would certainly be more profitable and in my opinion it would really be more dignified. At least those hon. Gentlemen would threaten nobody ["Hear!"]; at least, they would not tell Denmark that if she is attacked she will not find herself alone [cheers]; at least they would not exasperate Germany by declaiming in the full Parliament of England against the "aggravated outrages" of her policy [cheers]; at least they would not lure on Denmark by delusive counsels and fallacious hopes. [Renewed cheers] I declare that, in my opinion, the position of England would be more dignified if the policy which those hon. Members profess regulated our affairs' rather than the policy by which the noble Lord seeks to guide us. Why, have we not now, for months upon months, been menacing almost every country in the world? [Laughter and cheers.] And yet, when we thought that we had at least secured the blessings of peace—when we supposed from the gloomy narrative of disappointment and discomfiture which we have received this evening, we were at least in an intelligible position, and enjoying what some may have thought to be purchased at a great cost, but which was a clear result—namely, the possession of peace, we are at the same time to have that announcement accompanied by the continuation of these unsatisfactory menaces, and told that absolutely at this moment the whole country is to be agitated by the possibility of Parliament being called together suddenly in order that the noble Lord may commence a policy of action which, if ever justified and called for, ought to have been commenced long ago. [Loud cheers.] Sir, I trust, however, that these questions will be entered into fully and completely. When I listened to the narrative with which the noble Lord favoured us to-night of these transactions—of the continued sacrifices of Denmark—of the continued approaches of the enemies of Denmark—I confess, Sir, that I was not myself much surprised—though the point naturally awakened some curiosity and interest—that the noble Lord should have entirely omitted any notice of the inducements which made Denmark submit to these sacrifices, or any mention of those menaces addressed to the aggressive Powers which were always treated with contempt. But I should certainly have liked, while his précis of the proceedings on this question was being given us by the First Minister, to have had some account of the causes of the dreary consequences which he communicated to us. ["Hear!"] Sir, we shall soon have an opportunity of entering into that matter. I accept the noble Lord's courteous promise that he will make no difficulty respecting the day on which I shall venture to ask the opinion of the House of Commons on the policy of the Government, and I shall take care that no unnecessary delay occurs before I avail myself of it. [Loud cheers.]

said, he rose to call the attention of the House to the buildings and sheds used for the Superior Courts of Law and Equity, and to the inadequate accommodation afforded by them. He had hoped to be spared the necessity of directing notice to this grievance, as last year the Government intimated that some steps would be taken to remedy it; but the introduction of their promised measures was still delayed. The House took great interest in the discussions relating to picture galleries or museums for the exhibition of art, but he was sure the country would think it of much greater importance than spending money even on such desirable objects that the courts in Which justice was administered should be made worthy of the nation. The state of made worthy of the nation. The state of the Courts of Law was as bad as it possibly could be, and the word "sheds" fairly described many of the buildings used as courts. Last Session he called attention to this subject on account of the Second Court of Queen's Bench being obliged to close its sittings, because the Chief Justice stated that it was utterly unfit for a Court of Justice, and detrimental to the health of all attending it. In the present year the Judges of the Queen's Bench had again had occasion to complain of the places allotted to them for the purpose of exercising their functions. On a recent occasion, when a necessity arose for having a Second Court of Queen's Bench, no other place was at the time available for the purpose but a miserable room, with access by a dark staircase, which it was almost impossible to find. Justice on that occasion was certainly in a state of vagrancy, and had to hide her head from the suitors endeavouring to follow her, in an obscure chamber, where Mr. Justice Blackburn said that it was not possible to see, hear, or breathe. The state of the Courts at Westminster was shortly this, that eight courts were sometimes required, and there were only two fit for the despatch of business—the Court of Queen's Bench and the Court of Exchequer. The Court of Common Pleas, which was built when the Serjeants only had audience there, was now much too small for its business, which amounted to one-third of the whole legal business of the country. The Bail Court, in which jury cases were now tried, was intended original^ for the sitting of a single Judge to dispose of what were known as "bail cases," and might be likened to the "black hole," for it was below the ordinary surface of the ground, and had only one entrance. The Bar were accustomed to the annoyance, and had got in some degree acclimatized to it; but the public who had to discharge the duties of jurors and witnesses, had had no such training, and felt most severely the inconveniences to which they were subjected in consequence of the heat and want of ventilation. He did not know anything more painful than to address a jury in an incipient state of apoplexy. The Courts of Equity were, he believed, in some respects no better. [Mr. MALINS: They are worse.] His hon. and learned Friend near him said that they were worse, and certainly he could say with regard to two of them that they might very properly be called sheds, or places of temporary shelter. Such sheds, with better ventilation, might make good cavalry barracks. In Guildhall matters were no better, some courts there being built on the model of cucumber frames with glass at the top. In Edinburgh and Dublin there were excellent courts, with libraries for the use of the Bar; but in London there was no court which had a library, or any room in which those attending the courts could study during the intervals of their engagements. There were also no waiting rooms for witnesses, so that they had either to sit or stand in court, or haunt the purlieus of Westminster Hall. There was not the slightest accommodation for jurymen. Frequently jurymen had to wait in court for several days before the cases on which they were summoned were called on. A merchant who had been summoned as a special juror wrote to him to say that he had to wait in court from ten till half past four, and that during the greater part of that time he was unable to obtain a seat; and he suggested that with the view of providing a room to which professional men, while waiting for the cases on which they had been summoned as special jurors, might retire for the purpose of writing letters and seeing their clerks on urgent business, special jurors should be paid only £1 instead of £1 1s. per day, and the odd shilling should be devoted to the providing of such a room. Was it not a reproach to those who had the management of these affairs that such a suggestion should have been made by a juror? Several spasmodic efforts had been made to build new courts, but the evils which had been so long felt and so frequently complained of still remained. Bench, Bar, jurors, witnesses, and suitors had equally a grievance in the present state of affairs. A Commission—consisting of Sir John Coleridge, Sir W. P. Wood, Sir George Lewis, Sir R. Phillimore, and Mr. John Young, a solicitor of eminence—inquired into the subject in 1860, and, although attempts had been made since then to improve matters, they remained much the same as before. The Commission reported that the Bail Court was wholly unsuited for jury trials, that the Common Pleas was too small for the convenient discharge of business, and had sometimes to borrow a Parliamentary Committee-room or a Chancery Court for the purpose of a second court, that the Court of Exchequer was also inadequate, and that in the Queen's Bench, as in the other courts, the accommodation for Bench, Bar, and other parties was very defective. He thought he was entitled to expect from what was said when he drew attention to the question on a former occasion, that something would before now have been done. His hon. and learned Friend the present Solicitor General owned that there was a crying grievance, and the Attorney General also condemned the present state of the courts, declaring that an immediate remedy was required, and that, in his opinion, there were sufficient funds in hand for the purpose. The Chancellor of the Exchequer also said that the Government were waiting only for the concurrence of the House, and that after the encouragement which had been given he had no doubt they would not be unwilling to discharge the duty to which attention had been called. He was sorry that the Government had not as yet fulfilled that duty, but he hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would not plead that his words were uttered in the heat of debate, but would give effect to them. The lawyers were a long-suffering race, but he trusted that something would be done, without delay, to meet their just expectations in this matter. At the beginning of the Session the Chief Commissioner promised to bring in a Bill for the erection of new Law Courts between Carey Street and the Strand, but that promise had not yet been fulfilled. And on three other occasions the Government assured the hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck) that they would bring in a Bill on the subject. Something had been said about a financial difficulty, but he believed that means could easily be found, and, at all events, it was the duty of the Government to provide for the decent administration of justice. Luxurious accommodation was not asked for. Nothing more was required than such accommodation as would be consistent with the dignity of the country, and would promote the despatch of business, without occasioning inconvenience to those who were engaged in it. Quiet as the Session had been no stop had been taken, and now, unfortunately for the question, more exciting times were in prospect, but he hoped that the reproach which now rested on our legislation in this respect would speedily be removed.

said, he regretted the absence of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, because he wished to hear that right hon. Gentleman explain why the present state of things was allowed to continue. This was not a subject on which there was any difference of opinion. All agreed that the present state of things was disgraceful to the country. There were only two Equity Courts that were fit for the purpose, the Lord Chancellor's Court and the Lords Justices of Appeals' Court. As for the Equity Courts, no one would say that any of the three Vice Chancellors occupied a court fit for the administration of justice. And what accommodation was there for the transaction of that enormous mass of business which was referred to the Judges' Chambers? He reminded the House that four years ago, when he name down with the intention to put a question on this subject, his noble and learned Friend the present Lord Chancellor told him that the Government were going to bring in a great scheme, and that in two years they would have new courts open. Since that time not a single step had been taken on the subject. He had asked the right hon. Gentleman the Commissioner of Works again and again when the Bill was to be brought in, and he had been assured that it was intended to do it speedily. He had asked the Lord Chancellor on more than one occasion what was the cause of the delay. He could, however, get no satisfactory answer; and he concluded it arose from the consideration of money. The Attorney General had agreed to the necessity of the measure, the Solicitor General had agreed to it, the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whose duty it would be to see that public accommodation was duly provided, had agreed to it. For three if not four Sessions notice had been given by the Government to owners of houses between Searle Street and Fleet Street, that they would require their property, and the inhabitants there were in a state of great inconvenience and uncertainty. One lady, who was the owner of property in Boswell Court, was almost reduced to a state of destitution, for she could not find tenants for her property because the Government would not make up its mind. His hon. and learned Friend had represented the condition of the Courts of Common Law. The Courts of Equity also were extremely bad. There were no Waiting-rooms for witnesses, no retiring-rooms for juries; the Judge himself was obliged to retire to a room eight or nine feet square; and, in short, the whole state of things was a disgrace to the country. And what was the excuse offered? The Society of Lincoln's Inn had made a proposal to build three Vice Chancellors' Courts within the Inn, and lay out on them £100,000 if the Government would pay them £4 per cent on that outlay, and he confessed he would rather accept that proposal than that the present state of things should continue. If the Lincoln's Inn scheme could not be successfully promoted, he, for one, would concur in a general scheme which would place all the Courts of Law between Lincoln's Inn and Fleet Street. He thought that a case had been made out so clearly that the Government owed some explicit explanation to the House. The Government ought either to bring in a Bill at once, or declare their intention to abandon the question, so that the Courts of Equity connected with Lincoln's Inn might take their own course.

said, he was unable to understand what could be the obstacles to the introduction of the Bill on that subject. The dilatory pleas which had so often been put forward were hardly becoming, and the Government ought not to give reiterated promises if they had no bonâ fide intention of fulfilling them. The owners of property on the proposed site of the new Law Courts had been exposed to great loss, owing to the notices which had been constantly served on them during the last three years, and they had good reason to complain of the suspense in which they were kept, as well as the serious injury they sustained while the Government were making up their minds either to proceed with or abandon the scheme. He had asked before Easter whether it was intended to proceed with the measure, and he was told that the Bill would be brought in immediately after Easter, but it had not yet been introduced.

said, the intentions of the Government had been perfectly bonâ fide. Difficulties had, however, interposed which, very much against the will of the Lord Chancellor and everybody else concerned in the preparation of the measure, had caused it to be delayed till the present time. It would be possible, he believed, to bring the Bill in within a very short time, although at that period of the Session he was aware it must depend on the goodwill of the House whether it could pass that year. But, even if it did not then pass, there would be some advantage in having the plan, upon which the Government had at last determined, submitted to the House, so that it might be maturely considered by all who were interested in it before another Session commenced. He agreed that the evil and scandal of the present state of things could not possibly be exaggerated, and that it was an object of the most pressing importance that the Courts of Law and Equity and all the offices connected with the administration of justice in its various departments should be put on a worthier and more satisfactory footing. He was thoroughly convinced that no scheme could be satisfactory which did not aim at bringing the whole of the Courts together, thereby contributing to the greatest possible despatch, the saving of the time of suitors, and facilitating communication between all persons engaged in every branch of the administration of justice. It was true the Government two years previously brought in a Bill founded on the recommendations of the Commission of 1860. That Bill was met by an opposition mainly arising from the preference which some members of the legal profession felt for the plan proposed by Lincoln's Inn as to the Equity Courts. The Society of Lincoln's Inn was anxious to retain the Equity Courts within its own precincts, and desired their peculiar inconveniences to be remedied as soon as possible, whatever became of the case of the Common Law Courts. It would not, he thought, have been an expedient or long-sighted course to agree to that proposal. It would have tended to perpetuate one portion of the evil incident to the existing state of things, by separating one branch of the administration of justice from the rest, and interposing a real obstacle to the final and worthy settlement of that question. On the other hand, fears were expressed by some hon. Members—by the hon. and learned Member for Cambridge University amongst others—that the Government were about to launch on a boundless sea of expenditure, as had been done in regard to the building of the Houses of Parliament, and the House hesitated, chiefly on that account, to commit itself to their scheme. Before introducing another Bill on the subject the Department of the Government concerned in the matter had been very anxious to be quite sure of their ground, especially as to the pecuniary arrangements. The necessary inquiries had occupied, undoubtedly, a longer time than was anticipated at the beginning of the Session; but they were confident of being able to recommend to the House, and eventually they hoped to secure the adoption of, a measure which would obviate all the principal objections raised to the former project. In the first place, the Government had taken pains to ascertain by competent and independent opinions, whether the views of the architect consulted in the first instance, and who no longer had anything to do with the matter, could be safely relied on, and whether the estimates for the purchase of land and erection of buildings between Carey Street and the Strand were adequate. He was happy to state that the original estimate was fully borne out; they were confident that it was an outside estimate, and were confident it would not be exceeded even if the entire plans were carried into effect. A change had been made in the proposed method of dealing with the funds, which would obviate the necessity of throwing any charge upon the public purse. Instead of taking the whole of the funds considered to be available in Chancery, amounting in round numbers to £1,500,000, a portion would be reserved in order to recoup to the public any advances which might have to be made on account of annual charges. The difference it was proposed to make up partly by taking into account the value of the present buildings and sites for building, which would be gained to the public, and partly by having money advanced from time to time by the Public Loan Commission. It was proposed to spread the reimbursement of that portion of the loan over a considerable number of years, and to raise the moderate annual sum which would be required to pay interest and instalments of principal by fees of small amount to be laid upon the several steps and processes taken in. those Courts deriving benefit from the now building which were unconnected with the Court of Chancery, and did not contribute any portion of the funds taken out of that Court. In that way the funds connected with the Court of Chancery, which were owned by no one and belonged to the public, would still contribute the principal portion of the cost, and the remainder would be distributed in the way he had explained. The necessary investigations relating to the plan of which he had given the outline had unavoidably occupied a considerable period of time; but if the House, generally, should be willing to entertain the project, there might be still time to pass it into law. At all events, it should be laid upon the table with as little delay as possible, and an opportunity of considering it afforded before the Session closed.

said, the hon. and learned Gentleman, in his narrative of the reasons which induced the House to reject the former proposal, had overlooked one or two great difficulties which were felt at the time. He had also been very much surprised at the description which he gave of the Suitors' Fee Fund as a fund that belonged to nobody, and was the property of the public. Without discussing that question, he would assert that if the origin of the fund were considered, the purposes to which it was devoted, and the numerous claims continually made upon it, it would be impossible to maintain that view. Moreover, if the total expenditure of the court were placed on one side and the total receipts on the other, it would be seen that instead of an enormous surplus of a million and a half there was really but a balance of £200 or £300 a year; and this was obtained by taxation upon every stage of a cause,—the bill, the answer, the evidence, and the decree of the judge being all taxed. It was idle to talk of £1,500,000 being available. Proposals had been made to the Government to provide some of the requisite courts without any expense whatever to the State. It was only with regard to two out of the six Equity Courts that complaints were really tenable, and the Society of Lincoln's Inn had offered to erect the buildings requisite upon receiving from the Suitors' Fund an annuity of 4 per cent for the money they expended. The society made an alternative proposal to give the ground and to allow the Government to build courts for themselves. Therefore the reasons why the House rejected the original proposal were, among others, because they believed upon economical grounds that it was right to do so. It had been stated that the plan had been brought before the Earl of; Derby's Government and rejected by them; thus, so far from having been rejected, it was in 1859 embodied in a Bill which was read a second time in the House of Lords, and backed with the official title of the then Lord Chancellor. He denied that the benchers of Lincoln's Inn had any personal influence whatever in the decision of the question. If the whole revenues of the Inn were confiscated, they would not be a sixpence the poorer; and they would gain nothing if those revenues were doubled or trebled. The idea of a gigantic building in which all the courts could be assembled was only an idea which could never be realized. Would the House of Lords, for instance, sitting in its judicial capacity, be removed to that building? Would the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council hold its sittings there? Was it proposed that all the Committees of both Houses of Parliament should institute their inquiries within its limits? If the Government were really in earnest in the matter, let them at once introduce the measure of 1859, which would pass without opposition, and before that time next year the courts which it contemplated would be built. The arguments in the Treasury Minute, which had been moved for by the hon. Member for Lewes, were conclusive against the proposed gigantic scheme. They showed the vast expenditure which would be necessary in order to buy up the houses between Carey Street and the Strand, the small surplus existing as between the income and expenditure of all the funds under the control of the Court of Chancery, and the large increase which was sure to take place between the estimate and the actual outlay. These arguments were just as applicable now as they were when the Minute was framed, and the Government would, therefore, do well to settle the question of the Courts of Equity at once and without delay, and afterwards it would be much more easy to find a site for the rest of the Law Courts, which possibly might be formed on the new Thames Embankment. He would therefore urge upon the Government the propriety of discarding their present scheme, as it had alone prevented a practical measure from being adopted, and to carry forward the Bill to which he had alluded.

said, the speech of the hon. and learned Gentleman was a good illustration of the difficulties which beset the question, and which had caused a delay that most persons deplored. The hon. and learned Gentleman spoke with great authority, and he entirely repudiated the general grounds upon which the whole of the legislation in the matter proceeded. Nothing, he said, was wanting in respect of accommodation for the Equity Courts, except two or three Vice Chancellors' Courts. But, from what he (Mr. Cowper) had been able to gather, the hon. and learned Gentleman's proposal was totally insufficient as regarded even the Courts of Equity; and with respect to the Law Courts, the wants of the profession and of the public quite prevented the Government from acceding to such a wretched piecemeal proposal. Why not, he said, adopt the scheme suggested in 1859 by Lord Chelmsford, by which two Vice Chancellors' Courts and certain chambers were to be erected? But, in that matter, he (Mr. Cowper) was content to walk humbly in the footsteps of the Earl of Derby's Government. In 1859, instead of adopting the scheme proposed by Lord Chelmsford, they appointed a Royal Commission upon the question of concentrating the Law Courts. The Report of that Commission met with such general approval on the part of the public, that it became the duty of the Government to endeavour to give effect generally to the recommendations contained in it; and the Government would not be doing what was expected from them by the profession and by the public, were they to abandon a great scheme which would be received as a boon by the profession at large—by solicitors as well as by counsel—for the sake of meeting the inconveniences felt by learned gentlemen practising in these two Vice Chancellors' Courts. Although the delay which had taken place had not mitigated the opposition of the hon. and learned Member, he was glad to say that some other persons thought better of the proposal, and the important aid of his hon. and learned Friend opposite, encouraged him to think that there might be a probability of obtaining the assent of the House to a scheme which was not open to the objections formerly urged against the proposal of the Government.

said, he wished to know whether the Government had decided as to the choice of an architect?

said, that he had stated from the beginning that the Government did not intend to select any particular architect, but meant to have a general competition.

said, he wished to call attention to the inconvenient form in which the Votes for the diplomatic service were submitted to Parliament, and to the inadequate information as to the real cost of that service afforded to the House. All that hon. Members generally knew on the subject was that there was a sum of £180,000 a year charged on the Consolidated Fund for the purpose of paying diplomatic salaries, which sum was entirely at the disposal of the Foreign Office, and over the expenditure of which the House had no control. He held in his hand, he might add, a Return which showed that in the year ending the 31st of March, 1863, there was spent on the diplomatic service a sum of £111,000—the actual sum voted, he believed, being £157,000—in excess of the £180,000 to which he had alluded. In order, however, to find how that money had been disposed of, it was necessary to hunt over five different classes of Estimates, while the expenditure of some of it was to be found under the head of Consuls, some under that of Consular Compensations, and some under the head of Miscellaneous Expenditure, Now, the various items of the outlay for the army and navy were presented to the House in a consecutive manner, and he should like to know why the same course should not be pursued with regard to the diplomatic service. He objected, too, to having any portion of that expenditure withdrawn from the cognizance of the House of Commons by being charged on the Consolidated Fund, and should wish to see the whole of it annually submitted to the House for its approval. If not, the information with respect to it ought, at all events, he contended, to be supplied in an intelligible manner. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving the reduction of the Vote by £10,000.

said, his hon. Friend had brought the question forward during several Sessions, but he begged his hon. Friend to bear in mind that while many other Votes showed an increase, the Vote for diplomatic salaries had remained stationary, with the exception of the charges for China and Japan; and the missions to these two countries were of a mixed political and commercial character, our minister in China being ambassador and superintendent of trade, and our representative in Japan being both envoy and consul general. The confusion in the accounts which the hon. Member seemed to think existed arose from the arrangement made some years ago for charging the cost of the diplomatic service upon the Consolidated Fund. It frequently happened that diplomatic officers under the Foreign Office were employed as consuls, and whenever that occurred their salaries appeared under two different heads. The embassy houses were under the direction of the Board of Works, for what precise reason he could not tell, but he supposed that arrangement was adopted with the view of securing economy.

stated that the diplomatic expenditure, so far from having remained stationary, had been increased under every head. The present Vote, for example, had been raised since 1851 from £16,800 to £37,000. It would be far better to give our representatives abroad a fixed sum for house rent than to provide them with embassy houses. He was of opinion, moreover, that many embassies, particularly in Germany, might be suppressed with advantage; and he complained that our Minister Plenipotentiary in Prussia had been elevated to the rank of an Ambassador with a corresponding increase of salary. In these days of railways and telegraphs it was no longer necessary to maintain large diplomatic establishments in all parts of the world. At the smaller courts all we wanted was a mere charge d'affaires instead of large and expensive diplomatic establishments. The cost of the embassy at Wurtemberg was £3,000; Saxony, £3,300; Hanover, £4,000; Bavaria, £5,000. It was high time that there should be a reduction in this expenditure. He would support the Motion for the reduction of the Vote.

thought the hon. Member was mistaken in his view as to the increase of expense on account of the embassy houses. The practice of taking these establishments for a series of years was found to contribute both to convenience and economy. He hoped the Amendment would be withdrawn, the money being required for actual expenditure.

said, the Vote did not bear on the argument of the hon. Gentleman. It was a Vote for the contingent expenses of the different missions, which expenses were regulated by certain rules, and depended upon services performed. It did not touch salaries, but was for messengers, postages, and other things, expenses that must be incurred. The only effect of curtailing the Vote would be to deprive the department of what was required for carrying on the service of the country. The estimate in one year was founded upon the expense of the year preceding. The amount of the expenses was examined at the Foreign Office, so that no expense should be incurred that was not in accordance with some standing regulation, and for some service performed. The only result of the proposed reduction would be to prevent the service being carried on.

said, the only result would be that the Government would be obliged to economize and husband that sum of £180,000, and pay the expense of the diplomatic service out of it. This was the only way in which they could prevent this large increase of expenditure.

The hon. Member is entirely mistaken. We have no authority to misapply to this service money which is voted for a different purpose. That is for salaries, pensions, and allowances, and for nothing else. The Government would be acting against the law if we were to apply it for this purpose.

said, he thought that the explanations of the noble Lord and the Under Secretary were most unsatisfactory. He would divide the Committee on the question, and hoped to be supported.

said, the only effect of curtailing the Vote would be to starve these different missions, and prevent their performing work essential to the public service.

While we are upon the subject of our embassies, I should be glad to know who conducts in this country the relations between his Holiness the Pope and the Government of Great Britain? We had a long discussion the other night on the conduct of the diplomatic relations between this country and the Papal States, and it was admitted that the responsibility of carrying on these relations at Rome was divided between Mr. Odo Russell and the Consul at Rome. We all know who protect the interests of the Pope in the House of Commons, but I wish to know who in this country conducts the relations between the Pope and the Government?

I can only answer the question which has been put to me in the negative. There is no person accredited in this country to carry on diplomatic relations between the Government and the Pope.

But there is no one accredited in Rome; and yet Mr. Odo Russell conducts the relations. Who in this country has a corresponding position?

No one that I am aware of.

said, he wished to ask for an explanation of the items for board wages and servants' wages at the embassies in France and Turkey. He also remarked that the Vote contained items for chapels and chaplains in France, Turkey, and Greece; but not in Russia and Spain. How was it that in a country where the Protestant religion was proscribed, no sum for Divine service was included in the Votes? When travelling abroad he found that in some places there was no Church of England. He hoped that the Roman Catholic Members of that House, who spoke so much about religious liberty and freedom of conscience, would express their disapprobation concerning the manner in which those principles were ignored in Spain.

said, he thought that some explanation was required as to the expenses of the embassy at Constantinople.

said, that the sums allowed for chapels depended upon the number of British residents in the different places. The charge at Constantinople was rather large for diplomatic services, but he believed that the expense for the year following would be decreased by nearly £2,000.

said, he wanted to call attention to an item of £52 in connection with the mission of Commodore Wilmot to the King of Dahomey; and to express his opinion that no British officer should have consented to or sanctioned by his presence the horrible massacre which that gallant gentleman had witnessed, and which had been ordered by the King as a sacrifice to the spirit of his Majesty's father. The proceedings of Commodore Wilmot had outraged the feelings of a great number of persons in this country; and in asking Parliament to vote the money for the mission they really asked it to be a party to these barbarous practices. Thinking that Parliament should assert the principle that no prospect of gain from trade ought to Lave induced the representative of the Queen of England to sanction such a scene by his presence, he moved the reduction of the Vote by this sum.

said, that Commodore Wilmot was an officer of the greatest humanity, who had devoted a great part of his life to the welfare of Africa, and had undertaken a perilous journey to Dahomey for the express purpose of getting the King lo give up the slave trade, and put an end to the barbarous "customs." Unfortunately, he arrived at a time when the great annual ceremony was performed, at which human beings were sacrificed. His object was not to break with the King, but to obtain a personal influence over him; and in this Commodore Wilmot had succeeded. His (Mr. Layard's) impression was that Commodore Wilmot was not present at any of those scenes, and he would certainly have looked with horror on anything of the kind. His visit had some result, for the King released some unfortunate captives who were taken by the Commodore down to Lagos, and there had their liberty given them. Commodore Wilmot had received no remuneration in respect of this mission, and he was entitled to every praise for the courage, humanity, and devotion he bad exhibited in Africa.

said, he had understood the hon. and learned Gentleman not to reflect on Commodore Wilmot's conduct so much as to wish to protest on the part of the House against scenes which had shocked the whole kingdom.

said, he wished to refer to an item of £1,796, being the "balance of expenses of the special mission of the hon. H. G. Elliot to Greece," and another item of £1,000 for an outfit allowance to the "hon. H. G. Elliot, Her Majesty's Minister at Turin." The initials were the same, but those two items occurring in one year could hardly refer to the same person. He wished to know whether the Dromio of Athens and the Dromio of Turin were the same persons?

said, that Mr. Elliot was sent to Athens on a special mission, and was afterwards appointed to Turin. These items contained the necessary expenses, and referred to the same person.

remarked that the Vote had increased 60 per cent, although the number of the Presbyterian ministers who received it had diminished 20 per cent in the course of as many years. It was a curious fact that the only body of Nonconformist clergy who received aid from the State had diminished in number, while all other Dissenters in the United Kingdom who received no aid from the State had increased in number. He should move the reduction of the grant by the sum of £29,000.

said, that the Presbyterians of Ireland were not a rich body, as, except in the case of a few places, the great bulk of Presbyterians consisted of persons whose means were too limited to enable them to provide for themselves the means of religious instruction. The grant was in accordance with a compact and a practice long established, since James I. induced a number of Scotch families with their ministers to emigrate to Ireland.

said, that from his experience, he was not of opinion that the Presbyterians of the North of Ireland were too poor to support their own clergy. He, as a member of the Church of England, always voted against church rates, because he did not think it was right to tax a Dissenter for the support of his Church. Therefore, he objected to being taxed himself for the support of the Presbyterian Church in Ireland.

complained that the hon. Member for Finsbury had again insulted the Presbyterians of Ireland. He wished to know from the noble Lord at the head of the Government whether he had given a favourable consideration of the application for an increase of the grant?

denied that he had insulted the Presbyterians of Ireland. He had only stated that they were a wealthy and well-to-do body.

said, an application had been made for an increase of the grant, but he had not given any encouragement to the suggestion.

remarked that more than 4,000,000 Catholics in Ireland supported their clergy without State aid.

observed, that the Motions for withdrawing this grant from the Protestant Nonconformists in Ireland originated not with Irish, but with English Members. It was said no other class of Dissenters received an endowment from the State. The Presbyterians in Ireland, however, stood on a different footing from other Nonconformists. The three denominations in Ireland received national grants; why should not the religious body in question? He should support the Vote.

said, he objected to grants of public money for the support of any man's religion. He believed the endowment, instead of doing good, was doing harm in Ireland. The Protestant Nonconformists in that country were able to support their own ministers, and he hoped the House would stand by his hon. Friend in resisting the Vote.

said, he had an Amendment to propose.

The Motion is to postpone the older.

said, he was quite aware of the fact, but being anxious to move that its consideration be postponed to that day week, he desired to give reasons in favour of that course. The Bill had been introduced on the 17th of June, and until it arrived at the stage of Com- mittee no conversation took place in the House upon its provisions. It was introduced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and was founded upon three Resolutions, none of which authorized a very important portion of the Bill relating to the brewing and sale of beer. He would not discuss the regularity of the mode in which it was sought to deal with a very important trade in Ireland; but he thought it very desirable that an opportunity of considering the scope of the measure should be given to that trade. On Friday last the right hon. Gentleman, in reply to a question, intimated that the Bill, so far from imposing greater penalties upon brewers in Ireland, was a relieving measure. What was the fact? Section 9 repealed a number of Irish Acts, for which others in force in England were substituted by Section 10. Among these was the 7 &c 8 Geo. IV. c. 52, s. 54, requiring brewers to make entries of all their brewing utensils, vats, &c, under a penalty of £100. For that section the English Act, 1 Will. IV. c. 15, if substituted, would impose a penalty of £200. The 7 & 8 Geo. IV. c. 52, s. 50, as to the entry of quality of malt, contemplated a penalty of £100 for infringement. That was to be done away with, and the 1 & 2 Geo. IV. c. 22, s. 1. substituted, by which in like manner the amount of penalty would be doubled. With reference to washed malt, in the same way the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposed to double the present penalty. Every Irish Member present would corroborate the statement that not a brewer in Ireland could be aware of the nature of the Bill before the House. He therefore moved that its consideration be postponed to that day week.

said, he would not follow the irregular example of the hon. Member in discussing the details of clauses on a Motion to postpone the consideration of the Report—a very unusual Motion, he must add. The usual practice was to allow the Member in charge of a Bill to name a time, and then, if disapproved of, to object at that time to its being proceeded with. But his object in pressing the Bill was to obtain a decision of the House upon a clause which, for the convenience of hon. Members, he had delayed for some time—namely, that relating to an Act under which prosecutions for illicit distillation were conducted in Ireland. If the Report were agreed to he had no objection to postpone the third reading of the Bill, which would, in fact, be giving every opportunity for consideration. If thought desirable the recommittal of the Bill might be moved as an Amendment to the third reading. The hon. Member for the King's County was entirely wrong in the view which he had given of the effect of the Bill. He should be prepared on the next occasion to make good his statement, that the alterations introduced were in favour of the brewing trade in Ireland.

said, the Chancellor of the Exchequer had spoken of irregularity, but it would be found that the irregularity rested wholly with himself. There would be another opportunity of considering the grave question, whether the Resolutions adopted by the House warranted the propositions contained in the Bill; at present, all he desired to say was that the Bill had been exactly one week before the House, and from its title was not at all likely to attract the attention of the brewing trade. The right hon. Gentleman had, on the introduction of the Bill, not vouchsafed any explanation which would show to those interested in the brewing trade what the real intention of the measure was; nay, more, two or three nights ago, when explanations were asked, there was very great difficulty in getting any at all, and the explanation ultimately given was that the Bill would have no operation at all upon the brewing trade, or if it had, that it would be solely for their advantage. The Chancellor of the Exchequer shook his head, but he had heard him repeat the statement only a moment before. He had only been able to look very hastily into the Acts which were quoted in the Bill, but he undertook to say, that in one instance certainly, and he believed in a considerable number, the statement of the hon. Member for the King's County was perfectly borne out. The very first penalty dealt with in the Bill was doubled by being increased from £100 to £200. The Chancellor of the Exchequer evidently was not aware of the effect of his own Bill, or he would not have made his former statement and repeated it that evening. A cloud of statutes were dealt with in what he must call a most slovenly way, the whole English law as to brewing being extended to the Irish trade in a space of three or four lines. It was a matter which required serious consideration by the trade. Nothing had dropped from the Government to direct attention to it, and it was only that day and the day before that hon. Members had been able to send copies of the Bill to the persons whose interests it affected. He thought the postponement asked for a very fair one. On the third reading Amendments could not be moved or a particular clause struck out, if that should appear desirable, and to recommit a Bill at such an advanced period of the Session would be a perilous proceeding.

said, he would consent if the particular clause to which he had referred were sanctioned on the following day to defer the consideration of the rest of the Bill.