said, he wished to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether the Judges of the Designs for the New Courts of Justice were unanimous in recommending the design of Mr. Street as the best for external elevation; and, if not, whether he will give the names of the Judges who supported the recommendation; whether the votes of Messrs, Shaw and Pownall were token on the question, and whether they or either of them concurred in the decision come to; whether the Lord Chancellor, as Head of the Courts of Justice Building Committee, has not announced that the object of the competition was to test generally the relative merits of the architects, so that Mr. Street's design was consequently adopted as the best architectural composition; and, whether the Secretary to the Treasury will exhibit Mr. Street's successful design in the Library, in order that the House may test the decision of the Judges?

said, he regretted that he was not in a position to answer the first two Questions of the hon. Gentleman, not being aware whether the Judges were unanimous, or whether the votes of Messrs. Shaw and Pownall, the professional Judges employed, were taken or not. All the information in the possession of the Treasury would be laid upon the table in a day or two. He saw no possible advantage in placing Mr. Street's design in the Library. It had been publicly exhibited for many weeks, if not months, in juxtaposition with the other designs for the Courts of Justice.

said, he wished to know, Whether the designs had been exhibited to the public at large or to privileged persons?

said, he believed that the public had the opportunity of gaining admission to the exhibition of the designs.

Would the hon. Gentleman take any steps to ascertain whether the Judges were unanimous?

said, he could not admit that it was any part of his duty to answer that Question.

said, he wished to ask the First Commissioner of Works, If the intention of the Government to appoint Mr. Street (whose design was approved by the Judges for elevation only) sole Architect of the New Law Courts was communicated to the Royal Commission, and whether the Royal Commission has expressed any opinion on the appointment?

said, that the intention to appoint Mr. Street was communicated to the Royal Commission without delay. The Commissioners had since held no meeting, and they had therefore expressed no opinion on the subject.

said, he wished to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, What is the present position of the negotiations between Her Majesty's Government and that of the United States on the subject of a new Postal Convention; and, whether the Government, in making new Contracts for the Conveyance of the Mails, intend to place all the Companies on the same footing as to terms of payment and conditions of service, carrying out the declaration of Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer on the 20th of March, "that the present arrangement was faulty, because it was wrong that the Companies carrying Mails to America should be under different terms with the Government?"

said, in reply, that the negotiations between Her Majesty's Government and that of the United States had been somewhat delayed by the state of business in Washington at the time the officer from this country arrived there. The matter was, however, still pending; and during the negotiations it would not be desirable that he should make any statement on the subject. In reply to the second Question of the hon. Gentleman, he had to state that it was the intention of the Government in making new contracts for the conveyance of the Mails to place all the companies on the same footing as to terms of payment and conditions of service.

said, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether Her Majesty's Government is taking any steps, in conjunction with France and other civilized Powers, to induce the Portuguese Govern- ment to stop the Slave Trade carried on between Macao and Cuba and Peru, under the name of Coolie Emigration?

Sir, the abuses attending on the practice of Coolie emigration from Macao are grave and notorious. We have from time to time brought the matter under the notice of the Portuguese Government, and we have invited Portugal to co-operate with France, England, and other Powers in endeavouring to come to some satisfactory arrangement with the Chinese Government on the question of Coolie emigration generally. To that communication we have as yet received no answer from the Portuguese Government. With reference to the parallel drawn by the hon. Member between the Coolie emigration and the slave trade, I may remind him that in the case of the slave trade, wherever it is carried on, we have the right to interfere by treaty either with Portugal or with any other Power that may be concerned. In the case of the Coolie emigration, we have no right of interference whatever, except that right which every Government has to give such friendly advice to any other Government as it thinks fit. But beyond that we have no power.

said, he wished to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether his attention has been called to the hardship inflicted upon Officers of the Army, Ordnance, Navy, and Marines in respect of Civil Services performed by them, by Clause 16, c. 24, 4 & 5 Will. IV., which regulates the superannuation allowances granted to those Officers; and, if so, will he give the subject his best consideration?

, in reply, said, his attention had been very recently called to the operation of the clause in question, and it was the opinion of many persons well-qualified to judge that that operation involved some hardship upon meritorious officers. The clause had been continually interpreted in one sense only, and that interpretation could not be altered except by an Act of Parliament. It would be a very serious question to re-open the whole question of superannuation allowances; and he was not prepared at present to bring in a Bill to effect the object of his hon. and gallant Friend; but, having heard of the dissatisfaction which had arisen under this clause, he would undertake to watch its operation closely, and to give the subject his best consideration.

said, in the absence of his hon. Friend (Mr. Miller), he wished to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, By what authority the Board of Inland Revenue permits the Postmaster General to accept receipts for sums contained in Money Orders of £2 and upwards without payment by the recipient of the Stamp Duty of One Penny, in contravention of the Act 16 & 17 Vict., c. 59; and, whether the same privilege would be accorded to a Company conducting money order business, and charging the public a lower rate for commission than is charged by the Post Office?

, in reply, said, the authority under which the Postmaster General was relieved from the obligation in question was a letter from the Treasury of the 20th of October, 1853. The whole subject was fully considered then, and it was decided there was no ground whatever for requiring the use of stamped receipts. A company conducting a money order business would not be at all in the same position as the Postmaster General; and it must be remembered that a minimum commission of 3d. was paid upon a Post Office money order, and this paid the Stamp Duty and left yet a largo margin for commission.

said, he wished to ask the Vice President of the Board of Trade, When the Papers having reference to the "Rule of Road at Sea," and laid upon the Table in December last (but the issue of which has been delayed in consequence of some important Correspondence with the French Government on the subject), will be placed in the hands of Members?

Sir, the reply of the French Government has been recently received, expressing entire concurrence in the memoranda and diagrams proposed by the Board of Trade in reference to the "Rule of the Road at Sea." The Papers are now in the printer's hands, and I hope may be ready for distribution by the end of next week.

said, he would beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, If the Government, having regard to their declaration that it is their intention to introduce a Bill for the general valuation of Ireland next year, have instructed the Revenue Department not to enforce an arbitrary rule for fixing the charge for licences in Ireland, based on an admittedly unequal valuation?

said, in reply, that he was not aware of any formal undertaking of the Government to introduce a Bill next year. He had stated that he thought it desirable one should be introduced in due course, but he was not aware that he gave any distinct promise. No instructions had been sent to the Revenue Department in accordance with the suggestion of the hon. Gentleman, nor were any instructions of that nature required; because, as he had formerly stated in answer to a Question, persons who complained had a remedy in their own hands. They were able to go to the Office and demand a re-valuation; and if they did so and proved that they had paid too high a duty the excess would be returned to them.

said, he rose to make a Motion which had stood in his name for a long time. When Parliament met last February, the first thing that greeted hon. Members on their way to the House was a strange apparition in a dirty sheet, standing close to the railings by the carriage entrance in New Palace Yard. That apparition they ascertained upon inquiry to be the Peel Statue, and he ventured to give Notice—for a great many persons thought the site which had been selected for the statue a very bad one—that he would bring the matter before the House. The statue seemed to have been frightened by that Notice, for it one night suddenly disappeared, and remained away for some time. After the lapse of a fortnight, however, it came back again covered as before in a sheet, which was subsequently removed, and it now stood open to the public view, he could not say an object of beauty. The whole subject of the erection of statues throughout the country was one which, in his opinion, was well worthy of consideration. How were statues generally got up? Some distinguished Member of Parliament died, or retired from public life, and his friends and admirers deemed him to be sufficiently distinguished to have a statue of him erected. They formed a committee, collected subscriptions, and selected an artist to carry out that object, and, of course, the size of the statue depended very much on the amount of the subscriptions. The statue completed, they endeavoured to procure the best site in the metropolis in which to place it; and the whole proceeding was conducted in the absence of all system laid down by the Government or any other authority. Some years ago, for instance, there was in Trafalgar Square a statue of Dr. Jenner, which public opinion declared not to be well-matched with other statues in its vicinity, and it was, in consequence, removed to Kensington Gardens. Again, there were the statues of Sir Charles Napier and Sir Henry Havelock, the former of which, persons competent to judge, very generally disapproved; while in the neighbourhood of the United Service Club the admirers of Lord Clyde erected a statue, which represented that distinguished soldier standing on a sort of capstan with an impossible Victory, and a still more impossible lion by his side, and in its vicinity another statue with which it in no way matched. Again, there was the statue erected to the Duke of Wellington at Hyde Park Corner, than which he knew of nothing more monstrous, and which he had ventured to call the apotheosis of bad art in this country. Since he had seen the Peel Statue, however, he felt disposed to admit that there might be something even worse. But that which he rose chiefly to impress upon the House was the absolute want of system which prevailed in this country in connection with our public statues, which were of such a character, and the sites for which were so ill-chosen as to render them a disgrace rather than an ornament to the metropolis. When Lord Llanover was in Office, a proposition had been made to change the pedestal of the statue of Charles I., which he thought was the best thing of the kind in the metropolis. This want of system with regard to statues extended to other matters. Was there any control, for instance, over the construction of railways passing through the metropolis, and as to the nature of the viaducts crossing the streets and river? Cardinal Wiseman gave an interesting lecture some time before his death on this subject, and he drew an analogy between the way in which ancient Rome dealt with aqueducts, and the manner in which railways were allowed to be made in modern London. Cardinal Wiseman observed that if the acqueducts went near any ancient building, the Romans endeavoured to incorporate that building harmoniously with the new work. The little temple of Vesta was preserved, though threatened by three viaducts—while railways cut ruthlessly through any building, however beautiful. When the Commission in reference to the Royal Academy was moved, he ventured to suggest that in a reformed Royal Academy, by the addition of the element of lay honorary members, a sort of council of advice in these matters for the First Commissioner of Works might be obtained. The idea found favour with the Commission; but the Royal Academy had not been reformed in that sense, though the Professor of Architecture suggested that a Committee on public statues and works should be established. In order to avoid the great mistakes which were made, it was desirable to have some control not in opposition to, but as an aid to, the First Commissioner of Works, somewhat analogous, in fact, to that which the Council of India exercised over his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for India. The Americans were said to build ships by the mile, and to cut them off as they were wanted, and it appeared to him that Peel's statue was made on the same principle. He was told that a regular system of manufacturing public statues had grown up in this country. When a man died, and his admirers desired to erect a statue to him, a sculptor got notes of his dress, and then clothed a lay figure in habiliments similar to those worn by the deceased, the lay figure being stuffed or not to suit the appearance of the person to be represented. A cast of the whole was then taken, and a head was then modelled and put on the old clothes. No one could maintain that Peel's statue was an ornament to the metropolis; and who it was that placed it in its present position, or what was now to be done with it, he could not pretend to say. It had been suggested that it should be buried, and another suggestion was that it should be put under the "Buxton extinguisher," which was close by. He was a subscriber to the statue, though he had never been consulted about it; and he would venture to suggest that it should be put into the smelting pot, and that another and different statue should be cast, and then they might hope to have a better statue of Sir Robert Peel. The question of a statue to Cromwell had been raised, but it would be a mercy for Cromwell to be without one if it were to be of the kind in question. As regarded the statues in Westminster Hall, he thought it would be much better without them. He had thought of asking for a Return of the statues outside the building in which they were assembled, for they were so numerous that it was almost impossible to identify them. He hoped the House would remove from the precincts of Parliament this disgraceful statue of that great man, Sir Robert Peel, and he concluded by moving "That, in the opinion of this House, the Peel Statue ought to be removed from its present site in New Palace Yard."

seconded the Motion of his noble Friend with great pleasure, and for three reasons. The first was because it led up the general question of a more efficient Ministry of Arts. The second was his regard for the memory of the amiable and accomplished artist, so lately dead, who had unfortunately produced this statue. The third reason was his veneration for the great name of Peel, which was exposed to perpetual ridicule in connection with that unhappy effigy. He did not believe that it was possible to find greater general lack of art, or more overpowering mediocrity and heaviness than in that figure, stuck up in the corner of Palace Yard, as if it were an Inspector of Police taking the numbers of the cabs and seeing that the Members were not run over. He agreed with his noble Friend that it might be a desirable experiment to strengthen the hands of the Architectural Department by a Consultative Council; but, at the same time he must, by way of cau- tion, observe that due care would have to be taken for the infusion of new blood, and the gradual change of its personnel, otherwise it would become a focus of jobbery and prejudice, while it would only conduce to the stereotyping for long epochs of some passing phase of art, if the Councillors who had been named at the mature ages of forty or fifty years were to hang on as effete septuagenarians. But there was a further reform equally needed, which he had already advocated, and which he would continue to urge until he had won for it the attention which it deserved. The Science and Art Department must be separated from the Department of Elementary Education with which it is now so ill-mated, and must be combined with the cognate Commissionership of Works, and then the new office of Works, Science, and Art should be raised to the position of a first-class Ministry, whose tenant should be capable of sitting in the House of Lords. The last consideration was very important; for the other House is a body which has leisure to attend to such questions, and yet perpetually finds itself pulled up from never having within itself any Official charged with this responsibility. There would then be an Under Secretary, who would probably belong to the House of which the Minister himself was not a Member; so that both Lords and Commons would possess a Member of the Government charged with the official care of questions which were every day increasing in importance. In this case the Metropolitan Board might also be relieved of somewhat of its overgrown power, and the Imperial Government resume, as it ought to do, its general supervision of the improvement of the Imperial capital. In conclusion, he was surprised that his noble Friend had not pointed his case with a reference to Leicester Square, out of which the Court of Exchequer had a few days before ousted the Metropolitan Board, by a decision which affirmed that the garden, with its wooden-legged statue and all the accumulated abominations was private property.

said, he was not one of those who pretended to any particular understanding of matters of art, and therefore his few words would be directed to the facts of the case and to the arguments of his noble Friend (Lord Elcho). The way in which the statue originated was this—when Sir Robert Peel died his friends naturally met and subscribed to pay him that tribute of respect which no man ever better deserved, and a Committee was appointed to carry into effect the wishes of the subscribers. Of that Committee his right hon. Friend the present Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Colonel Wilson Patten) was now the only survivor. The other members were the Earl of Aberdeen, Lord Hardinge, Lord Canning, Sir James Graham, Mr. Sidney Herbert, and Lord Ashburton. He (Mr. Cardwell) had the honour to be the honorary secretary. The Committee unanimously selected Baron Marochetti as the sculptor; his model was publicly exhibited at the Crystal Palace, and he made a statue in conformity with it; but when it was completed it was the opinion of Sir Charles Barry that it was too large to be placed in the immediate neighbourhood of the Houses of Parliament, which was the only suitable locality. Baron Marochetti most handsomely offered at his own expense, to make a new statue, and accordingly executed the one which was now in Palace Yard; but he did not live to see it placed on the site first selected, though he approved of the site. The Committee asked the late Commissioner of Works to give them a site, and he gave them the one on which the statue was first erected with the sanction of Baron Marochetti. When, however the railings, the pillars and lamps were erected, the Committee were of opinion that the site was not a suitable one. The present Committee, consisting of the Duke of Buccleuch, Lord Stanhope, Lord Hardinge, Mr. Gladstone, and the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster consulted Mr. Barry as to the most suitable site, and he selected the one on which the statue now stood, and the Chief Commissioner very handsomely gave it to the Committee. The argument was that there should be some control in these matters; but would they have more responsibility by having a Minister in that House or by having some Council such as that which had been suggested by his noble Friend? If they were to have such a Council they would have a number of amateurs who would give very good or very bad opinions; and no doubt everybody would object to what everybody else had done, but there would be no responsible authority.

explained that he did not wish to alter the responsibility; he only wished that the Head of the Department should have a Council.

said, he thought that a Minister who chose his own advisers was much more responsible than one who had a Council sitting by him with a sort of quasi authority, and whose own authority was only partial, imperfect, and, undefined. He thought that the best course was to leave the matter in the hands of the responsible Minister, and not to establish an amateur committee to advise him.

agreed as to the miserable system on which art matters were managed in the metropolis between the Metropolitan Board of Works on one hand and the Government Office of Works on the other. The statement of the First Commissioner of Works showed that there was no sympathy between the two Departments, and consequently no great work was carried on properly, while, at the same time, the expenditure incurred was enormous. According to the Report on Public Buildings they were about to spend £4,000,000; and surely a system of management ought to be adopted which would be satisfactory to the House of Commons and the country. Let them look for a moment at the ornaments round that House—they were perfectly absurd. Mr. Ruskin had written a book called The Seven Lamps of Architecture, but in that neighbourhood they had seventy lamps of architecture, and the whole plan which had been adopted was very different from that of Sir Charles Barry. But he would not make any lengthened remarks on the subject now, as he had given Notice that he should in the course of next week call attention to a Report which had been laid on the table in reference to the Public Departments. He would then take the opportunity of going into the whole question.

said, that he would confine himself to the matter before the House. He quite agreed with what had been said by his noble Friend (Lord Elcho); but when, some time ago, in Committee of Supply, he made a few remarks on the Peel Statue, he was quite ignorant that Baron Marochetti was the sculptor. Having been on terms of intimacy with the Baron, and being acquainted with his good qualities, both social and artistic, it was with very great pain that he felt called upon to protest against the statue. This was a question of even more importance than the memory of the sculptor. The statue was, in his opinion, entirely unworthy of the site it occupied and of the person to whom it had been put up. It was ill-formed and clumsy, and possessed no artistic qualities whatever. He thought that the site first chosen was not a bad one; but then the architect put up railings and lamps and detroyed the effect of the statue, and thus the statue was made to be subordinate to the lamps and the iron railings. As to the new site, everyone would admit that they should not place a statue upon sloping ground, which gave the impression that the whole thing was sliding down. He did not agree that a Council was necessary for matters of this kind. The sculptor should know the site upon which his work was to be placed, so that he might study it with the view of producing a good effect. The statue of Lord Clyde was first placed behind the parade ground; but the position was so absurd that the Chief Commissioner was obliged to remove it to its present site. He begged to suggest the desirability of laying down a rule that, previously to the erection of any statue, a model both of the sculpture and pedestal should be placed on the site which it was intended to occupy, so that the opinions and criticisms of the public might be obtained before a final determination was arrived at. The French were about to build another great triumphal arch, and they had gone to the expense of ninny thousands of pounds in erecting a complete model of the edifice, and it having been fully criticized, they could now go to work with some knowledge as to what they were going to do. He trusted the statue would be removed.

said, he wished to observe that his noble Friend (Lord Elcho) had omitted to state that the Wellington Statue at Hyde Park Corner had been placed there in direct defiance of a vote of the House of Commons. What took place was this: the Statue Committee obtained the consent of the Crown to place the statue upon the arch; but an address was voted to the Crown that it should not be placed there. The Committee, however, waited upon Earl Russell, then First Minister, and said that their object was to place the statue on the arch be that the public might have an opportunity of seeing how it would look, and they pledged them- selves to remove it if it did not meet with general approbation. The First Minister assented to the arrangement, and, having got the statue there, the Committee said the House of Commons or the Government might themselves move it if they thought fit. He quite agreed that there should be some responsible authority in reference to the erection of statues in the metropolis.

thought the Peel Statue ought to be removed, and that it was a disgrace to the memory of his late Friend Baron Marochetti. In his opinion it would be well if the noble Lord the First Commissioner of Works would also remove all the statues from Westminster Hall, instead of adding to their number. He hoped that whatever experiments might in future be made, Westminster Hall would be held sacred.

said, he thought his hon. Friend who had just sat down forgot that a short time ago the hon. Member for Nottingham (Mr. Osborne) brought forward the question of the statues in Westminster Hall, and the House decided by an overwhelming majority that the statues should remain there. The noble Lord the Member for Haddingtonshire (Lord Elcho) had suggested that in matters relating to public edifices and works of art the First Commissioner of Works should be assisted by a Council similar to the Council of India, which he would remind the House consisted of a number of gentlemen who were well paid, and who were debarred from sitting in that House. Probably, however, his noble Friend would wish that the members of his proposed Council should sit in the House; but the only result of that would be that their deliberations would be adjourned from the office to the House of Commons. Not many years ago the office he now held was associated with the Presidency of the Board of Health, and assisted by that kind of council which some were now anxious to associate with the First Commissioner of Works. The result was that when he succeeded to Office in 1852 he found a complete dead-lock. His predecessor, the Duke of Somerset, had taken measures to exclude every member of the Board of Health from his own office, so that no personal communication could occur between the President and the Board of Health. The House found it necessary to revolutionize that Department, and the Board of Health was now placed upon a more sensible foot- ing. If a Council of the nature now proposed were established the result would probably be very much the same. Then, as to advice on æsthetic subjects given by such a body, the House would recollect what happened on the subject of railway bridges. There was one to be taken across the Thames at Battersea Park, near the Suspension Bridge. Many leaders in the world of art—gentlemen who would, probably, form the council to assist the First Commissioner of Works—took the alarm and remonstrated against this monstrous proposal. They presented a protest, but no attention was paid to their aesthetic remonstrances, and the bridge was built. With respect to the suggestions of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Beresford Hope) and the hon. Member for Honiton (Mr. Baillie Cochrane) be would remark that one of the wisest things the Legislature ever did was to release the Metropolitan Board from all ties to the office of Works, and if they now attempted to make the Metropolitan Board, whose revenues were provided by taxation upon the people of the metropolis, subservient to the Commissioner of Works, or any other Government office, there would be no end to the confusion and complaint that would ensue, and no metropolitan improvement would ever be carried out. When it was argued that there ought to be some strong Government authority to overbear the local authority in such cases as the delay in widening Park Lane, he would remind the House that such interposition would be at variance with the first principles of constitutional government, and that if a despotic authority were established it could only be by means of funds taken from the expenditure of the country. Unless the House were prepared to place the cost of metropolitan improvements on the Votes of that House, it would be unfair to overbear the free decisions of the local bodies. With regard to the removal of the Peel Statue the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxford (Mr. Cardwell) had stated so dearly and succinctly the facts of the case that he was willing to leave the matter in the hands of the House. The noble Lord had not said what he would do with the statue. [Lord ELCHO: Melt it.] The noble Lord was a subscriber to the fund, and he might make this or any other communication to the right hon. Member for Oxford. As to the removal of statues in general, he could not defend, nor was it any business of his to defend, many of the statues in the metropolis; but after the public faith had been pledged to the original subscribers a very strong case ought to be made out before the House could sanction such a violation of public faith and induce people to think in the future that Parliament might turn round and order the removal of a statue without finding any fresh site. He thought that the House would do well to accede to the views of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Cardwell) and reject the proposition of the noble Lord.

said, he was not sure what the precise view of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the city of Oxford (Mr. Cardwell) was. According to what he (Mr. Osborne) heard him say on the subject he was honorary secretary to a committee that had all expired. The right hon. Gentleman had said nothing for the statue, but that it was the work of Baron Marochetti. A most extraordinary speech had been made in reply to the Motion by the noble Lord the First Commissioner of Works. As he (Mr. Osborne) understood that speech the noble Lord's advice to the House was, not to let well alone, but to let ill alone. The noble Lord was desirous to let the horrible abomination remain where it was. He (Mr. Osborne) adjured the House in the name of the greatest Member of Parliament of our time to remove what might have been executed by a "stonemason" in the New Road, but what no one would ever suppose to have been the work of Baron Marochetti. If they had any respect for the memory of Sir Robert Peel they could not allow that dreadful effigy of the great and good man to stand in the place it now occupied. He was not going to enter into the question of the appointment of a Council of Taste or Art. For himself he abhorred all such councils for what they produced realized the "Groves of Blarney"—

"With Pluto and Venus, and bold Nicodemus

All standing naked in the open air."

He would appeal to the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Hankey), who had taken such an interest in and endowed those precious statues in Westminster Hall, and whom he might call the leader of art in that House, to support his noble Friend (Lord Elcho) in bringing about the removal of this statue. He had known Baron Marochetti privately, and he had a high opinion of his abilities; but it was evident that when he executed this statue he was in his decadence as a sculptor. If the House of Commons was insensible to art—as he believed nine-tenths of the Members were—let them at least be sensible of what was due to the memory of a great statesman. Of this statue he said, in the words used by a right hon. Gentleman on another subject, Pull it down, and let it cumber the ground no longer.

asked whether they were to allow such a caricature of the lineaments of Sir Robert Peel to stand for all future generations because it was erected by private subscription, and because the Government could not answer the question as to what was to be done with it? He would say let the noble Lord hand it back to the subscribers. It was not their fault, but their misfortune that it was a bad statue. At the latter part of his life Baron Marochetti's works were inferior to his earlier productions. If the First Commissioner of Works would not give way, he trusted that the House would divide. But he hoped that the Government would not make it a political question and whip up their followers in a matter of this kind. He hoped the noble Lord (Lord John Manners) would defer to the manifest wish of the House and consent to the removal of an eyesore.

said, he held that no statue ought to be erected until a model of the same size had been put up, so that a judgment might be formed as to the effect of it. The Peel Statue was most objectionably placed upon a slope, a position which no statue ought to occupy. He would suggest its removal to a place where it could not be seen.

, in rising to put a Question to the Prime Minister in reference to some passages in his speech last week, at Merchant Taylors' Hall, said, the right hon. Gentleman was reported to have used on that occasion the following words:—

"When we acceded to Office the name of England was a name of suspicion and distrust in every foreign Court and Cabinet. There was no possibility of that cordial action with any of the great Powers which is the only security for peace; and in consequence of that want of cordiality wars were frequently occurring. But since we entered upon Office and public affairs were ad- ministered by my noble Friend, who is deprived by a special diplomatic duty of the gratification of being here this evening, I say that all this has changed; that there never existed between England and foreign Powers a feeling of greater cordiality and confidence than now prevails; that while we have shrunk from bustling and arrogant intermeddling, we have never taken refuge in selfish isolation, and the result has been that there never was a Government in this country which has been more frequently appealed to for its friendly offices than the one which now exists."

These were, surely, very wild words for a British Prime Minister to use, and although much might be forgiven to a man, especially to the right hon. Gentleman speaking after dinner, it must be recollected that he was not offending for the first time; for in the spring of 1858 the right hon. Gentleman made a speech at Slough which created at the time very great interest and excitement, and which was very freely commented upon in this House. In that speech the right hon. Gentleman used language which, when compared with that which fell from him the other day, could hardly be excused as the mere inspiration of circumstances, for it seemed to be a sort of common form which he kept by him for these occurrences when a Conservative Government happened to accede to Office. At Slough, in 1858, the right hon. Gentleman was reported to have said—

"But when I tell you, and I tell you seriously, that the question of peace and war when we acceded to Office was not a question of weeks or days, but of hours, I am sure you will remember that peace has been preserved while the honour of the country has been vindicated."

Now, who, he would ask, was the person who was Foreign Minister in the Administration which went out of Office in the beginning of 1858? Who was that "troubler of Israel" whose designs, whose machinations, whose un-wisdom were such that cordial co-operation between the great Powers of Europe was rendered wholly impossible? That man, if his memory served him right, was Lord Clarendon, the very person of whom Lord Derby was reported as having, in his Ministerial statement on taking Office in 1866, spoken as follows:—

"And, my Lords, desirous more especially at this critical moment for the public interest that the thread of foreign negotiations should not be abruptly broken, I was anxious that those hands which had so long exercised the power of dealing with foreign affairs should still continue to do so, and therefore the first person to whom I made an offer of Office was my noble Friend the late Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (the Earl of Clarendon). My Lords, I made that offer in all sincerity, believing that between my noble Friend and myself there existed no material difference of opinion on political matters, and believing also that it was of the greatest importance to the country that in that particular Office his services should be retained,"

Now, he was informed by some Friends of the right hon. Gentleman that when he rose to reply to the Question which he was about to put to him he would say that nothing was further from his intention than to cast any discredit whatsoever on Lord Clarendon, and that Lord Clarendon had been but a very few months at the Foreign Office when the Conservative Government acceded to power. It was however the fact that Lord Clarendon was a Member of the Liberal Cabinet for something like two years, and that during those two years many most eventful occurrences had transpired on the Continent. Lord Clarendon was responsible—and that noble Lord was the last man who would deny his responsibility—for all the acts of the Cabinets of Lord Palmerston and Lord Russell with respect to foreign affairs of any importance after he took Office. He undertook, too, a mission to Paris, which he would hardly have done if he had entertained a feeling adverse to the policy which was being pursued by the noble Lord who was chiefly responsible for the conduct of foreign affairs. Before he sat down he must express a wish which he was sure was shared to the full by the noble Lord the Member for King's Lynn, and to which he was sure he would in his heart give a most cordial "Amen," and that wish was that the First Lord of the Treasury would in his post-prandial speeches confine himself to observations on the internal affairs of the country. We, in England, thoroughly understood the right hon. Gentleman; we watched with interest his linguistic somersaults; we hailed him as the unequalled political Leotard. But, unfortunately, the reverse was the case on the Continent. There were very few persons who followed sufficiently closely the affairs of our country to understand them, and, consequently, the right hon. Gentleman had the misfortune to be constantly regarded as speaking seriously abroad when he did not mean to speak seriously at all. There was some little time ago an unfortunate man on the Continent—a most eminent political writer—who attempted to follow the career of the right hon. Gentleman, and he arrived at the conclusion that he was a demigod. Unfortunately, however, he became insane immediately after. But, among statesme and jurists on the Continent not one in a 100 really understood the exact political situation of England at the present moment. It could, however, he thought, be stated in a sentence. The Parliament of England, wearied with the labours which it had gone through since the passing of the Reform Bill of 1832, had fallen asleep, and fancied in its dreams that the right hon. Gentleman was riding on its breast like a nightmare. The hon. Gentleman concluded by asking the Premier, Whether he had used at Merchant Taylors' Hall the language which he had quoted?

I think the House will agree with me that it will be convenient not to recur on this occasion to observations which were made ten years ago at a meeting in the county of Buckingham. If we enter into that question, and into discussions as to the political situation at the time, I fear we should have an adjourned debate on foreign affairs in this House, which would not, it seems to me, be desirable, especially as I am informed there is some chance of there being an adjourned debate in the other House of Parliament on a different subject. I think further that the House will agree that if the hon. Gentleman had confined himself to the Question which he had placed on the Paper, and to which I was ready to give an Answer, the time of the House, which is now valuable, might have been spared. Though, I may add, I do not grudge the hon. Gentleman the change which he thought fit to make in his mode of attack, and though I was quite ready to listen to his observations, which I conclude from his criticisms to-night are meant to be models of observations which are not eccentric, it still appears to me that we have hardly been repaid by the exhibition to which we have just listened, for the deviation of the hon. Gentleman from that more modest course of merely putting a Question which he at first proposed to himself to pursue. Really, what the hon. Gentleman wishes to know is whether I made some observations at a banquet in the City, at which I had the honour of being a guest, and whether I am prepared to vindicate them, especially with reference to the noble Lord, who, he told us, has at various times filled eminent posts in the service of Her Majesty, and who has more than once held the office of Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs? So far as I could catch the larger part of the passage read by the hon. Gentleman, and so far as I can judge from that which he printed for the public service in the Notices of Motion, the report appears to me to be substantially correct. I will not criticize expressions, which probably I may not have used, but as far as regards what would be attached to what I said the report appears to me to be substantially correct. In making these observations I spoke, as it was quite evident, of a system of policy that had prevailed for a considerable time, not only for a year, but for many years, and therefore the hon. Gentleman felt, as he was making his observations just now, that the application of my remarks to Lord Clarendon, who really had succeeded to the management of our foreign affairs only for a few months, must be of a slight and limited character. The hon. Gentleman has gone out of his way to connect the career of Lord Clarendon with seven years at least of management of our foreign affairs, respecting which I have expressed my opinion, and I do not think he did a friendly act to Lord Clarendon in so doing. I do not think he at all substantiated his case. Lord Clarendon was Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster during two years of that time, and we know very well that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster does not take an active part in the management of our foreign relations. As for Lord Clarendon's visit to Paris, I do not want to enter into the causes of that visit. It is quite consistent with there being a state of foreign affairs of a very unsatisfactory kind, and which were not managed with adroitness and wisdom by those peculiarly responsible for them, that they should have recourse to the experience of Lord Clarendon to extricate them from their difficulties. As I am asked, I must state without any equivocation whatever that I believe this is substantially a correct version of what I said at the meeting in the City, and I believe that it expresses the literal truth, I believe that for five, six, or seven years, dating from the period when a Nobleman, once a distinguished Member of this House, took the management of foreign affairs in 1859, they were conducted, to use one of his own famous expressions, as they seldom have been, since the accession of the House of Hanover. It was obvious that Lord Clarendon who succeeded to Office for only a few months, could not be responsible for a system which had unfortunately prevailed for many years. Lord Clarendon inherited difficulties and he bequeathed them to his successors.

said, that having had the honour of representing the Foreign Office in that House for five years, he trusted the House would allow him to endeavour to elicit from the right hon. Gentleman a straightforward answer to the Question. ["Oh!"] It was not his business to call the attention of the House to the right hon. Gentleman's speech, but it was quite right that his hon. Friend should do so. The statements of the right hon. Gentleman were capable of proof or they were not; but they would not be proved by mere outcry and clamour from the other side of the House. He was concerned in the grave accusation made, and he thought the other side of the House might allow him to say a few words upon the subject. He did not attach much importance to the vapourings of the right hon. Gentleman; they were the subject of much merriment to many persons; but they were the cause of deep sorrow to those who desired to maintain the character of British statesmen whatever their politics might be. The right hon. Gentleman could not get out of what he said by "chaff," of which he was a master. He said—

"When we acceded to Office the name of England was a name of suspicion and distrust in every foreign Court and Cabinet. There was no possibility of that cordial action with any of the great Powers which is the only security for peace; and in consequence of that want of cordiality wars were frequently occurring.

With regard to Lord Clarendon, the right hon. Gentleman rode off with the excuse that Lord Clarendon had been only a few months Minister of Foreign Affairs; but the right hon. Gentleman kept out of view the fact that Lord Clarendon, holding at that time the office of Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, was constantly consulted upon foreign affairs, and had been sent upon the most important missions. He not only went to Paris, but he represented this country at the Conference upon the Danish question; and on various other occasions he was employed, if one might say so, on matters connected with our foreign policy. The right hon. Gentleman evaded the allusion of the hon. Member for the Elgin Burghs (Mr. Grant Duff) to his speech of 1858, in which he stated that peace or war was a question, not of months and days, but of hours and minutes, to the fact that the Minister who had so nearly involved this country in war was Lord Clarendon, and to the fact that, notwithstanding his knowledge of this, Lord Derby invited Lord Clarendon two years ago to join his Government and take the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. He wished the right hon. Gentleman to state definitely what were the wars that were "frequently occurring" during Earl Russell's tenure of Office, and when he represented the Foreign Office in that House? He did not ask him for a great many, but he would like him to name half-a-dozen? And what were the nations with whom there was that "want of cordiality" which led to these wars? He did not want any "chaff;" he wanted distinct answers—he had a right to demand them, and the House and the country had a right to them. When he was at the Foreign Office there were two wars. One was the civil war in the United States, and he presumed the right hon. Gentleman did not mean to say Earl Russell was responsible for that. Then there was the Danish war, which afterwards led to the Prussian and Austrian war. But what were the "frequent wars" which were caused by the then Government? He would remind the House and the country that the most persistent endeavours were made by the supporters of the right hon. Gentleman to violate the neutrality of this country and to involve us in war with the United States. It was perfectly true that the right hon. Gentleman avoided committing himself; but did he restrain his followers? Why we might have been involved in war with the United States if a Motion upon the Alabama question had been carried, and it was defeated by a majority of only 11. Did the right hon. Gentleman on that occasion restrain his followers or urge them on? With respect to the Danish question, did not Lord Russell interfere to bring about peace? [Mr. BENTINCK: No, no!] The hon. Member for Whitehaven, who seemed to know everything, said "No;" but he (Mr. Layard) could answer on that point. Lord Russell did not succeed; but no one could deny that his endeavours were to preserve peace. If the noble Lord's endeavours failed, they failed in consequence of the speeches made by the party then in Opposition in the House of Commons—he would not say in consequence of speeches made by the right hon. Gentleman himself, but by his supporters, who brought forward questions and urged the House to go to war in support of Denmark. A noble Marquess—no longer a Member of that House (the Marquess of Salisbury)—who by his consistency was an honour to it, and who, if he were present, would boldly admit the fact, wished to force on war. One of the main causes of the war between Denmark and Prussia and Austria was because the Danish Government were led to believe by their Minister in London that if they went to war they would be supported by the Conservatives, who would have a majority in that House. ["Oh, oh!"] He stated that as a fact, and no one acquainted with the subject would venture to deny it. He knew of no other wars except those he had mentioned occurring on the Continent or elsewhere during the time when Lord Russell was Foreign Minister. The House was aware, that while sitting on the Opposition side of the House, he had himself abstained from taking part in discussions on foreign affairs, as he was not desirous of showing any feeling against the noble Lord the present Foreign Minister, but, on the contrary, had always felt glad when he was able to support the noble Lord. He had never made a speech against the noble Lord, though he had disagreed with him on many points; but when it was said that the late Government were the cause of this and that war, and were never able to maintain cordial feelings with foreign Powers, he had a right to inquire in what respect there had been a change. The Danish war; was the inevitable result of events. The great principle involved was German unity, the Danish question being a pretence for the time. But after the war ceased a time of quiet came about, as generally happened in such a case. Since the present Foreign Minister had been in Office no question likely to lead to war had arisen ["Oh, oh!" and cries of "Luxemburg!"] What credit had the noble Lord in settling the question of Luxemburg? The noble Lord had admitted that he had great difficulty in agreeing to mediation. Had it not been for pressure from without the noble Lord would not have mediated; and it was only at the last moment, when the Emperor of the French was about to apply to Holland to exercise a mediation, that the noble Lord at last consented. What happened afterwards? The noble Lord and the Earl of Derby stated that when entering into the guarantee it was not their intention to keep it; for that was the meaning of what was said by them respecting the efficiency of the guarantee. If any German statesman were asked what construction was to be put on the words used by those two noble Lords, he would declare that that announcement destroyed all faith in the mediation of this country. With Turkey the noble Lord opposite had followed the policy which Lords Russell and Clarendon pursued; and, indeed, that was the only policy which could have been adopted. As to the Spanish claims, in regard to the Mermaid and the Tornado, they were not settled to the present day. The noble Lord had told the House that the English claimants had right on their side, but that he would wait until some British subjects had done wrong to Spain and then he would set one wrong against the other. As regarded the Alabama dispute, matters still remained in the same state as when Earl Russell's Government went out of Office. He thought that the country would not accept the Answer which the right hon. Gentleman had given that evening, and he called on the right hon. Gentleman to state what were the wars in Europe, or elsewhere, which had been brought about by want of cordiality between this country and other Powers?

said, he thought that the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down proved the truth of the saying that "Those who complain without cause always complain without temper." He could not compliment the hon. Gentleman on the diplomatic language of his speech. The hon. Gentleman found fault with the expression in the Prime Minister's speech that on the present Government acceding to Office "the name of England was the name of suspicion and distrust in every foreign Court." Was not that the truth? It was by a "meddling and muddling policy" and by going certain lengths in respect to Poland and Denmark and then withdrawing, that suspicion and distrust were excited on the Continent and great evils were produced in this country. Lord Russell, in a memorable despatch, had laid down the principle with respect to other nations that whenever the people of a country thought that they had a sufficient grievance they had a right to rise in arms against their rulers, mid after such a decimation was it surprising that Fenian and other disturbances should have broken out?

Sir, I had expected that after the remarks of my hon. Friend near me either the right hon. Gentleman opposite, appealing to the indulgence of the House, which is usually accorded under such circumstances, or some other Member of Her Majesty's Government, would have risen in his place and have replied to the observations which have been made from these Benches. I am, of course, assuming that the Members of Her Majesty's Government do not entirely shrink from accepting the responsibility which attaches to the language used by their Chief. However that may be, I cannot rise on this occasion without expressing my deep regret that occasion should have been given to the hon. Gentleman behind me (Mr. Grant Duff), in the exercise of his discretion as a private Member of this House, and without any concert with me, to challenge the speech which was delivered by the right hon. Gentleman at the Merchant Taylors' Hall. I must confess that whatever appetite for controversy I may possess is usually abundantly satisfied by the occasions for controversy that arise within the walls of this House; and therefore it is to me a matter of the most sincere regret that the First Minister of the Crown should have used language in another place that has led to this discussion. But the hon. Gentleman behind me having brought forward the subject, I must take the opportunity of respectfully but firmly protesting, not merely against the particular passage to which reference has been made, but against the whole strain of this oration, and of many other orations which the right hon. Gentleman, departing in this respect from the practice of his predecessors, has made it his custom to deliver, sometimes to his constituents in Buckingham, sometimes to a sympathizing audience at the Merchant Taylors' Hall, sometimes at demonstrations of Conservative working men, and sometimes to the deputations of the supporters of the Established Church in Ireland, led on by the chief Orangemen of Ireland. In these speeches the right hon. Gentleman has systematically adopted a tone, in the first place, of inflated and exaggerated eulogy of himself and of his policy; and, in the second place, of censure and of condemnation so sweeping and so violent towards those from whom he differs as he rarely ventures to adopt in this House. Having thus entered my protest against the tone adopted by the right hon. Gentleman in his speeches, I will now endeavour to state the facts which appear to me to bear strongly upon the particular passage to which the hon. Member behind me has drawn the attention of the House. The right hon. Gentleman said in that passage that when he acceded to Office the name of England was a name of suspicion and distrust in every foreign Court and Cabinet; and then he proceeded to make other assertions of the same kind with which I will not trouble the House. On his asser- tions being challenged, and its being pointed out to him that his censure must principally apply to Lord Clarendon, the right hon. Gentleman takes refuge in the allegation that Lord Clarendon had only held the office as Foreign Minister for a few months before the present Government came into power, and he gives us to understand that it was to the policy of the Cabinet—and especially that of Earl Russell, the predecessor of Lord Clarendon—that he intended his observations to apply. I think it is obvious that after Lord Clarendon had been for nine months at the head of the Foreign Office, it is scarcely accurate to say that he was representing any policy but his own. But with respect to the policy of Earl Russell, I think that the censure of the right hon. Gentleman, if it falls anywhere, must fall, not upon the late Government, but upon Parliament, for the right hon. Gentleman himself thought fit to challenge the policy of Earl Russell in a Motion with respect to the Danish question, which, after being discussed many nights, was rejected by this House, which approved the policy of Earl Russell, and rejected that of the right hon. Gentleman. I admit that there is great temptation on occasions similar to that at the Merchant Taylors' Hall to resort to these sweeping censures of the policy of one's opponents. There is nothing so dangerous to a speaker as to know that he is speaking to an audience who cannot detect his errors and his fallacies. The right hon. Gentleman unfortunately yielded to the temptation. It is, however, true, as has been stated by the hon. Gentleman behind me, that this is not an accidental error on the part of the right hon. Gentleman. It is a part of his system. The hon. Member has shown that in 1858 and in 1868 the right hon. Gentleman used the same established formula in passing a sweeping condemnation upon his opponents—a condemnation which in no case should I care to retort; and that on both occasions the statements of the right hon. Gentleman have been contradicted out of the mouth of his own Chief. In 1868 the right hon. Gentleman says that the name of England in 1866 was "a name of suspicion and of distrust in every foreign Court and Cabinet;" to which the hon. Member replies that in 1866—the same year—Lord Derby urgently requested Lord Clarendon to give him that valuable assistance which had made the name of England "a name of suspicion and of distrust in every foreign Court and Cabinet." I ask, had or had not the policy of Lord Clarendon rendered the name of England "a name of suspicion and of distrust in every foreign Court and Cabinet?" The right hon. Gentleman endeavours to shift out of the words; but the hon. Member who has just sat down does not resort to any such subterfuge; he boldly takes the bull by the horns, and lays the blame upon Lord Clarendon.

No; I said that the blame lay upon Earl Russell.

But you told us that it was quite true that the name of England in every foreign Court was a name of distrust and suspicion.

Yes; I said it was brought about by Earl Russell's policy.

And the state of things he brought about was continued by Lord Clarendon, who identified himself completely with the policy of Earl Russell. And yet this was the Foreign Minister whom Lord Derby was so anxious to enlist among his ranks upon the formation of his Government. Again, in 1858, the right hon. Gentleman attributed the fact that war was about to break forth in Europe to the fault of the foreign policy of the Government which preceded that of Lord Derby. But Lord Derby in that instance also gave similar testimony, for he had said, in 1855—

"I stated to Her Majesty that I conceived it would have been an immense advantage to any Government to have among its members one who is perfectly conversant with the whole diplomacy of the last two years, and with the feelings and proceedings of various Courts of Europe."…[That is to say, the feelings of suspicion and distrust.] "I took the liberty to add, with regard to my noble Friend the Secretary for Foreign Affairs, (the Earl of Clarendon) that I entertained the highest opinion of the ability, the industry, and the zeal with which he had discharged the duties of his Office……The only part of the course I have pursued to which I look back with the least doubt or incertitude is with respect to the propriety of my abstaining from making any communication either to the noble Earl directly, or to the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Lansdowne) near him." [3 Hansard, cxxxvi. 1347–8.]

In 1855 Lord Derby emphatically recognizes the services of Lord Clarendon, and asks him to join his Government; while in 1858 the right hon. Gentleman, referring to the accession of the Conservative Government, declared that war had become a question not of weeks or days, but of hours. In 1866 Lord Derby passes a similar eulogium upon Lord Clarendon; and in 1868 the right hon. Gentleman says that when Lord Derby's Government came into power the name of England was viewed with suspicion and distrust in every foreign Court. I must again protest against the language of the right hon. Gentleman; and it is only because I wish to spare the time of the House that I abstain from entering into a particular review of the speeches and the declarations of the right hon. Gentleman, which much of their matter would go far to justify me in doing. I do not complain of these speeches because I do not think they are injurious to us in a party point of view. On the contrary, I think they are weapons perfectly harmless for any such purpose; and if they have the effect for a moment of exhilarating the spirits of those who pay visits to the right hon. Gentleman, and of causing an agreeable interchange of sympathy and compliments between him and them, I really cannot grudge either him or them any amount of such gratification as they can derive from them, especially when the statements of the right hon. Gentleman have been so fully contradicted by Lord Derby. An attempt has been made by the right hon. Gentleman to shift the gist of his attack from Lord Clarendon to Earl Russell; but before I sit down I must remind the House of one thing that had almost escaped my memory. Late in the days of the late Government, the right hon. Gentleman made a special and heavy attack, not upon Earl Russell, but upon Lord Clarendon. But it was impossible for him then, as it is now, to injure that distinguished statesman—strong as he is in the admiration and affection of this country and the esteem of foreign Powers—so long as we can place against these Phillipics an emphatic and point-blank contradiction from the mouth of Lord Derby, the Prime Minister under whom he served.

Sir, I am sure the House will feel that it is with the greatest reluctance that, holding my present Office, I take a part in this discussion But I must say that if a general debate is to be raised on the foreign policy of this country it should be raised in a form more convenient than that which the hon. Member for the Elgin burghs (Mr. Grant Duff) has adopted on the present occasion. In a matter of this kind I do not complain of the want of Notice, because a Minister ought always to be prepared to defend his policy; but at the same time I must be permitted to express my opinion that a desultory discussion brought on in this way and dealing with half a dozen topics at a time is not a discussion that can result in any practical good. Now, the remarks of my right hon. Friend at the head of the Government, whatever they may be held to import, were not in any way a charge against either the capacity or the character of Lord Clarendon. The foreign policy of the Liberal party during their seven years' tenure of Office was in the main the policy of Lord Russell. For my own part I will abstain from criticizing that policy, although I think a great deal might be said against it, especially with reference to Poland and Denmark In regard to the American Civil War, on the other hand, I give Lord Russell credit for having endeavoured to maintain a position of neutrality for this country. The hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Layard) says, what I will do him the justice to say is correct, that during the term of my administration of foreign affairs he has abstained as a rule from party criticism on subjects of foreign policy, and has seldom called the acts of that Department into question; but I must say I think he has made ample amends to-night for his customary silence. The charges he has brought forward are, to say the least, as sweeping as any which have been attributed to my right hon. Friend; and I think I can show that they are as unfounded as they are sweeping. First of all, the hon. Gentleman referred to the question of the Spanish claims, and said, "What have you done with them; have you settled any one of them?" Now there are but three Spanish claims of any importance which have turned up since I have been at the Foreign Office. First of all there was the case of the Queen Victoria, which was settled by diplomatic action on the spot. Then there is the case of the Mermaid. Now I will not stop to comment on the interpretation put upon certain words which I used in the debate on that subject, for the important fact to be borne in mind is that within six weeks after that discussion in this House the Spanish Government determined, as I all along believed and hoped they would do, to refer the matter to arbitration, and accordingly it has been so referred, and the arbitration is now going on. Then there is the case of the Tornado. What was done in regard to that? I do not wish to prejudice the position of any of the parties who are now before the legal tribunals, but I think that everyone who reads the voluminous Parliamentary Papers on the subject must admit that that is not a case which would have justified us in pressing for more from the Spanish Government than that strict letter of the law to which the parties were entitled. Then the hon. Gentleman has referred to the Alabama question, and has stated that it remains in the position in which it was in 1866. Now I admit that the claims of the American Government are not settled, and, indeed, I stated in this House not long ago what was the actual position of the question; but it is simply the reverse of fact to say that the Alabama claims now stand in the same position as they did two years ago. I am not going to enter into detail as to events which happened before I accepted the Seals of the Foreign Office; I admit that the circumstances were different. But in 1866 the Government had given a refusal to the proposal to arbitrate. The position which the question at present occupies is as follows:—We have accepted frankly and freely the principle of arbitration, and there is now only one remaining point of difference between the two Governments. The American Government desire to couple that arbitration with one condition which I think is not very material to the real issue to be tried, but which we consider as inadmissible. At all events I believe the matter is placed in such a position that there is no probability of an international quarrel, or an acrimonious dispute arising out of it. Then the hon. Gentleman entered into another wide question of Luxemburg. He said, "It is all nonsense for you to pretend that you maintained the peace of Europe." Now I never made any such pretension, because I do not believe that any one individual or any single Government can, under such circumstances, claim to have preserved the peace of Europe. But I contend that in a critical moment, and under circumstances of great difficulty, we did all that it was possible for us to do, with due regard to the interest and the security of England, in order to preserve the peace of Europe, and that with the assistance of other Governments we succeeded in attaining our object. Of course, if France and Prussia had determined to go to war, we could not have prevented them; because no one can suppose that we intended to take an active part in the conflict, and it could only have been by a threat of such interference that we could have succeeded in compelling them to keep the peace. What happened was this—both France and Prussia were committed to a position from which it was difficult for them to recede, and under those circumstances they naturally looked for the friendly assistance of a third State in order to be extricated from it without loss of honour. What the hon. Member says as to the reluctance which I felt in giving the guarantee is perfectly true; I think any Minister in the same position would have felt it, and that anyone who did not feel it would have shown a reckless indifference to the interests of the country. I gave the guarantee unwillingly and as the only means left, as I believed and still believe, of preventing—I will not say a war, but at least, a rupture between the parties. To say, however, that it was given under any external pressure is entirely a misapprehension. I must say that the hon. Gentleman's survey of foreign politics, though rapid, was exceedingly comprehensive. But there now remains only one question for me to touch upon—namely, that of the East. The hon. Member seems to think that I recommended when out of Office a different policy from that which I have adopted since I have held my present position. Now that is not the case. I believe the Greek nation have a great future, and I shall be very glad to see them attain it; but I think we should not be justified in breaking through long-standing and recognized international agreements out of sympathy with any nation or any race of men. If I have seemed to show favour to the Porte at the expense of Greece I am not conscious of it; and if I have ever seemed to be so, it has not been from a desire to favour one side as against the other, but from a desire to adhere as strictly and rigidly as I could to the engagements into which England has entered, and to the principle of an impartial neutrality.

said, that the House had by a Bill and Resolution suspended all new appointments, whether to the Established Church, Maynooth, or the Regium Donum, and this proceeding placed him in rather a peculiar position. In 1834 the allowance to these ministers was only £26,100; in 1868 it had risen to £41,386. During the interval a feeling of distrust had sprung up in many quarters against this system of begging from the State, and he had himself presented a petition from the remonstrant body in Ireland who were opposed to it. To that portion of the grant which was allowed to widows and orphans of ministers of the synod of Ulster—£366—he did not object; but he should move that the entire grant be reduced to that amount.

acknowledged the consistency of the hon. Member for Sheffield in again bringing forward this Motion; but expressed his own opinion that the present time was most inopportune for the consideration of the question. The Northern district of Ireland was a model of what a British settlement should be, and much of this happy state of things was due to the Presbyterian Church. The Vote was a very small sum to give for the advantages which the State receives in return; for wherever Presbyterianism predominates the gaols are empty, and the number of police is infinitesimally small. As the larger question of the Established Church in Ireland had been taken up, it could not be expected that the smaller question of Presbyterian endowment could escape hostile criticism. Retaining the opinions he had often expressed, he should vote against the Amendment of the hon. Member for Sheffield. The grant was paid in consequence of an agreement entered into between the State and the Presbyterian body, when they were induced to undertake the colonization of the North of Ireland in the reign of James I. He submitted that, considering the alteration in the value of money in course of years, there should be an augmentation of the original endowment.

said, as the circumstances had been much altered since the Notice of this Motion was put on the Paper, discussions on the Irish Church and the Regium Donum having taken place, and Resolutions having been passed which could not then have been anticipated, he hoped the hon. Member for Sheffield would not press this Motion to a division. If he did so, as the elections were approaching, every Member for Ulster would feel bound to speak in favour of the Regium Donum; but if he withdrew it, those speeches would be made from the hustings.

said, that the clause relating to the Regium Donum in the Suspensory Bill, which he hoped would pass, would prevent any fresh rights accruing under the grant. But for that clause he would have pressed for a division; as it was he would advise the withdrawal of the Amendment.

objected to the statement of the hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. Hadfield), that the Regium Donum caused the Presbyterians to cringe at the feet of the Ministry. He should give a decided opposition to the Amendment.

said, he had always supported the hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. Hadfield) in this proposition; but would now suggest to him that, owing to altered circumstances, he would do well not to divide the Committee on this occasion. The hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Peel Dawson) said the Regium Donum had been given to carry out the policy of James I. That policy was that no Catholic should be permitted to exist in Ireland, and that the whole of the land should be held by imported Englishmen and Scotchmen. When it was assumed that the Presbyterians were so exclusively loyal, he begged to remark that within the memory of living men a serious rebellion had been organized in Ulster by Presbyterians.

recommended to the hon. Member for Sheffield to withdraw the Amendment; but he hoped that a subsequent Amendment against any increase in the grant would be adopted.

was understood to intimate his willingness to withdraw the Amendment.

protested against the Motion being withdrawn after the hon. Member had made a speech on the subject. Other hon. Members were thus debarred from expressing their opinions. The Dissenting congregations of Ireland were too poor to provide anything like the amount that was raised by the Free Church of Scotland. The voluntary system could not exist in Ireland to such an extent as to make it successful. He thought that it would be a great breach of faith to take away the grant, which, instead of being left dependent on annual Votes, ought to have been placed on the Consolidated Fund. He protested against the principle of leaving it to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Lancashire (Mr. Gladstone), or to any individual, however high his authority or ability, to say in his mercy what amount of compensation ought to be given to the clergy of the Established Church or of the Presbyterian Church. He contended that the Presbyterians had as much right to compensation if the Regium Donum was abolished as the clergymen of the Established Church would have if that Church were to be disestablished.

protested against the principle that the grant was one which entitled parties on its withdrawal to compensation. The whole system connected with this grant was a rotten one, and he believed that no party would be more benefited by the abolition of the grant than the Presbyterians ministers themselves. Within the last month a meeting of the whole body of Presbyterian ministers in Ireland was held, and a motion was made to strike at the grant, and it was lost only by a majority of about 30 in a very large assembly; and he had no doubt they would find next year that there would be a majority of that body itself against the grant. As to Ireland being too poor for the voluntary system, he could only say that even in the poorest parts of Scotland the voluntary system flourished in the highest degree. The Free Church had raised on the voluntary principle last year upwards of £390,000—just nine times the pittance which the Presbyterians in Ireland came to beg from that House, to be paid by taxes out of the pockets of those who already paid for the support of their own ministers.

said, that the House, instead of grudging this miserable pittance, ought to feel ashamed that the sum granted was so small. £150 ought to be the least stipend granted to any minister.

said, the principle upon which the Regium Donum was voted was a sound one. They had a curious illustration of the manner in which the provision for the Irish Presbyterian Church and the endowment of the Established Church in Ireland was assailed. The Motion of the hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. Hadfield) was supported by the hon. Baronet the Member for Clare (Sir Colman O'Loghlen), who was the Leader in the House of the Roman Catholic section, and perhaps also a leader of the Liberation Society. There was an unnatural alliance between those who represented opinions in favour of extreme voluntaryism and the Roman Catholic section, who were opposed to the whole body of Protestants in this country. That alliance had proved fatal to foreign countries, and would prove fatal to this if the people were not made aware of the aims and ends of the allies.

observed, that the voluntary system worked admirably in Ireland; but, under all the circumstances, it would perhaps be better now to agree to the Vote, on the understanding that the matter would be fully discussed next Session.

said, he wished to ask a few questions respecting the Vote so far as it concerned liberated Africans. He found that in 1864 six slaves were liberated, and in 1865 none, and yet he found that in 1864, the sum granted for prize money was £7,061; and even in the years when no negroes at all had been captured, prize money was granted. He wanted to know how that happened? He thought the prize system was a had system, and led to much inconvenience.

wished to know what had become of the negroes who were captured on the East Coast of Africa?

said, he had given a full explanation of this subject a short time since, and was not prepared to enter into the question again without Notice. He might, however, remind the hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. Alderman Lusk) that the prize money was principally derived from the sale of the slave ships captured by Her Majesty's ships. The cost of these captured slaves was a decreasing cost. The Vote originally was very large. It was not merely for captured negroes, but also for captured slave ships. The slaves captured on the East Coast of Africa were disposed of in an economical way by being sent to islands in those seas. The great item was the Vote for the mainten- ance of the establishments necessary to keep up in connection with our captures.

said, that since 1866–7 the Vote had increased at the rate of about £20,000 a year. A considerable number of the establishments might, with great propriety, be suppressed. Some of the consuls, to his knowledge, in Spain and elsewhere, had literally nothing whatever to do. He last year mentioned the case of Seville, and he could mention it again as a place where the English consul had nothing to do. By not filling up many of the appointments when they became vacant, the expenditure might be reduced by between £30,000 and £40,000 a year.

said, he doubted whether the Vote had really increased to the extent mentioned by the hon. Gentleman. He would also remark that the fact of there being a certain amount of security in these consular appointments induced gentlemen to accept them on comparatively low pay. He thought that when they had sent a man out upon a salary to a post which he had a right to consider a permanent post, they could not very well withdraw him from his employment. Such a course would inflict great injury upon the public service; but he could assure the hon. Gentleman that in every case where he had to appoint a consul he considered first whether there was anything for him to do, and, secondly, whether the salary was excessive for the work required of him. It should also be borne in mind that a sovereign did not represent so much now as it did twenty-five years ago. The cost of living and of house-rent had increased greatly all over the world of late years.

said, he saw a Vote of £600 for house-rent, &c, for the consul at Massowah. Was there any reason why this Vote should be continued, seeing that the consul had been re-called years ago?

said, there was no intention to send a new consul to Abyssinia. Consul Cameron had been re-called; but the hon. Member was aware that he had been detained in Abyssinia by causes not within his own control.

said, he believed Consul Cameron had been recalled when Earl Russell was Foreign Minister.

said, it was quite right that these Consular Estimates should be carefully scanned; but it must be borne in mind that our consuls were not Diplomatic agents of the Foreign Office, but were appointed to look after the interests of our enormous trade, and as that trade increased, so it must be expected that the Vote for Consular Services would increase also. His impression was that this country was often very fortunate in obtaining the services of intelligent and respectable gentlemen in foreign forts at a very moderate salary.

said, that there was an item for Mr. Consul Cameron's salary and house-rent in Abyssinia, whereas he had been re-called two or three years ago. As to his house-rent he always understood that he had been provided with house-room by King Theodore.

said, that the letter of re-call was written by his predecessor at the Foreign Office, but it never reached Consul Cameron as he was in confinement. A somewhat nice question thereupon arose whether Consul Cameron had been re-called or not. He had borne a severe and painful imprisonment. Whether he had been well-advised or not, he had acted to the beat of his judgment, and having suffered very seriously it would not be the wish of the Committee that he should be dealt with hardly.