rt1itr au rnutkingninVntlinuttnt.
ERIN CIE AL BUSINSSS OF THE 'WEEK.
Horse or Loans. Monday, June 30. Royal Assent to Factories Bill and Sar- dinian Loan Bill—Affairs of Italy ; Lord Lyndhurses Question and Lord Claren- don's Answer—Oath of Abjuration Amendment; Lord Derby's Bill withdrawn- -Joint-Stock Companies Bill read a third time and passed. Tuesday, July 1. Registration of Voters (Scotland) Bill read a second time— Sleeping Statutes Bill reported. Thursday. July 3. Reformatory and Industrial Schools Bill read a third time and passed—Divorce and Matrimonial Causes Bill reported—Cambridge university Bill read a second time. Friday, July 4. Evidence in Foreign Suits Bill read a second time—Dwellings for the Labouring Classes (Ireland) Bill read a second time—Exchequer Bills. (4.000,0001.) Bill read a second time—Divorce and Matrimonial Causes Bill read a third time and passed—Cambridge University Bill committed—Grand Juries Bill read a third time and passed.
HOUSE OF COSEKONS. Menday, Arne 30. American Enlistment.; Mr. Moore's Motion of Censure; debate adjourned—Grand Jury Assessments (Ireland) Bill read_ a third time and passed—Dissenters' Marriages Bill read a third- time and passed— Drainage (Ireland) Bill reed a third time and passed—Exchequer Bills (4,000,0001.) Bill read a third time and passed. Tuesday, July 1. Prisons (Ireland) Bill committed—American Enlistment De- bate ; Mx. Moore's Motion negatived by 274, to 80. Wednesday, July 2. Bleaching-Works (No. 2) Bill thrown out—Scientific and Literary Societies Bill in Committee.
Thursday, July 3. Supply ; and Militia Estimates—Wills and Ad- ministrations Bill ; Mr. Henley's Motion—Church-building Commission Bill com- mitted—Metiropolis Local Management Art Amendment (No. 2) Bill read: a third time and passed. Friday, July 4. Bishopric of New Zealand Bishop Selwyn's Treatment—Cape of Good Hope ; Mr. Liddell's Question--Church-building Commission Bill read a. third time and passed—Partnership Amendment. (No. 2); Mr. Lowe's Bill reported —Parochial Schools (Scotland); Lord Advocate's Bill read a third time and. passed —Militia Ballots Suspension. Bill read a third time and passed—Encumbered Es- tates Court (Ireland) Continuance Bill read a second time—Procedure before Jus- tices (Scotland) Bill read a thht time and passed.
TIME- TABLE.
The Lords.
The Commons.
Hour of Hour of Hour of
Hour of
Meeting. Adjournment. Meetings Adjournment.
Monday bh .... 6h Man Monday 45 .(m) 25 Can Tuesday bh 6h 10m Tuesday Noon .. 35 4bm
65 .(m) 251515 Wednesday
No sitting.
Wednesday • Noon 611 Om
611 .... eh 30m
Thiundaw Noon 95 Ora Friday
Pron
85 .(m)
41s: .00'
15 15. 25 30m
SittingsthisWook,
4; Time, 85 45m Sittings this Week, this Session, 7; Time,
481s 95m Session, 75; — 1785 30m 98; — 70811 Mm this
THE AMERICAN ENLISTMEh"T AFFAIR.
The first order in the Rouse oftbmmons for Monday was a Ctfmmit- tee of Supply. When the question was put, Mr. Gzonon HENRY Moon; fulfilling a promise given on a previous evening, rose to submit a resolution on the American Enlistment question, in the form of an. amendment. At the same time, however,. Mr. WILLIAM Beowis rose, and appealed to Mr. Moore to refrain from proceeding while negotiations on differences are still pending. Mr. Ctrawrnam and Mr. J. C. ENVART joined in the appeal. Mr. Sroowtra said that the feeling againstdiseus- sion was very general: no good could_ arise from it, and it might be followed by the greatest .6141. . Mr. Moore said the. Government bad not deserved the approbation of the House : had they asked for it ? All they said was "Wait and see what we do." Mr. Spooner would sup- port his partP as far as any man but he would not surnander his own conviction when by so doing he might inflict a great injury on his coun- try. Ministers had better preserve complete' silence. For his own part, he would agree to no proposal' that would weaken the hands of the Go- vernment; and he implored' his friends to pause before they sanctioned this discussion.
Mr.. Spoonees. appeal made no impression on 3Pr. Iroonx ; who pro- ceeded with his motion. Mr.. Spooner, lie said, hadepoken of this as a party question.-' =din form it might be so described. But the Reuse should decide without the slightest reference to party. considerations and' in a tho- roughly judicial spirit. The question was one of, right and wrong be- tween two great countries. We ought to watch our relations with the 'United States with great vigilance, and never by any fault of ours lose our right to their reverence, and our title to be regarded as the head of their race. No- impulse is stronger lir an American than an instinctive love for the old country ; but it. is not wonderful that the Americans should' grow tired of an attachment that is repelled and an alliance that is ungracious and exacting. With this exordium Mr. Moore entered: upon the question. The position he took up was, that the British agents. had grossly out- raged' the neutrality-laws of the United States with the sanction of the Government; and that the Government had distinctly contemplated the viblation of those laws. Lord Clarendon expressly declared to Mr. Bu- chanan that Mr. Crampton was, enjoined above all to practise no con- cealment with the American Government Mr. Moore undertook to show, by copious citations from the blue-books, that the conduct of the British authorities was all concealment.Government dis- avowed everything that was found- out, but aided;, abetted, and approved of everybody who remained concealed and everything that worked' under ground. Her Majesty's Government were the first to moot and the first to insist on the strict enforcement of the neu- trality-laws by the United States; yet. under a quibble of the law, we insisted upon carrying out our *elms and enlisting men in the United States. Mr. Crampton took a legal' opinion which gave a dis- tinct forewarning of every danger that has occurred ;. yet there was a dogged determination to pursue a particular course ; and Lord Clarendon, with the legal opinion before him, and a knowledge that Mr. Crampton put his own interpretation on the law, approved of his proceedings. The Government disavowed the proceedings of Mr. Angus M‘Donald at New York, although the proclamation he issued was the same as that issued by Sir Gaspard Le Merchant : why ?' for the purpose of misleading the American Government. They said that Mr. Angus M'Donald had no authority to issue the handbill, while they knew perfectly well that these proceedings had taken place by the authority of Mr. Crampton or Sir Gaspard Le Merchant Afterwards, what. they could not do in the light of day by regularly-accredited agents, they tried th do in the dark by the aid of German mercenaries. Mr.. Crampton set off in hot haste to Canada In set on foot an extensive system of enlistment within the Union, at. a time when Mr. Lumley, our Charge d'Affaires at Washing- ton,. was leading Mr. Marcy to believe that Mr. Crampton had gone to explain-the bearing of the law in the American view. Mr. Moore ac- cused' Mr.. Crampton. and Mr. Lumley of using forms of equivocation- With regard- to. the American Government, to defend which would' task the. casuistry and conscience of Escobar. And this was what Lord Cla- rendon called. "no concealment,"—organizing a conspiracy, concocting memoranda, employing German mercenaries, carrying on correspondence in cipher with men like Strobel!'
One characteristic of Mr. Moore's speech was the pertinacity with which he not only endeavoured to fix a stigma on Lord Clarendon in reference to these proceedings, but with which he endeavoured to clench it, by raking up the past. Referring to' Strobel, he said he was orating to admit that Strobel was a. man of aa bad a character as even Birch of the World; and he presumed Lord Clarendon thought him bad enough. Citing passages from Lord Clarendons last despatch to Mr. Dallas, wherein that Minister is informed of the reasons that have prevented the Government from dismissinglathe him,
Mr. Moore said. that it was possible to find a parallel also for this e biography, of Lord Clarendon. Upon one occasion, a. gentleman, in the course of a confidential correspondence with Lord Clarendon, spoke of Sir William Somerville, the Irish Secretary' as a "deliberate liar." ; upon that he-received a communication from Lord. Clarendon's private secretary to the following,effect--" Having, by desire of the Lord-Lieutenant, communicated to Sir William Somerville your letter, in which youmade use of the phrase deliberate liar,' I am directed to inform you that aretraetation of these words is demanded. If, therefore, you write me a line to that effect, and will sends confidential person. here at three o'clock tomorrow, he shall receive the sum. of 1001.; for which I am credited." (LaughLr.) Her Majesty's Government certainly had not offered 1001. to. theAmerican Go- vernment, but they sent them that which Falstaff declared to be. worth a. million—their love. ("Hear ! " and laughter.) The genius, it appeared, which had brought forth the revelations: of Birch and these last United States blue.books was again at work ;. and not a wordwas to be uttered, not a.syllable spoken, for fear of disturbing that divine parturition. The House would have to decide a very simple question. Lord Clarendon had been engaged in a very petty intrigue, as he was fond of doing, in America; he had been found out, of course, as he always was; he had persisted in his blunder, as.washis custom; but thia time, unfortunately, he had discredited
not only his own character but his i
country's- ale°. They had to decide whe- ther they would approve Lord Clarendon 's proceedings n this matter, and, whether they would accept as their own' in the name of the English people, Lord Clarendon's responsibility and his chastisement : and in pronouncing an: opinion upon that question, they must remember that they would be judging not Lord Clarendon but themselves.
There was a similarity between the course pursued_ by the Govern- ment and that pursued:by the late Mr. Pahnem As in Palmer's opinion the Chief JUstioe summed-up for poisoning bytstryehnine, he thought himself innocent if he accomplished his end by other means : but the authorities answered this reasoning by hanging Palmer; and in like manner, the United States dismissed M. Crampton. Mr. Moore moved this resolution- " Thattlie conduct of her Majesty's Government, in the differences that have arisen between them and the Government of the United States, on the' question of' enliatment, has not entitled them to the approbation of this' House."
After some delay, Mr. Msounn seconded the motion. The Arroaney-GENees.t, said that Mr. Moore would have exercised a
sounder discretion had he yielded to the appeals made to him by Mem- bers who represent constituencies the most interested in. the maintenance of a good understanding with the United States, and had he, like Mr. Itaillie, postponed the discussion. It was clear, however, that Mr. Moore was animated by some feeling of personal animosity to Lord Chi- rendcm. {Hr. MOORE said, "-No no!"] Was it judicial to compare Lord Clarendon to the malefactor who had just paid the penalty of his crimes on the scaffold ? The motion had been frequently altered, and as it stood it was strangely worded'; for it did not censure the Government, but merely declared that Ministers were not entitled to the approbation of the House. The responsibility of the discussion would rest on Mr. Moore.
The Attorney-General said he had risen thus early in the debate be- cause it involved legal principles and considerations. Vattel lays it' down, and' he would admit, that one state may not enlist the subjects of another without the acquiescence of that other. That acquiescence might be ex- pressed; or implied. The municipal law of America differs from our own in this, that whereas our law claims absolute authority over its subjects. at home and abroad, the American law does not prohibit American 'sub- jects, when beyond' the jurisdiction.of the Union, from enlisting in_ the service of any foreign state. That distinction is illustrated in the ease of Nicaragua, where the de facto Government, recognized by the Alne- rican Government, was actually established by Amerman citizens. It was never intended by us to enlist American subjects properl; so called; but British subjects, and political refugees, who proposed; in consider- able numbers, to take service in our army. None of those men had, however, been enlisted on. American soil by those for whom the British Government were responsible : from the outset emphatic instruc- tions were given that the law of the United States should not be in- fringed. Mr. Crampton on two occasions clearly informed' Mr. Marcy, that a depot had been established in Nova Scotia for receiving recruits from the United States ; and Mr. Marcy, unless Mr. Crampton, has for- gotten his honour and troth, was made fully aware of the mode in which' the British Government were carrying out the Enlistment Act The evidence of Mr. Crampton's complicity rested on the evidence of the witnesses at the trial of Hertz—a trial opened by the United States dis- trict attorney rather as a case against tire British Government than against the individuals accused, and conducted in a spirit ofbitter animo- sity to England. The witnesses Hertz and St:rebel were men of. in- famous character. In answer to the statements of men like these they. had the positive assurances of Mr. Crampton and the Consuls. That was really the case brought before the House ; and he hoped they would view it without reference to party considerations, and in a calm dispassionate spirit Sir FREDERICK TIMMER took great pains to go over the whole case,. and to make out by means of extract* from the blue-book, that her Ma- jesty's Government and their agents had been engaged in carrying out a. clandestine and secret scheme, which they knew was in violation of the- laws•of the United States, for the purpose and with the idea of invading- those laws. The course taken by our Government at an early period was perfectly unjustifiable. The directione issued to their agents were oonfined: to the avoidance of any infringement of the municipal law ; which was a,
fatal mistake. But Lord Clarendon not only recognized, he justified:the- e/its of Mr. Crampton and the Consular agents ; and, far from making-- any apology, he hartmaintained from that to last that- he had a right to: do what he had' done, and that the American Government had no cause - of complaint.
On the legal point, Sir Frederick differed from the Attorney-General; whose views he characterized as extraordinary: There was no dealt, that althouglian individual might evade the provisions, of an act of the Legisla- ture of the United States, and keep himself clear of the penalty attaching to an infraction of the letter of the law, yet that if a Government were sys- tematically to endeavour to attain an object which was prohibited by law,_ and at the same time to keep its agents clear from falling within the provi- sions of that law, such conduct was contrary to that good faith and forbear- ance which should characterize the intercourse between nations. Unfortu- nately, however, the view whioh.had been submitted to the House by the. Attorney-General was that upon which Mr. Crampton had acted, and which had been indorsed by Lord Clarendon. It was quite true that every American was free to quit the country, as had been laid down by Judge Ingersoll ; but that clid not at all touch the international question ; for if a foreign government lent itself to seduce, or induce, or allure, per- sons to leave the United States, although in that case there might be no breach of the municipal law, there would be a breath of international law, and a violation of that community of intercourse which: ought to subsist between two nations. He would put this ease: An Ameri- can had established a manufacture whioh was supposed to confer great pub- lic advantages all the workmen in that establishment were free to quit the country and transfer their labour to some other soil ; but because the work- men possessed this individual freedom, would. it be maintained that another govermpent could allure these men away, by the offer of a higher price for their labour, without a breach of international law ? [Mr. CREWMAN- " It is often'done."1 Though it might be dthe, he did not hesitate to say- that it was a gross violation of international law, and contrary to that Tint of justice and courtesy which should regulate the intercourse of nations. He could not therefore assent to the doctrine that because persona were free, by the municipal laws of the United States, to leave that country even: for the purpose of enlistment, there was no breach of international law in the government of another oountry holding out inducements to the subjects. of the United States to leave that country for the purpose of enlistment in a foreign legion. It was this mistaken view of international law which led to these proceedings, so justly blameable in his opinion, and which brought upon this country so much humiliation. Mr. J. G. PHILLIMORE deprecated the course taken by Mr. Moore, and replied to the arguments of Sir Frederick Thesiger. Mr. BAILLIE ex- p]ained, that although he had withdrawn his motion in deference to the. opinions of many gentlemen with whom he generally acted, yet that he had, no reason to complain of the course taken by Mr. Moore. [The bulk of his speech was a general attack upon the policy which led to the, Foreign Enlistment Act ; especially 'stigmatizing the course taken in the United States.1 Sir GEORGE GREY said, it was difficult to understand the precise nature of the charge which gentlemen opposite intended to prefer against the Government Mr. Moore had shown too clearly that he had but one en- deavour—to dishonour and depreciate the character of Lord Clarendon. Sir Frederick Thesiger pointed a shaft at the Government for another reason—because he thought an indignity had been cast upon them by the dismissal of Mr. Crampton; and he said that if the Government were satisfied with Mr. Crampton they ought to have dismissed Mr. Dallas. Mr. Beillie took different ground : he attacked the whole spirit and policy of the Foreign Enlistment Act,—delivering a speech which might have been made and probably was made when that act was under discussion. Mr. Baillie said that the maxim " civitas non career eat" is incorrect, and he laid down a dedrine in defence of the United States which they did not lay down in their own defence. Mr. Marcy and the President, in the ease of Nicaragua, distinctly maintained the right of ex- patriation. In our case, the first movement was made by parties residing in the United States. Great caution was necessary in accepting their offers, so that nothing might be done to infringe the laws of the United States. Mr. Crampton and Sir Gaspard Le Merchant were enjoined not to do anything that could be construed as an infringemnt of those laws. That was the spirit in which the Government had acted ; that was the spirit in which they believed their officers acted. Mr. Crampton made no conceal- ment of the offers of service. When, however, it was found that persons professing to act with authority which they never received from Mr. Crampton or her Majesty's Government, were acting so as to compro- mise the friendly relations between the two countries, and in a manner that it was impossible to defend, her Majesty's Government avowed their determination to put an end to the scheme. It was denied that any apology or explanation had been made to the Government of the United States. The terms of the apology were these- __ L' The undersigned must, in the first instance, express the regret of her
----- Majesty's Government if the law of the United States has been in any way infringed by persons acting with or without any authority from them ; and it is hardly necessary for the undersigned to assure Mr. Bu- chanan that any such infringement of the law of the United States is en- tirely contrary to the wishes and to the positive instructions of her Majesty's -Government."
The Government could not distinctly admit that the acts done were tentrary to the law, because they had no evidence of the fact. "But -we said, the facts may be so, and if so we regret that such acts have been done." The tone and spirit of that despatch amounted to an apo- logy. It intimated that we would forego all the advantages we were likely to obtain from the zeal of certain persons in the United States to enter our service, rather than risk the occurrence of any circumstance which might give just cause of dissatisfaction to the 'United States. Mr. Buchanan gave a short answer to that despatch. He said that he should have "much satisfaction" in transmitting a copy of it to the Secretary of State by the next steamer. That despatch was crossed by one from Mr. Marcy, written in ignorance of the apology it contained, and insist- ing on satisfaction. Mr. Buchanan did not hand that despatch to Lord Clarendon, because he felt that Lord Clarendon's apology and explana- tion "would finally settle the question that had arisen between the two Governments." It is said that subsequent transactions occurred—the payment of some persons who had made a fruitless journey to Rolifos, to find the scheme abandoned—but they were simply reimbursed for their loss of time. The Government had throughout been animated by.the best intentions ; and they had done nothing by any hasty, harsh, or even unguarded expression, to place themselves in the wrong in case any of these affairs should not be brought to a satisfactory and peaceful result.
Sir Joarc WALSH moved the adjournment of the debate. Lord PAT.-. XERSTON remarked that there was ample time [it was midnight] to bring the discussion to a satisfactory conclusion that evening. On a division, the motion for adjournment was negatived by 220 to 110; a majority that called forth much Ministerial cheering. Sir Joinf WALSH, in a brief speech, argued that the Government had submitted to an indignity in permitting Mr. Dallas to remain. He did not find fault with that decision, but it showed that the Gevenunent felt they were in the.wrong. Mr. MILNER GrasoN moved the adjournment of the debate ; and Lord Parathasrox assenting, on the understanding that it should be continued on Tuesday, the debate was adjourned.
In continuing the debate on Tuesday, Mr. MINER Ganser( vindicated the course he had taken in moving the adjournment. There were other, but there were no Parliamentary grounds, for shrinking from the discus- sion. When a Minister laid papers before the House at the close of a negotiation, he thereby invited the opinion of Parliament. If publicity were objectionable, Government should not have courted publicity by laying those papers before the world. But that having been done, si- lence might be taken for acquiescence. The House was called upon to say whether the policy of seeking soldiers in the -United States was wise, and if wise, whether that policy had been judiciously conducted. Sir George Grey had said that Ministers had done nothing to place themselves in the wrong : but there were passages in Lord Clarendon's despatches than which nothing could be more insulting to the United States,—one charge, that a bark was fitting out as a Russian privateer; another, that there was a conspiracy in progress to invade Ireland; a third, that a United States ship had been taking soundings in the ports of the British West In- dies : and these groundless charges were put forward as the reasons for the augmentation of our naval force in those waters. In regard to the enlist- ment question, our Government had put their own construction on the laws of the United States, and then alleged that their acts had not broken those laws. By means of an organized "system of persuasion," carefully concealed from the American Government, they had attempted to induce persons to leave the United States to enlist in the Foreign Legion, and then they said there had been no persuasion and no concealment. Had Mr. Crampton told Mr. Marcy that he intended to have agents through- out the country, he would have been informed that it was inconsistent with American law, and we should have been saved from our hu- miliating position. Had there been no municipal law in existence, the British Government would have had no right to put itself in communication with American citizens without the consent of their rulers ; but, in di- rect and deliberate violation of the law, the agents of the Government— Mr. Crampton, Consul Mathew, Mr. Howe—had supplied money to the persons engaged in recruiting ; and the Government were responsible for the acts of their agents.
Mr. Gibson regretted that Mr. Moore's motion had been brought for- ward as an amendment on going into Committee of Supply. It would have been much better if a plain substantive resolution had been sub- miffed to the House, and if they had been called on to say Ay or No to the question, "Do you approve of the conduct of her Majesty's Govern- ment in endeavouring to raise soldiers in the United States ? "
Mr. BArrEn came forward not as the apologist of either party, or as
the defender of her Majesty's Government, but as an independent Member intimately connected with the United States in a commercial point of view, and who had studied their social and political institutions. When
he wit down to peruse the papers, his bias, if bias he had, was in favour of the American Government ; but a careful and dispassionate examina-
tion had convinced him that the British Government was not open to the censure implied in Mr. Moore's motion. He regretted that Mr. Crampton did not wash his hands of the whole pwroceeding on re.ceiving the legal opinion he took on the neutrality-laws. It was to be lamented that Mr. Crampton did not unreservedly communicate the intentions of the British Govern- ment to Mr. Marcy : but the Government believed he had communicated them ; and if any one were to blame, it was the Ambassador and not his Government. If the American Government had not shown an evident desire to fasten a quarrel upon some one, it was not likely that the mis- takes of Mr. Crampton would have led to this voluminous and learned
correspondence. • Lerd Clarendon's language, of which Mr. Gibson com- plained, was provoked by similar language from Mr. Marcy ; and he
challenged Mr. Gibson to point out any other despatch of Lord Clarendon that was not couched in the most friendly terms. What the class in America who vaponred about a war with England really feared was civil war, the result of a system of slavery. Mr. Puecocatu described the policy of the Government in America as part and parcel ef a deliberately organized plan. Mr. Crampton had
been dismissed, and Mr. Consul Curtis of Cologne convicted for violating the neutrality-laws in carrying out that plan. England had received an insult which she was either not in a position or had not the courage to resent. Mr. Crampton's dismissal was the first instance where a Go- vernment which approved of his acts had tamely acquiesced in the dis- missal of its Minister. • It was a system that possibly might have been studied among the Camarilla of Madrid, and been developed in the ante- rooms of the Castle at Dublin; but it ought never to have been allowed to sow the seeds of intrigue and disunion between two such states as England and America.
Mr. SPOONER deplored more deeply than ever the course taken by Mr. Moore. He would not discuas the merita of the case ; the more it was discussed the greater the danger. If the Government had refused to re- tain Mr. Dallas, they would have been guilty of a most desperate crime. Believing that discussion was premature, he should vote against Mr. Moore's motion, and reserve his right to canvass the conduct of the Go- vernment on a more convenient occasion.
Mr. GLADSTONE held that the two cardinal aims which ought to be kept in view in the discussion were—" peace and a thoroughly cordial understanding with Anerica for one, the honour and fame of England for the other.' On neither of these points was he satisfied with the exist- ing state of things. A cordial understanding with America has not been preserved, and the honour of England is compromised. He was not one who would set up the phantasm of honour in a ease where the plea was unreal, yet he could not but assent to the statement that an in- sult has been put upon England by the United States. If put with a cause, it ought to be confessed ; if without a cause, it ought to be re- sented. He was bound to say that he could not meet the amendment by a direct negative • nor could he take his stand upon the fact that the question that weld be put would have the aspect of what is called the
previous question." He could not concur in the censure passed on Mr. Moore. But the question is one of the greatest difficulty—he did not remember a question more difficult as pressing on his own understanding and conscience. Mr. Spooner, in deprecating the beginning of the dis- cussion, characterized it as a party question ; but on behalf of what party was it raised ? Plainly, it was not a party question, and that was a vital element in the consideration of the case.
" Disapproving the conduct of her Majesty's Government in the manage- ment of the foreign enlistment question, I say here, that I should be ready to express that disapproval by vote if I saw a motion to that effect made by a party ready to be responsible for the consequences of success. (Cheers.) /Cow, Sir, I say to the honourable Member for Mayo, without the slightest disrespect, that these questions of votes of censure .upon Governments are matters of great importance, and that in considering them we must look not merely to the terms in which they are framed but likewise to the quar- ter from which they emanate. I mean nothing disparaging to the honour- able Member for Mayo but are we to regard his motion as the declaration of a party ready to be responsible for the results of its adoption ? or is it merely the expression of the opinion of individual Members of this House, who can have little influence upon the division, and who, if the resolution were carried, could not themselves be responsible for the consequences ? I think, Sir, it is a good practical rule in Parliamentary discussions, that we should not by our votes weaken the hands of Governments unless we are prepared to displace them from office. I think it is not desirable in these foreign transactions that the Government should be assailed by votes that tend to weaken their influence on behalf of their country, unless they are moved by those who are responsible for carrying those opinions into effect. I therefore should have approved the motion before the House if it had been moved by sonic party who were responsible for carrying the resolution of the honourable Member for Mayo into effect. For a vote of censure on the Government, as an abstract resolution I am not able to vote ; but if the motion had come before me supported those who were ready to carry out the principle it embodied, I should have felt it my duty to give effect to my opinion.' Having stated these preliminaries Mr. Gladstone turned to the merits of the case. Would the breach be closed up by the dismissal of Mr. Cramp- ton ? If so, why keep our diplomacy in a state of half-animation—why not appoint a successor to Mr. Crampton ? Sir George Grey said that the Go- venunent would only debate the question on its merits. That was a manly although it might not be a prudent course. The Government contend that the proceedings of its officers had been justified by their instructions : that asser- tion was made in the teeth of the evidence of the blue-book. Such would be the opinion of all—small, he feared, is the number—who read the blue-books. He fearlessly said that the Attorney-General for one had not read them—his references, dearly supplied at second-hand, betrayed the fact that he had not studied these documents. Sir George Grey candidly stated a point of great importance—the supposed apology of the British Government. He said with the greatest truth that the apology was conditional; it did not admit or imply a wrong because the Government were conscious that they had done no wrong. If wrong had been done, such an apology ought to 'have been accepted ; but if wrong had been done, such an apology was no apology at all. They had therefore to fall back upon the question had any wrong been done ? In the first place he charged the Government with practising concealment ; in the second place, he maintained that the American Government were deluded and misled. The law was know- ingly broken by the agents of the British Government, Mr. Moore said that these things were done under the direction of the Government ; but there is no evidence of that on the face of the papers presented to Parlia- ment. It matters little, however, if the Government made themselves par- ties to the acts by their subsequent approbation. There is not one hales- breadth of distinction between the position of Mr. Crampton and the poai- tion of the British Government lf, as is stated by Lord Clarendon, Mr. Crampton was instructed to practise no concealment—but such instructions are not to be found in the papers before the House—then the American Go- vernment is justified in the distinction it has drawn ; but if not., words can- not describe the injustice inflicted on Mr. Crampton. The Attorney-Gene- ral said there was no concealment, because Mr. Crampton informed Mr. Marcy that a depot had been established at Halifax. But that is not the question. The depot at Halifax was never a subject of complaint. "What the American Government have complained of is the 'employment of an agency within the United States, not only to give information, but to tempt, to induce by the offer of valuable considerations, the subjects of the United States to go beyond. the United States for the purpose of enlisting." Mr. Crampton did not communicate that to the American Government. The concealment of that is the first great proposition in the ease. But conceal- meait was not all. Mr. Crampton solemnly promised Mr. Marcy that he would confine himself to communicating to the persons who addressed themselves to him the terms on which they would be received into the service of this country. Who will say that Mr. Crampton kept that promise ? But there was something more : was it uncharitable to suppose that the letter written respecting the proceedings of a certain Angus li'Donald was written for the purpose of being exhibited to Mr. Marcy? "We actually paraded in the h. of the American Government our condemnation of the unfortu- nate Angus M`Donald, and thus, perhaps' ruined his innocent and well-in- tended enterprise, while at the same time we were daing all that he pro- posed to do, superadding the provision of a free passage, or paid money to meet the expense. I think no one will deny that a Government who by its agents pursued that course, and afterwards signified its approval of their acts, is not only fairly chargeable with concealment, but is also liable to the charge of having deluded the American Government. Therefore, nothing is more unjust than the charge which is made against the American Government, of having at first confined its'complaints to the proceedings of unauthorized persons, and subsequently .eitended those com- plaints to the British Minister and his subordinates. The American Go- vernment at first confined their representations to the unauthorized persons, because it believed the answer which was given. Those representations were extended when they found that the answer was not based upon truth. Aiming as I do at a plain and intelligible statement, I must say the American Government was deceived by the proceedings of the British Government. I say we intentionally broke the law of the Union." Intentionally, because Mr. Lumley, who still remains in America, and who entirely identified himself with Mr. Crampton, stated, in a letter to Consul Dyer, that "a promise to pay travelling-expenses would be a violation of the law" ; and because at the time 'Mt. Lumley wrote that letter. Mr. Crampton was at Halifax, committing that very breach of the neutrality-laws by adopting a plan of Strabel to obtain recruits by the payment of their travelling-expenses. "Is it possible to carry evidence further ?" It was unnecessary to go through the various .cases, but he would briefly refer to the case of Consul Mathews. Throvang over alto- gether the evidence of Hertz and Strobel, and lookinoolely to the evidence of our own officers, he showed that Hertz was engaged in breaking the law, that Howe was the recruiting-agent in connexion with Hertz, and that Consul Mathews was the medium at least on two occasions of passing money from Howe to Hertz. Mr. Mathews informed Mr. Crampton of what he had done, and Mr. Crampton informed Lord Clarendon. Thus, Consul Ma- thews identified himself with Mr. Crampton; Mr. Crampton identified him- self with Lord Clarendon ; and Lord Clarendon could only be regarded as the organ of the British Government-. Here we are iintretsed by the opinion of Judge Kane delivered at two different periods. In May, Judge Kane said that "the payment of the passage from this countaTiaf a man who de- sires to enlist in a foreign port does not come within the act." In Sep- tember, he said the payment of passage-money, the giving an inducement to enlist in a foreign part, constituted a breach of. the law. Mr. Gladstone saw no real contradiction in the opinion. The payment of the passage of a man, say by his friend, is not the same thing as the payment of the passage of a man by the British Government. Why, when they hadthe construction put upon the law by their own lawyer, did they fall hada for justification upon an unauthentacated passage in a newspaper, coming long after the acts complained of had been committed ? One of the main points in the Government defence was the abandonment of the scheme. This is one of the niost mysterious and singular parts of the case. On the 22d June, Lord Clarendon addressed a letter to Mr. Crampton which might be construed as an order to abandon the scheme. But some mishap must have befallen it, for Mr. Crampton states that he first became aware of the desire of his Government on the 2d, and Sir Gas- pard Le Merchant on the 17th August. We began a ,system of conceal- ment; we took measures calculated to mislead ; we centinued to do for many months what we professed to have abandoned; andyetit is said that the American Government has no just cause of complaint. The result was a most extraordinary state of things. "The American Government acquits the British Government, but at the same time it punishes Mr. Crampton and the three Consuls ; while the British Government maintains and ac- quiesces in the acts of its agents, and yet accepts with satisfaction its own acquittal." Mr. Crampton has been Made. a scapegoat, but it would be contrary to usage to allow any distinction to be drawn between Mr. Cramp- ton and the British Government.
In conclusion, Mr. Gladstone said—" When I look back to the period when party combinations were strong in this House, when Sir Robert Peel was on those [the Opposition] benches and Lord John Russell on these, I think, though many mistakes and errors were commuted on both sides, that on the whde the Government of the country Was honourably and efficiently carried on. I believe that the day for this countryr„w ill be a happy, day when party combinations shall be restored on such a fooling. But this q.uestion, instead of being a party. question, is a most remarkable illustra- tion of the disorganiz. ed state of parties ; and of the consequent impotency of the House of Commons to express a practical opinion with respect to the foreign policy of the country. Under these circumstance!, the only re- source' left to me is the undisguised expression of tho. opinions which I strongly and conscientiously (perhaps erroneously) feel after the study of these papers. I have had the privilege of expressing. those Opinions freely and strongly.; a privilege which I would not have waived on any account, when I consider the bearing of the case with respect to the American alli- ance which I so highly prize, or with respect to that which I still more highly prize and more dearly love—the honour and fair' fame of my coun- try.' (Cheers.) The Speaker here left the chair for a few moments ; during which, Mr. Jorrie WGREGOR, who had not noticed his departure, began to address the House ; but, perceiving his mistake, he sat down amid a chorus of laughter. When the Speaker returned, the Solicitor-General
rose. Mr. hi' on rose "to order," and then moved the adjournment of the debate. The &Emma informed him, that when a Member rose to order, he could not move the adjournment of the debate.
After this little incident, the SOLICITOR-GENERAL replied to Mr. Glad- stone's speech ; which he described as a " mere intellectual exercitation," completely irreconcileable with its conclusion. True' he told the House very- clearly what he wished to see, and complained that the "angels"
on the other side " feared to tread " where Mr. Moore had " rushed in."
Mr. Gladstone avowed that if the party opposite had not felt their obligation to their country to be greater than their views of personal in- terest, he should have been in their ranks. He had been bold enough to say that the American Government did not know their own case that the English Government had sacrificed Mr. Craropton as the price of their acquittal,—opinions at variance with those of Mr. Marcy, who said that the American Government were abundantly satisfied with the ex- planations of the British Government. The simple state of the matter was this—the American Government are satisfied with the conduct of our Government ; but, differing from us as to the value of certain evi- dence affecting our agents, and not being bound to attach the moral weight to their declarations which we did, they determined to act on their own conclusions and dismiss them.
In dealing with the legal points in the case, the Solicitor-General ex- pounded at great length the view taken by the Attorney-General earlier in the debate. The municipal law of the United States goes beyond the international law, which simply prohibits the actual enlistment or enrol- ment of soldiers within the territory ; while the municipal law prohibits the hiring and engaging of any citizen of the United States, within the States, to go to a foreign country to be enlisted. That municipal law must be construed strictly according to the exact restraint it puts upon natural liberty. He contended, that had the acts of Mr. Crampton and his agents been like those of Angus M'Donald, there would have been a dear case ; but, except in the tainted testimony of Hertz and Strobel, there was not a particle of evidence to show that Mr. Crampton had clone what Angus Ei'Donald proposed to do. The real issue was, Ought our Government to have been content with the judicial investigation that took place in the United States, which was nominally to find a bill against Hertz, but really to find an indictment against Mr. Crampton? That investigation could not be accepted as a dispassionate judicial deci- sion.
Sir John Pakington and Mr. John lat'Gregor rose at the same time. The SPEAKER called upon Sir John; and his call was sustained by the House, in spite of Mr. M'Gregor's persistence.
Sir Smog Patirroron. admitted that the subject had been exhausted by Mr. Gladstone ; and he rose chiefly to vindicate some strong language
of his own on a previous evening. He went over much of the ground so completely trodden by Mr. Gladstone ; interrupted at intervals by cries of "Divide !" In the early part of his speech he tendered his thanks to Mr. Moore for the decision and vigour with which he had dis-
regarded the appeals made to him to stop the discussion. "The only point with regard to the motion of the honourable Member for Mayo on which I differ from the right honourable Member for Oxford
University, is as to the course which my right honourable friend intends to
adopt. Hear ."' and a laugh.) Whether or no the honourable Member intends to press his motion to a division, I cannot tell. (Laughter and cheers from the Ministerial benches.) Honourable gentlemen opposite cheer I really know not why. (Renewed laughter and cheering from the Ministerial side.) I have no influence with the honourable Member for Mayo. There ia no party. connexion between that honourable gentleman and myse/f. (Irbnical cries of "Hear P' and laughter.) But if he takes a division upon this subject, I for one shall undoubtedly go with him into the lobby."
Lord PALMERSTON was about to address the House, when Mr. BEN- TENGIE moved the adjournment of the debate ; but the SPEAKER decided that the honourable Member was "too late."
Lord PALMERSTON began by expressing a hope that, notwithstanding the doubt expressed by Sir John Pakington, and the effort of the gentle-
man who was "too late," the House would pronounce an opinion on a motion involving a vote of censure, and keep the question no longer in suspense.
Mr. Moore, who had called for a judicial decision' made a speech that was a tissue of personalities. He put forth all the ealumnies which in former times had been uttered against Lord Clarendon, and, by dwelling. on his
name in every alternate sentence he had tried to create an impression that there was something in these transactions to separate Lord Clarendon from his colleagues. The tenour of that speech was unconstitutional. All Lord Clarendon's colleagues are prepared in the fullest sense of the word to adopt the entire responsibility for anything that Lord Clarendon has said or written on this question. Mr. Baillie had referred to the origin of these transactions, the Foreign Enlistment Act. There were parties in the United States desirous of joining the British army. "We determined to en-
deavour to avail ourselves of the aid of those persons, and my right honour-
able friend [Mr. Gladstone] and those who sit near him were parties to that determination. I cannot allow my right honourable friend, who must ad- mit that he was a party to the establishment of a recruiting system in Nova
Scetia, to say that that system was intended solely for the enlistment of British subjects resident in the British provinces : it WU intended dis-
tinctly and avowedly to enlist persons coming from the United States ; and I cannot allow my right honourable friend to own himself a party to that arrangement without having been aware of the results that must flow from it." It was also determined that nothing should be done at variance with
the laws of the United States. That law was not violated in consequence of any instructions issued by the Government, or, to their knowledge, by
any of the officers acting under their instructions. Things were done in violation of the municipal law, but not by persons authorized by the Bri- tish Government. If the Consuls had violated the law, why were they not prosecuted? Mr. Curtis was prosecuted in Prussia. "We thought, and still believe, that the proceedings upon that trial were not fair and just ; and the same opinion seems to have existed in Prussia, for although Mr. Curtis was condemned, the King immediately ordered his release and granted a full pardon. •Why did not the American Government act in the same manner towards our Consuls ? " Then as to concealment—why did
not Mr. Marcy, send for Mr. Crampton, if he was informed that British
agents were acting contrary to the law ? Month after month they allowed these things to go on, and never sent for Mr. Crampton. They allowed them "to accumulate, in order that, when the proper time arrives, they may either take advantage of them and act upon them, or deal with them as matters which do not deserve consideration. Then I say, Sir, there was an abstinence on the part of the United States Government from those steps which it was their duty to take if they thought that the agents of foreign nations were violating the laws of the Union,"
But her Majesty's Government, of their -own accord, ordered themto be stopped, when-they thought them likely to produce embarrassment. 3t is alleged that no apology was made-: "Don't tell me of verbal apologies I say -the apology of .deeds was one infinitely -more valuablo---intely more satiafiretory to the Government of America—a greater proof of the desire of the British Government that nothing should eccurto interrupt the friendly relations between the two countries than ony verbal apology that eould have been offered. (Cheers.) I ay, then, Sir, there is no question about eoncealment, there is no question about ,deception, there is no question about our uot having made reparation for the.offeace, if any offence had been ,cemmitted. But it is said that we ought to have Acknowledged that we did wrong : why, we did not believe we had done wrong—we did not believe we -had deliberately violated the laws of the Union—we neither intended this, -nor do we believe, in our understanding of those laws, that they have been violated by any authorized British agent."
When Mr. Crampton and the Consuls were declared unacceptable, it was
• -deteraiiited not to retaliate en Mr. Dallas ; and that course met with the -approval of the community. "It is curious to watch the language of gen- tlemen who have taken part in this debate. Both sides are vehement in their declaration of the vast importance of maintaining peace between the two countries ; all abound in their assurances that that wish is at the bot- tom of their hearts and is the most anxious object of their lives : and yet, here happening, to be a case in which a question has arisen between two -countries which, as far as the Governments are concerned, has beentermi- tutted in manner deemed satisfactory to both, gentlemen on the other side -of the House are loud in their slenunciation s that England has been in- sulted. (Cheers raid counter-dieers.) The intercourse of nations takes plate between government& and an insult to the government is an insult to the country. These gentlemen, then, so anxious for peace, tell you that England has been insulted, treated with contumely, contempt, and indig- nity. What is the effect likely to be produced ? Why, to excite in the euoilreetiof England a spirit of resentment towards their neighbours and in the United States. (Ministerial cheers.) . . . My right ho- nourable friend the Member for the University of Oxford tells the Ameri- cans that their -Government has been deluded, has been persuaded to accept an apology which they ought not to have accepted ; that their laws have been violated intentionally by The Government of a foreign country ; and that, so far from meeting that injury in the manner which becomes the Go- vernment of a great and independent nation, their Government have ac- cepted an apology and expreseed themselves satisfied, when. on the con- trary, they ought to have declared themselves affronted and injured. Is that the way to create good feeling between the two eountries? Is that the way to persuade the American people to cultivate the most friendly feelings towards this country. "The House is now called upon to determine whether there shall be passed upon the Government a vote of censure. The honorreable Member for Mayo began his speech by deprecating all quibbling evasions, as he called it—all words which might be distorted into something beyond what they really expressed. Sir, I think he might have criticised his ownmotion. It would have been much more manly to come forward with a regular vote of censure than to disguise disapprobation under the pretence of refusing ap- probation which has not been asked for. I accept the vote of the right .1aonourable gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford, and I should he sorry indeed if anything I have said should induce him to alter his de- termination. (Cheers and laughter.) I know we must not look a gift horse in the mouth ; but I certainly do not think that the reason he has given for his vote will convince many gentlemen Who have not already made up their minds upon the question. His reason is, that it is impossible at the present moment to form an Administration founded on a successful censure of the existing Goverrunent,—a reason certainly highly complimentary to the 3Iouse ! But I think many gentlemen will be of opinion that this difflcully -could easily be got over; that it could very well be solved by half anlio private conversation between the right honourable gentlemen who sit there [Sir James Graham and Mr. Gladstone] and the right honourable and ho- nourable gentlemen opposite. I would not, therefore, accept from the House a vote•founded on so great a political misconception. We stand upon what we think better and higher ground. We are of opinion although it may be presumptuous to state it, that we have during a difficiilt periodsonduoted the affiurs of the country to the satisfaction of the nation, and with honour and advantage to the public interest ; we believe that the confidence which -this Rouse has hitherto shown us is shared by the country at large. It is upon that ground that we are prepared to go to a division. We aak for a eontinuation of the confidence of the House, not upon the ground that there may be a difficulty in finding other persons to fill our places, but because -we think we have done nothing to forfeit their good opinion. Trusting to these considerations—trusting to the good opinion which the House has 'hitherto expressed towards us—trusting to the good-will which we believe is felt for us by the country, and not to the argument of my right honour- able friend that no other Government can be formed—we challenge the ho- nourable Member for Mayo to come to a division and we feel confident that the result will be such as we think our conduct deserves." ((uch .eheering.) Mr. BEN-rriseN moved the adjournment of the debate : several gentle- men on his side, he said, wanted to express their opinions. Mr. Moons rose to answer the calumnious imputations cast upon him by Lord Pal- merston and the Attorney-,General. Lord PALMERSTON interrupting, said he lured the ward calumnious in reference to statements made by others and not to anything that fell from Mr. Moore. Mr. Moons per- sisted, and denied that he was actuated by any ill-feeling towards Lord Clarendon. He was surprised to hear Lord Palmerston apply the word calumnious to that which he knew to be strictly true. The motion for the adjournment was negatived, and the HOUSO divided on the question "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the question "—Ayes, 274; Noes, 80; majority against Mr. Moore's .amendment 194.
{Before the numbers were declared, Mr. HATTER informed the Speaker that there were in the House during the division three Members who had not voted. The three Members—Sir Benjamin Hall, Mr. Jackson, and Mr. Train—were ordered to stand at the table ; ancFpn being interrogated, they stated that they were in the House when the question was put, and that they would give their votes against Mr. Moore's motion. Their votes were accordingly ordered to be recorded imthat sense.] ITALIAN Nunes.
Lord LYNDHURST inquired whether Lord Clarendon would lay on the -table "copies of any correspondence which may have passed between the British Government and the Government of Naples and other European Powers with respect to the affairs of Italy 1" Looking to the course of the recent political trials at Naples—a mere duplicate of what took place on the -trial of Poerio—the whole government in the hands of -police- agents, spies, and informers—he began to despair of the state of things in that country. The Earl. of CLARENDON replied, that he could not say whether it
wouldlie in the power of her 'Majesty's Government to lay the corre- spondence on the table. As regards IS aPles, it was not yet closed.
" We have not yet received any answer to the last despatch which was forwarded to the Neapolitan Governmentby her ,MajestyE4Government and the Government of the Emperor of the French. The TC.,of 'Naples was absent when that despatch was received, but upon his return the King had given orders to the Neapolitan Minister to answer the despatch. Now that answer has not yet been received ; and =bait be received, and until it be decided what further steps are necessary, my noble and learned friend will understand me that the correspondence cannot be laid upon the table. With respect to the correspondence between her Majesty's Government and other Governments with regard to the state of affairsin Italy, it is perfectly true that we have offered an opinion to those Governments. But I don't think the cause we halm at heart will be served by the production of that cor- reepondence—certainly not at the present moment ; and .I believe the effect would be to check that friendly interchange of sentiment which is now go- ing- on, and from which some good may be expected. To create the state of things that will render the withdrawal of those foreign armies safe will be .a work of time. I hope my noble And learned friend will accept my assurance that nothing that can he properly done by her Majesty's Government will be neglected to promote the cause we have at heart. I believe that the Austrian and French Governments are desirous to withdraw their troops from the Papal territory as soon as a small military force can be formed in the Papal territory." Lew OF Drvonce.
When the report of the Divorce and Matrimonial Causes Bill was brought up, the Bishop of OXFORD, repeating those arguments against a relaxation of the law of divorce which he used last week, moved the omission of six clauses,—namely, those relaxing the law of divorce so far AS to give the husband a right of divorce upon the adultery of his wife, and the wife where the husband has been guilty of incestuous adultery, bigamy, adultery with cruelty, and adultery with desertion for two years and upwards. The amendments were opposed by the Loan CHANCELLOR, Lord .CASEPEELL, the Earl of DONOUGHHORE j and sup- ported by Lord REDESDALE, the Bishop of ST. Davms, the Bishop of SALniseny, the Earl of DssART, and Lord DUNGANNON. The Earl of DERBY gave a qualified support to the measure. If the law were too much relaxed, it would facilitate collusion in the middle and lower classes. His vote would depend on the answer he received to the ques- tion—would the promoters of the bill adopt a proviso prohibiting a hus- band or wife, divorced for adultery, from marrying the person with whom the adultery was committed? The Forl of ABERDEEN observed that such a proviso existed in the law of Scotland, and had worked well. Lord LYNDHURST had no objection to the proviso. The Loan ORAN- CELLOIL said that the prohibition was always inserted in every divorce bill brought before the Howe, and always struck out, because experience showed that it did not prevent collusion. He thought the introduction of the provision would not improve the bill.
The amendments of the Bishop of Oxford were negatived by 43 to 10. The Howe then agreed to the proviso described by Lord Derby, and it was added to clause 24.
WILLs AND _ADMINISTRATIONS BILL.
On the motion for going into Committee on the Wills and Administra-
tions Bill, Mr. HENLEY remarked that the bill before the House was "as different as chalk from cheese" from that originally introduced by the Solicitor-General,—a "transmogrification the result of what he might almost call _illicit intercourse between some honourable and learned gen- tlemen on his aide and some on the other." Whether the new Court would turn out to be a Court of Chancery or a Court of Common Law, no one could tell. It dealt too much with real property, and it esta- blished a double litigation. As no sound decision could be arrived at without knowing how the Appellate Court of the House of Lords was to be constituted, he moved that the House should go into Committee after they had considered the Appellate Jurisdiction Bill. The SPEAKER having remarked that the motion could not be put in that form, Mr. HENLEY moved that the House should go into Committee on the bill on Tuesday.
Some Members were anxious to go into Committee at once ; others thought, as the bill could not be passed, it was useless to go into Com-
mittee at all. The SoLierron-GENERAL said, he had never before expe- rienced in so practical away the wisdom of the adage, "Heaven preserve one from one's friends." He had endeavoured to make a measure that 'would-be acceptable to all ; he had imagined that Sir Fitzroy Kelly represented the combined wishes and sentiments of the Opposition,— erroneously, as it appeared, for there was no agreement between any two of the gentlemen opposite. He was surrounded by enemies. There was Sir James Graham, who lead arrived at a ewe:ha:eon the opposite of that he had entertained for twenty years. In this predicament, what to do was extremely -difficult to -determine, and all he could do was to accede to Mr. Henley's motion. Sir James GRAHAM defended himself from the charge of changing his
opinions, and retorted the charge on the Solicitor-General. •
He proposes to sever the testamentary jurisdiction from the Court of Chancery. He proposes to transfer up to a limited amount a sententious jurisdiction in matters testamentary to the County Courts. Yet in the Chancery Commission he opposed both measures ; and, reyrng on his judg- ment, I was induced to join in that opposition." (" .L!etzr, heart" and laughter.)
Mr. Henleye amendment was agreed to.
OATH OF ABJURATION.
Before the orders of the day were taken on Monday, the Earl of DERBY moved that the order for the third reading of his Oath of Abju- ration Amendment Bill should be -discharged. He was induced to this course because his bill, introduced in a spirit of -conciliation had been received in a spirit of defiance, and so misconstrued that he had no hope of its passing another place. The responsibility of retaining absurd oaths he threw upon those who would not carry a bill:that abrogated them.
Lord Laarnirensr presented a petition from the Lord 'Mayor and Sheriffs against the bill. Referring to Lord Derby's complaint, he re- marled that he himself had more reason to complain, that Lord Derby, in terms not of the usual courtesy, had accused mmmi misrepresentation. The Earl of MALmessost reproved Lord Lyndhurst for deviating from the straightforward course of arguing the merits of the hill and attri- luting motives to Lord Derby.
Lord CArserieLL said that the bill could do no good, and it was betterto
withdraw it. He did not wish to see a conflict between the two Houses. Neither did he wish to see the House of Commons attempt by a resolu- tion to alter the law of the land : that can only be done by act of Par- liament. —Order discharged.
Itraneranter OF Bustlers.
Mr. ‘GREGSON inquired whether any plan for the retirement of Bishops on pensions, similar to the arrangements for Colonial Bishops, Lord Chancellors, Judges, and Ministers of State, was in contemplation ?
Lord PALMERSTON replied, that it was not his intention at present to propose any general act on the subject ; but the Bishops of London and Durham having signified their desire to retire in consequence of infirmi- ties incapacitating them from the satilifactory discharge of their functions, he should propose a bill limited to those two particular cases.
Tun lifruirti.
In Committee of Supply, on the estimates of 228,950/. for the Disembo- died Militia, Colonel NORTH, Colonel BUM, Sir Joan Buisiin, and others, complained of the small pay of the noncommissioned officers, the useless fortifications at Plymouth and Davenport, and the 'hardship of billeting. Lord PALMERSTON explained, that the Government, in consultation with Sir John Burgoyne, had come to the conclusion that the whole extent of the lines at Plymouth should be completed. As regards billeting, the Government will avail themselves to the utmost extent of barracks and encampments, and avoid billeting, for the sake of the discipline of the Army, as well as the convenience of innkeepers, who, in some parts, complain that they are not remunerated because the militiamen do not drink so much as formerly. Next session the billeting system as it ex- ists in England will be applied to Scotland, and private householders will he relieved from the liability to receive troops. As regards the perma- nent staff of the Militia, no larger number of noncommissioned officers will be retained than is absolutely necessary, so that when the Militia regiments are embodied they may have the advantage of the smartest men from the _Line to train and &ill them.—Vote agreed to.
'THE BLEACHING-WARES Emu.
The debate on the second reading of the Bleaching-Works, &e. (No. 2) Bill, adjourned on the 13th June, was resumed on Wednesday. This bill is intended to restrict the hours of labour in bleaching-works : the hours are at present quite at the discretion of the master of the works, and sometimes extend to as many as twenty-one hours a day and 105 in a week. The temperature of the rooms in which the work is car- ried on varies from 90 to 130 degrees. The advocates of the bill—Mr. ISAAC BUTT, Mr. Colmar; Mr. DRUMMOND, Mr. WALTER, and others— state that restriction of the hours of labour is required by many masters to put all on an equal footing; and by the men women, and children, employed in these "wasting shops," as they call them, for their own pro- tection. It is alleged that an interruption of the process is practicable at any stage without injury. On the other hand, Mr. Barren, Sir hares Ole A Tr ANC Mr. 'CARDWELL, and other opponents of the measure, state that the bleaching trade is peculiar ; that the processes vary so much in dif- ferent seasons and different parts of the country as to require different enactments ; that the process once begun cannot be interrupted ; and that if the House agreed to the bill, which would increase the oost of production, the competition is so keen that the success of our foreign rivals would be insured. Both sides were willing to refer the matter to s Select Committee but while the supporters of the bill were anxious that a Committee should be appointed at once, its opponents thought that the Committee had better be appointed next session.
The House divided on the question that the bill be " now " read a second tune; and decided in the negative by 109 to 65.
• Loan FEMME'S CLAIM,
The Rouse of Lords, sitting as a Committee of Privileges, took into 'consideration the claim of Lord Fernley to vote at the election of Repre- sentative Peers in Ireland.
The Loan CHANCELLOR said, that looking at the construction of the Net of Union, it appeared to him, as well as to the majority of the learned Judges who had given their opinion in answer to certain questions put to them by the House, that the extinction of the earldom of biontrath was not such an extinction of a peerage of Ireland as in conjunction with the extinction of two other peerages of Ireland would entitle the Crown to create a new peerage for Ireland. In his opinion, therefore, the peti- tioner had not made out his title to vote at the election of Representative Peers in Ireland.
The Earl of DERBY and Lord CAMPBELL concurred with the Lord Chancellor; and the petition was rejected.
Previous page
