Prlintr5 nub VrnIttlringn in Vurlinintut.
PRINCIPAL BUSINESS OF THE WEER.
HORSE or Loans. Monday, May 31. The Oaths Bill ; Lord Lucan's Amend- ment negatived by 80 to 68, and the Lords' Amendments insisted on. Tuesday, June 1. Lord Canning ; Lord Derby's Statement—The Buckingham- shire Speech ; Lord Clarendon's Explanation. 2 hursday, June 8. Non-Parochial Registers Bill read a second time—Chancery Amendment Bill read a second time. Friday, June 4. Sale of Poisons Bill read a second time—Stamp Duty on Pass- ports Bill read a second time—Lord Canning and Sir C. Campbell ; Lord Breadal- bane's inquiry.
House or COMMONS. Monday, May 31. The Buckinghamshire Speech; Lord Palmerston's Explanations—Supply ; Civil Estimates.
ywesday, June 1. Mr. Wilke ; Mr. Gibson's Motion negatived—Military Organi- aeon ; Captain Vivian's Motion—The Sues Canal ; Mr. Roebuck's Motion. Wednesday, June 2. Mr. Wilke discharged—Medical Practitioners ; Mr. Cow- per's Bill read a second time—Property Qualification; Mr. Locke King's Bill com- mitted—Playgrounds; Mr. Slaney's Bill read a second time. Thursday, June 3. China; Mr. Disraeli's Answer to Mr. Kinglake—Mr. Hors- man's Personal Explanation—Supply ; Civil Estimates—Property Qualification ; Mr. Locke King's Bill read a third time and passed, Friday, June 4. China ; Lord John Russell's Question—The Dean of York; Mr. Ewart's Question—The American Difficulty ; Mr. Wilson's Question—Sale and Transfer of Land (Ireland) Bill committed pro forma--Supply; Civil Estimates.
TIME-TABLE.
The Lords.
Hour of Hour of Meeting. Adjournment.
The Commons.
Hour of Hour of
Meeting. Adjournment.
Monday
bh .... 9h 45m
Monday
4h .(m 122h 10ra parsday.
bh .. 7h 45m Tuesday
4h .(ei 2h 45m
Wednesday No sitting. Wednesday Noon Oh 45nt Thursday bh .... 13h SOra Thursday th .On III 15m Friday 51. .... eh 15m Friday 4h .(1.1) 111 SJm sittings this Week, 4; Time, lob 15m Sittings this Week, 6; Time, 43h Slat -- this Session. 67 ; — 113h 20m this Session 70; — 479h lint
THE BUCKINGHAMSHIRE SPEECH.
Monday brought another attack upon Mr. Disraeli for his speech at Slough. His foremost assailant this time was the late Prime Minister.
Lord PALMERSTON apologized for not having been in the House on Friday when Mr. Disraeli appealed :to him, but he thought it his duty to take the first opportunity of answering that appeal. Mr. Disraeli's speech at Slough had been read with astonishment. It was not sur- prising that he should be elated ; for the first time he found himself sup- ported by an unanimous assembly, and he heard the spontaneous cheers of a band of six hundred honest but deluded farmers—he who had been of late accustomed only to the cheers of a small but well-disciplined band of supporters in that House. If his speech had been made by a man in a humbler position it might have been treated with compassion.
" Non Massica Bacchi Munera, non illis epulte nocuere repostm."
But it was not so with Mr. Disraeli. His speech was prepared. He said that when Lord Derby came into office he succeeded to a heritage of innu- merable difficulties. Now Lord Derby does not require time to prepare a speech, but when he took office he did take time to prepare one, and Lord Palmerston heard him say in that speech that he found the country in a satisfactory condition, and his only ambition was to leave it in a position as good as he found it. Mr. Disraeli said that when he came into office he found the question of peace or war not a question of weeks but hours. "So far as I know anything of our relations with France at that time, that state- ment is utterly groundless," nay, "the opposite of the truth." If it were
true it ought not to have been made in a booth at Slough—it was in that House upon the Army and Navy Estimates an assertion of that sort should have been made. But it is utterly untrue. In his answer to Mr. Griffith Lord Palmerston said that our relations with France were of the most inti- mate and confidential character. The French Ambassador, Count de Per- signy, it was said, left the country, was not that the sign of a rupture ? The feet is that Count de Persigny was in Paris when the change took place ; he returned to England and did not leave it for a fornight. Mr. Disraeli's injudicious statement threw distrust upon our commercial relations and ac- cused the Emperor of a covert intention of attacking this country without previous announcement. He called upon Mr. Disraeli to explain or retract the assertion. " There may have been differences between the two Govern- ments after the present Government acceded to office ; there may have been possibly charges, and complaints on the part of the French Government of engagements evaded and of promises broken. That I know nothing about. It may be so, and, for all I know, the imminence of war pointed out by the right honourable gentleman may have arisen froze circumstances which have occurred since the present Government came into office."
Next Mr. Disraeli took credit for rescuing the engineers immured in the dungeons of Naples ; but the late Government had bestowed incessant attention on the subject and had caused them to be placed in a compara- tively light place of confinement. As regards the charge that a faction had sought to bring about a war between Sardinia and Naples, Lord Palmerston utterly denied there is any truth in the assertion. Ho described Mr. Dis- raeli's budget as a postponement of the evil day. If they have to bring forward a budget next year they will rue the hour when they adopted so easy an adjustment of a difficult financial question. As to what Mr. Dis- raeli said about Indian policy—massacre and confiscation or a discrimi- nating amnesty—that is a libel on the late Government and on Lord Canning. Mr. Disraeli sent forth a missive proclaiming principles that would dismember the empire and degrade the Governor-General—and that he called the reconstruction of our Indian empire ! How severe he had been upon his colleagues. To hear him one would think the Government had been wholly defended by independent Members. He said nothing of the speech of Sir Hugh Cairns, or Mr. Whiteside, or Lord Stanley. Then Mr. Disraeli made what he considered an overpowering charge—he said
there was a cabal on the Opposition benches. Well, the word cabal only means a body consisting of a small number, and I believe the gram- matical distinction between a cabal and a party is merely the distinction between a few and many. Of course, if the right honourable gentleman says we are a' cabal' he thinks we are the few, and he calls himself, I presume, the head of a ' party' because they have the majority in this House. But, surely, if we on this aide are deserving of the epithet cabal' because we are few, the right honourable gentleman might be sparing in his invectives, inasmuch as the few cannot overpower the many, and their designs, however unheard-of, alarming, or mischievous, must, by reason of their numerical inferiority, be most difficult to carry into execution. But when ho complains that his Government has ever since it was established, been the object of incessant attacks and intrigues, I should like to know to whom he alludes. He cannot make this charge against us who sit on these
benches. (Laughter, and cries of " Oh .1" Why, we have acted with un- common forbearance. (Renctoa laughter.)) And it has come to my ear that
many of those who wish as well have thought that we were neglecting and
shrinking from the discharge of our duty in allowing the Government to go on from blunder to blunder, proving every day their incapacity, to govern ;
and we have been supposed to be backward in the exercise of our consti-
tutional functions in not calling the House to affirm that the present Go- vernment are not deserving of the confidence of the country. (Laughter and cheers.) . . . . But we are told that this cabal is uncommonly well in- formed, especially in regard to foreign affairs. Now, I can't retort that charge upon the present Ministry. (Laughter.) I acquit them entirely of any such imputation. . . . Having been in office for a considerable time
and having had to deal with foreign affairs of great importance, we neces- sarily know a good deal of those foreign affairs, and, let me add, we know a little about domestic matters too. Now, Sir, I should like to know, who those foreign intriguers are who are conspiring with us for
the Purpose of dispossessing gentlemen opposite from their seats To say that there has never been a cabal since the days of Charles II., having for its object to upset a Government, is an assertion I did not expect t) hear from a quarter so enlightened. (Laughter.) Such a thing is no novelty ; but I will tell the right honourable gentleman that which is a novelty. It is not that there should be a cabal in Opposition, but that there should be a factious Government--(" Oh, oh !" and cheers)—that there should be a Government carrying into office all the factious feelings by which they were actuated in Opposition—(Chart)—a Government which publishes libels on the former advisers of the Crown, and on acts of the Crown carried out on the advice of those former Ministers—a factious Go- vernment that sends forth and publishes not only to Europe but to India principles which, if carried into execution, would lead to the dismember- ment of our Indian empire—and a Government which, whatever motives it may have been actuated by, publishes to the world a most affronting in- sult to the highest officer of the Crown in any of her Majesty's dominions?' (Cheers.) Mr. DISRAELI replied in a similar strain. He began by likening the successive attacks made upon him to the attacks made by the sous-lieu- tenants upon Henri de Pene. Lord Palmerston's argument rested upon a misquotation. What he said did not refer to the late Government, When Lord Palmerston left office there was no prospect of a war with France. It was easy for a Government prepared to change the laws of England to maintain a good understanding. But the moment a change of Government took place—the moment there was an Administration whose duty it was in deference to the resolu- tion of this House to answer in a becoming manner the supposed insulting despatch, and to declare to France that they wore not prepared at their in- stance to recommend any change in the laws of England, the House will at once see that the issues of peace or war became most imminent." (Cheers and counter-cheers.) How did the Government act ? They appealed to the good sense of the Emperor, and when the whole case was brought before his unerring judgment, and he was relieved from the influence of parasites in both countries, then the relations between the two states became week by week of a more cordial character, " and I say again that I was justified in the statement I made, that we maintained the honour of the country, the blessings of peace, and that inestimable alliance on which the civilization of Europe depends." (Cheers.) The condition of peace when Lord Palmer- ston went out of office, " in my opinion, in the opinion of this country, and of the House, was a shameful condition, the pursuance of a truckling policy, which was not only not for the honour of this country, but was clearly against the interest of France and the advantage of our faithful ally. (Cheers.) And I believe that no person was more convinced of that than the Emperor himself." Mr. Disraeli had revealed no state secret, and sould see no reason why he should not have said what he did say to his con- stituents. At some length Mr. Disraeli maintained that the release of the two engineers—shamefully neglected by the late, was due to the exertions of the present Government. He insisted that " certain persons " had en- deavoured to excite a war between Sardinia and Naples for the purpose of injuring the Government. He vindicated what he had said about Indian policy by making out that his remarks referred to what would be the conse- quences of Lord Canning's policy. Confiscation, vengeance, and massacre are the gradations of a climax. But the " real and man cause of this ad- journed debate on the Buckinghamshire speech" was the term cabal. He could not assent to Lord Palmerston's definition. A cabal means a secret society of conspirators. In speaking of a cabal ho did not speak of an opposition or a party in the House of Commons. " There may be members of the cabal in the House of Commons. I am sure there are members of the cabal who are not Members of the House of Commons." What is the meaning of these repeated movements ? Lord John Russell had attempted on Friday to put the great Liberal party in an intelligible position ; that was legitimate and constitutional. But that does not apply to the course of Lord Palmerston, who is not identified with the Liberal party in thought, senti- ment, or interest. "I understand there are great questions which will come forward and which will test the character of parties in this House. The great Liberal party is in favour of vote by ballot. Ls her Majesty's late Government in favour of vote by ballot ? (Cheers.) The great Liberal party is in favour of the total abolition of church-rates. Is her Majesty's late Government in favour of the total abolition of church-rates ? (Cheers.) The great Li- beral party is in favour of that bill of the honourable Member for Surrey, to discuss which I appointed this evening. Is her Majesty's late Govern- ment in favour of the honourable Member's new franchise ? (Cheri :y.) All that we know from the past is, that they opposed it on principle and offered grave arguments to influence the opinion of the House against it. (Cheers.) There is another subject upon which the great Liberal party. entertains strong views, and that is the subject of economy. Was her Majesty's late Government in favour of economy ? It is my painful duty every day of my life to be witness of the expenditure of the late Government, and a snore extravagant, reckless, and profuse expenditure I never saw. (Loud cheers.) The great Liberal party is in favour of publicity. We are always hearing that they look upon publicity in transactions of State as of great importance. There never was a Government which exercised such reserve on affairs of State as her Majesty's late Government, and the only charge ever urged against this Government was that they did produce a public do- cument. (Cheers.) The only charge against us was that we published a despatch. No one can over say that we intercepted a letter. (Loud cheers.) There is one other subject upon which the great Liberal party have always shown great interest, and that is upon the conduct of the executive Govern- ment. They have always demanded that the conduct of the executive Go- vernment should be very temperate and moderate. But what has been the conduct of the late Executive ? They were the first Government which carried on wars without the sanction of Parliament, and if
we look to the other great branch of the Executive—namely, the exercise of patronage—is it not notorious that the exercise
of patronage outraged all the sense and spirit of the country ?" (Ckeers4
Mr. Disraeli concluded with a series of taunts addressed to his adversaries and a laboured denunciation of the cabal. "If I wanted to confirm the Government in power, if I wanted to assure a long tenure of office, I should beg the noble lords to continue their practices. I should be delighted, night after night, if they called on me to defend statements made to my constituents, not one word of which I retract, and which I made with that
due thought which such statements required. I should wish the noble lord to continue this course, for I am quite certain that, whatever difference of opinion there may be in this House, or in England, between the great Conservative party and the great Liberal party, there is this one point of a. union between us—that we are equally resolved both in this House and throughout the country no longer to be made the tools or the victims of an obsolete oligarchy." (Loud and prolonged cheering.) A smart debate ensued. Sir GEORGE GREY, with much vehemence, did battle on behalf of the late Government. Ho described Mr. Dis- raeli's assertions as unjustifiable; his answers as 'varying with each other ; his position as humiliating. Sir Jong Pa.unrwrox came to the rescue of his chief, and energetically defended his statement respecting puce or war. He showed up Lord Palmerston's reference to Lord Derby's speech. Lord Derby had not expressed his satisfaction at the condition of the country. He had only said he found the Army in a condition much better than he expected to find it. Sir John retorted upon Lord Palmerston his famous letter to the Tiverton electors, wherein he said that those who voted against him on the China question had consented to make the degradation of their country a stepping-stone to power. That is a phrase the most libellous and calumnious ever used by a public man against his opponents. The subject ought to be allowed to drop ; too much time has been occupied in these mean scrambles for place ; it is time to address undivided attention to public affairs. Lord Joule RUSSELL could not agree that these discussions are a waste of time. He restated the substance of Mr. Disraeli's speech to show that credit had been taken where credit was not due, that imputations had been thrown on public men, and that false accounts had been given of what is going on. These statements provoked denials and calls for explanation.
As to a cabal which is endeavouring to stir up war between Naples and Sardinia, I must say that I naturally supposed that the cabal referred to by the right honourable gentleman was some cabal formed in this House. I thought, perhaps, that it was meant that it was my honourable friend the Member for Bridgewater was the promoter of that cabal, and that the right honourable gentleman had discovered the whole plan ; but it appears now that the cabal does not exist in this House, but that it exists somewhere else. Now, sir, I should like to know where the cabal has its existence. Does the right honourable gentleman—and I am almost afraid to mention the subject—does he charge any foreign minister resident at the Court of her Majesty with being engaged in a cabal against the Government to which he is accredited ? Does he complain that any member of the late Government or that any Member of this House is engaged in any cabal? Well, then, if there be no such cabal, all the credit is taken from the Go- vernment for defeating it."
"Then I come to the question as regards unmitigated vengeance, massacre, and confiscation. Now, I have always supposed from the time I read that speech that the policy of vengeance, of massacre, and confiscation was the policy of somebody—(" Hear, hear !" and a laugh )—that it was a policy which the Government had had to consider, and to which they objected, and that they had adopted a policy of which unmitigated vengeance and massacre formed no part. We now, however, learn that it is only a sort of hypothetical policy. (Laughter.) 'Now, the right honourable gentleman has talked of a party motion. I do not hold a great deal of communication with the noble lord the Member for Tiverten—(Laughter)—but I understand from his late colleagues that, in his view, after the present Government was installed in office, it would be for the interest of the Liberal party not to bring forward any motion with the view of displacing them, but that the best course for the Liberal party to pursue was to consider what subjects of general interest would be brought forward, to distinguish points of agree- ment and disagreement, and by degrees to consolidate their strength, and form themselves in such a manner that they might carry great public mea- sures of great public advantage. That I believe was the opinion of the noble lord, and I think that there were few who did not share in it. Well, air, when that wonderful despatch of Lord Ellenborough's was shown to use by the honourable Member for Birmingham, to whom it had been commu- nicated by Lord Ellenborough, I said at once, This is an abominably bad despatch. It struck me at once that it would hardly do for this House to be content with merely reading that despatch, to have it, in fact, thrown in their faces, and not to take any notice of it, and that, in a party sense, however injurious it might be, we could hardly avoid doing so if we paid due regard to the interests of this country in India, and if any regard ought to be paid to a person placed in the position of Governor-General of that country., That was my opinion, and I believe that it was a very general opinion. '
Lord John expressed a hope that the Government would soon proceed with the Indian resolutions. Mr. DISRAELI said on Monday next they would be taken up. Mr. Werresrne made a party speech in reply to Lord John Russell and Lord Palmerston ; and the subject dropped.
Here the matter ended in the House of Commons, but it broke out afresh the next night in the House of Lords. On Monday, the Earl of CLARENDON gave notice, that on Tuesday he should call attention to Mr. Disraeli's speech. The Earl of DERBY said that he was glad notice had been given, as it would afford him an opportunity of again reading the speech of his right honourable friend. On Tuesday, accordingly, Lord CLARENDON, with much severity of manner and language, analyzed and answered the several points of the speech which touched upon foreign affairs and the cabal. He gave a "direct and unqualified contradiction" to Mr. Disraeli's statement about peace and war. Mr. Disraeli must have laboured under such culpable ignorance of the facts as to disqualify him from speaking, or he must have been aware of the real fact. Lord Clarendon entered into the French question, including the origin and progress of the Conspiracy Bill, with much minuteness, to expose the inaccuracy of Mr. Disraeli's statements ; and he pursued the same course with regard to the Cagliari. He passed a severe condemnation on the attack upon Lord Canning— an attack not characterized by that generous and gentlemanlike feeling which ought always to animate a Minister of the Crown; an attack made four days after Mr. Disraeli had announced that the Government had sent a message to Lord Canning expressing their confidence in him. And, finally, he asked who are the Englishmen and foreigners composing the cabal. He was sure Lord Derby would concur with him that the charge could not apply to the corps diplomatique, yet he knew of no foreigners in this country who possess such considerable and ample re- sources and such great social influence.
Lord DERBY complained of theirregularity of Lord Clarendon's pro- ceeding, which elevated a post-prandial speech to the dignity of a state paper, and went over the points of that speech in r. free and easy man- ner. In general terms he vindicated Mr. Disraeli, and explained away nis allusions and accusations, in accordance with the tenour of Mr. Disraeli's explanations. He took credit for keeping the peace with France, but he gave the greater share to that "illustrious man who rules over the empire of France." He admitted that the terms used by Mr. Disraeli in reference to the engineers were "perhaps a little in- flated," but he claimed the credit of restoring them to their homes with- out conditions. Lord Derby alluded to some points omitted by Lord Clarendon—the truthful description of that dissolving view in the House of Commons when Mr. Cardwell withdrew his motion, the failure of the Opposition to rout the Government upon the Budget, the reduction of interest upon Exchequer Bills, but abstaining from "personal " matters, he declined to say anything about cabals, foreign or domestic. The last section of his speech related to India. He contended that Mr. Disraeli had not imputed to Lord Canning a policy of unmitigated vengeance and massacre. It was only meant that the Government, not for his guid-
ance but to assure him of support, had impressed upon Lord Canning thaethey, in opposition to the civilians and military mon around him, re- commended a policy of discriminating amnesty.
There were three other speeches. Earl Gmea-vreez smartly replied to one or two points in Lord Derby's speech. One passage set the Rouse in a roar-
" As to the whole case of India I am happy to say that Lord Canning's character stands too high to be affected by any post-prandial speech uttered in a tavern at Slough. The provider of the entertainment, as I see by the papers, was mine host 'Bragg.' " (Loud laughter.)
The Earl of Meranzeunv insisted that Mr. Disraeli's speech respect- ing the French question and the Cagliari was correct. Lord &Abney of Alderley pointed out that certain members of the present Govern- ment, Mr. Walpole distinctly, had said that a cordial support should be given to the Conspiracy Bill. There the matter ended.
Loan CANNING.
Earl GRANVILLE asked, on Tuesday, whether Lord Derby could pro. duce a copy of the communication he sent to Lord Canning assuring him of his support ; and also a copy of the vote of confidence in Lord Can- ning passed by the Court of Directors. Lord DERBY gave an explanation of the state of the case.
The only communication which had taken place of the nature to which the noble earl had referred, in which the Government promised their sup- port to Lord Canning, was contained in a telegraphic message transmitted by Lord Derby as a personal communication to Lord Canning, with whom he had no right to enter into any official correspondence whatever, and that was sent with the view to its overtaking the mail which had gone out on the 10th LMay.j. He communicated on the 12th by telegraph with Lord Canning, informing him of the change that had taken place in the Govern- ment by the retirement of his noble friend the late President of the Board of Control, and of the regret of the Government that the secret despatch which his noble friend had addressed to him had been made public, and ex- pressing the determination of the Government to give him the most cordial support in their power. It also expressed the hope of the Government that, while they approved the policy laid down in the secret despatch of the 19th of April, Lord Canning would not in practice find it greatly to differ from the policy recommended by Lord Ellenborough in the former despatch. Of course those telegraphic communications must necessarily be very short ; but under the circumstances he had no hesitation in promising the most cordial support to-Lord Canning. It would not be possible to produce the private communication to Lord Canning to which the noble earl had al- luded ; but with regard to the vote of confidence of the Court of Directors in Lord Canning there would not be the least objection to lay that on the table.
THE OATHS BILL.
The Lords on Monday, took into consideration the Commons' reasons for disagreeing to the Lords' amendments to the Oaths Bill. Clause 5 having been read, the Earl of Lueere moved as an amendment a proviso enabling the House of Lords and the House of Commons to modify the oath by resolution in order that it might be taken by persons professing the Jewish religion. In bringing forward this amendment he had acted proprio tnotu and without even acquainting Lord Derby of his intention. He was asking much from the House, but not too much, since his object was to restore harmony between the two Houses. For twen.ty-five years the House of Commons have passed measures intended to aamit Jews to Parliament, and it would be most impolitic and inexpedient in their lordships to persevere in absolutely rejecting the measure before them. He would not shrink from upholding the privileges of the House ; he looked upon the appointment of Baron Rothschild upon the recent Com- mittee of Conference as something very like an insult; but be that as it may their lordships should view the matter dispassionately, and pro- nounce an impartial decision. He moved the following proviso-
" Provided, also, that whenever any of her Majesty's subjects professing the Jewish religion shall be required to take the oath appointed by this Act on any occasion other than an application to be admitted to sit and vote in either House of Parliament the words, 'And I make this declaration upon the true faith of a Christian' shall be omitted Laud that from and after the passing of this Act it shall be lawful for the House of Lords and for the House of Commons, respectively, by resolution of the House, to determine that the form of the said oath, so far as such oath rests upon or refers to the Christian faith, shall for the purpose only of such oath being administered to persons professing the Jewish religion be modified, and to make such mo- dification accordingly in such manner as to each such House shall seem best calculated to adapt the form of the said oath to the honest and con- scientious scruples of the said persons professing the Jewish religion."
Earl STANHOPE explained, at some length, the reasons that led him no longer to resist the admission of the Jews, although his objections re- mained undiminished. He referred to the persistent conduct of the House of Commons, to the languid opposition to the Jews out of doors ; to the support given by the right reverend bench to the bill ; to the sup- port given by members of the present Government. Was it expedient that the Lords should continue the resistance ? He did not think that they should raise a barrier against the strongly expressed wishes of the House of Commons. Do what they would they could not exclude Jews from Parliament. For his own part he resolved to be guided on that occasion by Lord Lyndhurst, and to vote as he voted. Even at the ex- pense of some personal feeling Lord Stanhope desired to see the question settled. The Earl of CLANCARTY counselled the House not to make "a precipitate retreat," but to adhere to the course they have hitherto fol- lowed. The Earl of DERBY thought that longer notice should have been given of the novel principle embodied in the amendment. Many of their lord- ships could have no idea of the nature of the proposition submitted to the House, and therefore opportunity should be given them for making up their minds. Having commented at some length on the " reasons " of the Commons, Lord Derby said that if it were a question of mere ex- pediency he should not hesitate. It would give him unfeigned satisfac tion if he could set a possibility or probability of coming to a reasonable compromise. But the real argument—tbat the Lords should recede before the increasing majorities of the Commons—is a dangerous argil- moot. The question is taken up as a party question ; the country is apathetic on the subject ; the Jewish community at largo feel no interest in the question. He was not insensible to the inconvenience of a difference between the two Houses of Parliament, but whether the resis- tance of the House of Lords be of a longer or shorter duration, he was convinced that the House of Commons would not break through the law of the land and admit the Jews by resolution. His advice was that the House should not hastily decide the matter. There is something
plausible and not altogether unsound in the amendment. But there would be danger in the precedent established.
Sly noble and gallant friend in his amendment goes to a very great ex- tent, but I could better understand it had he introduced into the latter por- tion of the clause the same provision which is to be found in the first part, and provided that in the case of any person presenting himself at the table, (for I can't see why the restriction should only be removed in the case of Jews,) and having been duly elected, declaring that he was willing to take the prescribed oaths, but that the words on the true faith of a Christian' were not binding on his conscience, each House should be empowered to omit those words and to allow the substantive oath to be taken in the form which might be most binding. I do not pledge myself to that view, but there is much to be said in its favour, and that by adopting it it is possible to a great extent to get rid of the very painful subject of difference between this and the other House. But the noble Earls amendment goes further, and says that as to those parts of the oath which rest upon Christian prin- ciples it shall be competent to either House to modify or alter such form as it may think fit. That is a much more extensive question, which I amnot prepared hastily to decide upon. While I shall vote against the latter part of my noble and gallant friend's amendment, I shall be quite ready. to support the first part if it really be thought necessary, and in voting against the latter portion I desire to reserve to myself and those with whom I act the opportunity of considering upon some future occasion whether any com- promise framed according to such principles as I have mentioned may not be adopted to terminate the inconveniences arising from I fear, the per- manent difference of opinion between your lordships and the other House. I regret that I am compelled now to vote against the latter portion of my noble friend's amendment, but, not having seen any reason to change the views I expressed upon former occasions, and not feeling myself justified in calling upon your lordships to sacrifice your deliberate convictions and to allow the constitution of this as well as the other House to be altered at will in this manner, I am with reluctance bound to take that course, and to ask your lordships to insist upon the amendment you have introduced into the bill which was sent to us by the House of Commons." Earl GREY, remarking on the inconveniences of a premature decision, suggested that it would be better to proceed by a separate bill, and moved that the further consideration of the Commons' reasons should be postponed for a fortnight. Lord DERBY admitted it would be better to proceed by a separate bill, but could not waive their lordships' right to insist on their amendments. Lord GREY repeated his recommendation. The Earl of ELLEMEILE, the Duke of NEWCASTLE, Lord LYNDHURST, Lord CAMPBELL, and Lord BROUGHAM., supported Lord Grey. The Duke of RUTLAND implored Lord Derby to stand firm.
The Earl of MALMESBURY said he had not altered his opinion. But, looking to the circumstances of the case, it is impossible not to feel per- suaded that sooner or later, and rather soon than late, this question will be decided by the admission of the Jews into Parliament. The amend- ment contained the elements of a compromise, but it came before them in a crude form. They ought to have more security than it gives. It would be better that the House should maintain their opinion, while they showed that they were not unwilling to come to a reasonable compro- mise. Earl GRANVILLE and Earl Powis enforced the dem'and for an adjournment of the debate ; but Lord DERBY thought that course would be liable to misconstruction. If they insisted on the amendments the House of Commons might hang up the bill until they saw what further measures might be taken to give effect to the proposed com- promise.
On a division Lord Grey's motion of adjournment was negatived by 80 to 68.
Lord LUCAN said that as the House thought it would be better to pro- ceed by a separate bill he should withdraw his amendment. It was withdrawn.
Lord LYNDHURST next moved that the House should not insist upon its amendments. He brought up fresh evidence to show that the act of George I. excluding the Jews could never have been intended to exclude them; because under that act they might be adjudged "Popish recusant convicts" for refusing to take the oath of abjuration. He showed that by omitting clause 5, the bill would be open to a construction making it doubtful whether persons of the Jewish persuasion could practise as at- torneys or solicitors, or hold offices for which, under the present law, the taking of the oath of allegiance is alone necessary. Lord Lyndhurst en- tered into the whole question upon its merits, and repeated in different forms those arguments on behalf of the admission of the Jews which he has so often and so eloquently urged upon the House. The Loan CHAN- CELLOR encountered him upon this ground, and also minutely examined the Commons' reasons. But the interest of the debate had passed away with the conversation upon Lord Lucan's motion. Lord LYNDHURST would not divide the House ; the amendment was negatived ; and the motion that the House should insist upon its amendments was agreed to.
MILITARY ORGANIZATION.
Captain VIVIAN, on Tuesday, moved the following resolution-
" That, although the recent consolidation of the different departments of Ordnance, Commissariat, and Secretary at War has to a certain extent im- proved the general administration of military affairs, a divided responsi- bility still exists; and that, in order to promote greater efficiency, the de- partments of the Horse Guards and War Office should be placed under the control of one responsible Minister." The misfortunes of the Crimean war arose from the maladministration of the military departments at home. In 1865, under the influence of Panic, changes were hastily made. The duties of the Ordnance Office were divided between the Minister of War and the Commander-in-chief, and the Commissariat was transferred from the Treasury to the Quarter- master-General. But the office of Commander-in-chief was left un- touched. Two great functionaries, the one a civilian, the other a sol- dier, were left in a position calculated to produce rivalry. If the Min- ister of War were a man of strong mind, the Commander-in-chief might sink into a cipher. Owing to the good feeling subsisting, since 1855, between the War Office and the Horse Guards no jealousies had arisen ; but is it wise to leave two great departments dependent upon the good feeling of their heads ? The changes of 1855 were only an instalment. At present the two departments are confused and jumbled together. With regard to promotions, he believed the form which was gone through to be this—The Commander-in-chief submits to the Secretary for War cer- tain names of officers whom he recommends for promotion. The Secretary for War gives his approval. The names, having received the approval of the Secretary for War, are submitted by the Commander-in-chief to the Sovereign. When the Sovereign's approval has been given, they are re- turned to the Secretary for War, who gazettes them, and who signs the commissions, which are also signed by another subordinate officer. With regard to the land forces for the year, the number is settled at a Cabinet Coun- cil, and the Secretary for War, as the mouthpiece of the Cabinet, obtains the approval of the Sovereign. In due course he sends to the Commander-in-chief the number of men, and requests him to take the approval of the Sovereign on that number; so that the Commander-in-chief has to go through the ridiculous form of asking the approval of the Sovereign to that which has already been decided on, perhaps weeks before, between the Sovereign and her Ministers. The only object of these idle forms is to give an appearance of independence to the Commander-in-chief, which, in reality, he does not possess. If a general officer were required for command in the colonies or in India, the Commander-in-chief submits the name of some general to the Secretary for War, and if the Secretary for War approves, it is then submitted to the So- vereign. He did not approve this divided responsibility. The civil ad- ministration of the army is in a great measure carried on by an irrespon- sible officer, the Commander-in-chief. The Quartermaster-General, for in- stance, moves troops at his pleasure from one part of the country to another, and puts the country thereby to great expense. The education of the army is one of the greatest anomalies of the present system. The control of the military schools is entirely in the hands of the Secretary for War, but the Commander-in-chief, is, in fact, President of the Council of Education. The Commander-in-chief appoints a vice-president, and receives the report of i the Council ; although, if questions were asked in the House, the Secretary for War would be supposed to be responsible for the acts of the Council, over which he had no control whatever. Captain Vivian asked that the whole military departments should be placed under one head.
General PEEL said the duties of the Commander-in-chief and the Minister of War arc clearly defined. He had found no difficulty in learning his duties and responsibilities. The command, discipline, and patronage, are in the hands of the Commander-in-chief. If that control were placed in the hands of a Minister, he must become a member of the Government, he must be a political partisan, and change with every Ad- ministration, and he would be suspected of making his patronage subser- vient to party purposes. It would be best to leave the Commander-in- chief in his present position, and not subject the discipline and command of the Army to constant discussion in that House. It would be difficult to find a person who could discharge the duties of the consolidated office proposed by Captain Vivian. He could not consent to the amalgamation of the offices of Commander-in-chief and Secretary for War.
Lord ADOLPHUS VANE TEMPEST recommended a Board as a substitute for the existing system. Mr. HORSMAN said the existing system was the worst form of double Government. He should support Captain Vivian who proposed to rescue the army from the inefficient administration under which it has been suffering so long. Mr. BUTLER JOHNSTONE took the same side. Sir FREDERICK SMITH supported the status quo.
Mr. SIDNEY HERBERT contended that there had been too much conso- lidation, mentioning as an instance the abolition of the office of Master- General of the Ordnance, an office infinitely more important than that of Commander-in-chief. There is at present complete responsibility, for the word of the Minister of War is law ; his authority is supreme. But he could not assent to the abolition of the office of Commander-in-chief, because it would be revolting to popular instincts that a civilian should govern the army and control arrangements affecting its discipline. General CODILLNGTON and Colonel NORTH followed on the same aide.
Lord PALMERSTON contended that the line of division between the Minister of War and the Commander-in-chief is now sufficiently esta- blished. The present arrangement is in principle the one it is most.de- sirable to maintain. If the two offices are made into one a civilian could not be placed over the army, and it would be difficult to find a military man. Both would change with the change of Government, and thus an element of instability would be introduced. The proposed union would be incompatible with the true interests of the army.
On a division, the resolution was carried by 106 to 104.
On Thursday Sir JOHN Wsisii inquired whether the Government in- tended to take any steps in consequence of this vote ? Mr. Digits Ina answered that, considering the great importance of the subject, the com- paratively small number of Members in the House when the division took place, and the bare majority by which the decision was arrived at, her Majesty's Government do not feel that it is their duty to recommend any measure in consequence of that resolution.
THE SUEZ CANAL.
Mr. Ressues called the attention of the House to the subject of the Suez Canal scheme. It has been proposed to cut a canal through the
Isthmus of Suez; influence of England has been employed to induce the Sultan to withold his assent from the project ; and wehave behaved in a selfish and base manner. Facility of transport is for the benefit of mankind. The Suez Canal would facilitate the intercourse between Asia and Europe, and its formation would be for the happiness of mankind. The House of Commons had nothing to do with the physical difficulties of the project ; for capitalists must protect their own interests. All the House had to consider was whether the canal would be for the interest of England. He contended that the interest of England is identical with the interest of mankind. The people of England have a greater traffic with India than all the rest of mankind. If any one would be benefited they would be benefited. Our dominion depends on our mari- time supremacy, and that would not be imperilled by the canal. The House should show that we are a magnanimous people, and willing as a nation to assist man in conquering nature. Mr. Roebuck dealt se- verely with Lord Palmerston for opposing this project—" the greatest physical work undertaken since man was upon earth' ; and concluded by moving-
" That, in the opinion of this House, the power and influence of this country ought not to be used in order to induce the Sultan to withhold his as- sent to the project for making a canal across the Isthmus of Suez."
Mr. MILNER Gissost seconded the motion. Mr. GRIFFITH moved as an amendment that if the House sanctioned the project, care should be taken that the Viceroy. of Egypt should not obtain compulsory labour from the " fellahs" at inadequate remuneration. Lord HADDO defended the Viceroy of Egypt. Mr. STEPHENSON gave an emphatic opinion against the feasibility of the project. He had walked on foot over the whole ground. Instead of there being a difference of thirty feet in the level of the Red Sea and Mediterranean, the two seas are on a dead level. If a channel were cut it would not be a canal but a ditch.
Mr. SEYMOUR Frrzcsitssto opposed the motion almost wholly on po- litical grounds. It would lead to a natural separation of Egypt from
Turkey. The coast of Egypt is fortified in a manner that would make it almost impossible to land upon it. If the canal were cut, the banks would be in the possession of the proprietors, and a single battery would arrest commerce. It might fall into the hands of the enemies of the gauntry and be the greatest impediment to our intercourse with India. The Turkish Government regards the project as expensive and imprac- ticable. Mr. MILNER Guises supported Mr. Roebuck and asked for the eorrespondence on the subject. Lord Rumens-rots said—" The most charitable view which I can take of the scheme, the most innocent light in which it can be regarded is, in my opinion, that it is the greatest bubble which was ever imposed upon the credulity and simplicity of the people of this county." (" Hear, hear !" and laughter.) He denied that the Government had put any constraint upon the Sultan. The Turkish Government were as much opposed to the scheme as the English Government, when, finding other influences at work in favour of it, the English Government felt bound to explain to the Porte the dangers it involved. Egypt has been fortified by scientific men of other countries, and, he believed, the- fortifications had been expedited by funds supplied by another country.
" I am afraid to say how many guns those fortifications mount, but I believe three or four thousand, and those fortifications, manned by an army of 20,000 men, would in all probability render Egypt incapable of being overcome by any Turkish forces, or by the forces of any other country. Then, again, under the specious pretence of a work for agricultural pur- poses, the barrage of the Nile has been completed, which, while it pretends to be for the purpose of controlling the inundations of the Nile, would in reality be found to be a work available in no slight degree for military and defensive purposes. This plan has for its obvious purpose the barring of a passage to any Turkish army which might be employed to restore the em- pire of the Sultan, by opening a great military passage 300 feet broad, and 30 feet deep, laid with batteries. Should this canal be constructed, and should the Pasha of Egypt at any time wish to sever the connexion between Turkey and Egypt, and to erect Egypt into an independent state, the pos- session of a barrier such as I have described, defended by foreigners who might side with the Pasha, would render any attempt upon Egypt most pre- carious for the Sultan of Turkey, and would render much more probable that event which I think it is the interest of England to prevent,—I mean the detachment of Egypt from Turkey. That was the argument which we urged upon the Sultan, and he himself, seeing the force of it, has acted -upon it."
Mr. GLADSTONE described Lord Palmerston's interference as an " m- ane, improper, and illegitimate opposition," based upon absurd pretexts. It committed England to a contest in which she must fail. The' engi- neering question ought to be fought out on its own grounds. If it is a bubble, let the bubble burst. Let it stand or fall upon commercial grounds. Lord Palmerston had hypocritically thrust in the alleged in- terest of Turkey to justify his own policy. "The political reasons which you advance are, I believe, as regards Tur- key, utterly unsatisfactory to the whole public opinion of Europe—I don't say whether or not-it is unsatisfactory to English public opinion. The rea- sons with regard to India are of a kind calculated to create in Europe a sen- timent of irritation, of jealousy, and even of hostility to the existence of British power in India. And, further, I must say, whatever may be the judgment pronounced tonight, I am convinced, from the state of opinion which prevails on this subject, that the policy which has been pursued is not only a false policy, but is so diametrically opposed to the first principles of prudence, and I will even say to the comity and courtesy of friendly na- tions • it has such a tendency to isolate us on these questions from the rest of civilized mankind,—and this fact will come to be increasingly felt from year to year by the British people, —that you will not be able permanently to maintain it."
Mr. DISK 4EI.I asked what evidence there was that we had put a con- straint upon the Government of Turkey ? He knew of none. He amplified Mr. Fitzgerald's and Lord Palmerston's reasons, and repre- sented France and Austria as by no means so favourable to the project as some persons had made out.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL supported the motion by showing that the canal would not endanger our interests either in peace or war.
" I feel the force of the argument which was urged by the right honour- able Member for the University of Oxford, that our opposition to this scheme confirms the idea which is very generally entertained on the continent of Europe, that for our own selfish interests, and prompted by commercial jealousy, we are ready to sacrifice or to injure the commerce of all other na- tions. I believe that charge is not a true one but I am unwilling that there should be any just grounds for it, and I trust, therefore, that the House will assent to the motion of the honourable and learned gentleman, for by doing so we shall show that wills regard to this subject at least we are ready to meet all the world, and that we have no selfish objects in view."
Mr. DRUMMOND and Sir JOHN ELPHINSTONE opposed, and Mr. BRIGHT supported the motion. On a division, it was negatived by 290 to 62. PROPERTY QUALIFICATION.
The chief discussion at the Wednesday sitting was on Mr. Locke King's bill for abolishing property qualification for Members of Parlia- ment. On the order for going into Committee, Mr. BENTINCR moved that the House should go into Committee that day six months. He taunted the members of the late Government with always happening to be absent when questions opposed hi, them while in office were brought forward by their late supporters. l'he opponents of the measure were Mr. DRUM3IOND, Mr. NEWDEG ATE, Mr. KNIGHTLEY, and Mr. HENLEY; its supporters Mr. Ken SETMER, and Sir GEORGE LEWIS. On a divi- sion the amendment was negatived by 222 to 109.
In Committee Mr. WALPOLE had a sharp encounter with Mr. Bentinck and his friends, and stoutly defended the bill. He repeated that the property qualification is an useless and mischievous sham, that could not be defended on principle, reason, or expediency. Lord JOHN RUSSELL said he had always regarded the act of Anne establishing a property qualification as an invasion, an usurpation, and a contradiction of the ancient constitution of the House. Mr. Selden and Mr. Somers sat without this property qualification. He hoped Mr. Walpole would make a speech as successfully in favour of Mr. Locke King's County Fran- chise Bill as he had made in favour of the bill before the Committee. The bill passed through Committee without amendments.
The measure passed its final stage in the House of Commons on Thurs- day; Mr. BENTINCE declining to offer any further opposition.
Mu. HOUSMAN.
Mr. HORSMAN called attention to a speech made last week by Mr. M'Mahon in Committee of Supply, on the vote for the Irish Secretary's salary. Mr. M'Mahon had said that he had only found Mr. Hoisman at his office once ; that he could not find him to give notices of questions ' -
and that Mr. Horsman was above his office. This statement is the opposite of the truth. When he took office he entered upon confidential relations with the Liberal Irish Members, and upon frank relations with the Opposition. But there were five or six gentlemen constituting the independent Opposition whose object was, as far as they could, to render government impossible. He transacted business with these gentlemen with more caution than he thought necessary with others. Once he saw Mr. M`Mahon, and then told him that he could receive no verbal request and give no verbal answer, but that if Mr. 1191fahon would write a letter, Mr. Horsman would reply. He did that upon a rule which he had laid down that he would have no communication with those honourable Members except in writing, which could be placed on record and produced at any moment. Two friends of his had appeared to support Mr. M‘Mahon, founding themselves on Mr. Horsman's Stroud speech. To every word of that speech he adhered. Mr. Horsman gave a humorous account of the business done in the Irish office in London. There is one clerk with not half enough to do. About six letters a day reach the office. The clerk formerly came about one o'clock. Mr. Horsman made him come at ten ; but in three weeks he repented of his cruelty in keeping the clerk in solitude with nothing to do, and gave him more liberty. Mr. Horsman's house was close at hand, and he took the liberty of transacting a great part of the business there; but he was always ready to walk over to his office, and frequently did walk over. Had there ever been any delay in answering letters, or in fixing an interview, or had any single matter connected with the official business been allowed to go into arrear ? Certainly, with whatever other defect he might be charge- able, he was not conscious of having shown any desire to shrink from labour, and he had never expected that the mere transaction of public business on one side of a street instead of the other, or that his taking re- creation in Ireland in the intervals of public business, would have been brought forward as a serious charge against him. Mr. M`Manoir complained of having been singled out from among others who went farther than he went. He would retract the plume that Mr. Horsman was above his office—he was very much below it. Mr. M'Mahon complained of Mr. Horsman's treatment of the party to which he belonged, and admitted that he had grown tired of trying to find him. He brought forward the testimony of Lord Talbot de Mala- hide against Mr. Horsman's conduct while in office. Quoting Curran, he described Mr. Horsman as " one of the mutes of the castle," and said that he had not left one measure on the statute-book worthy of any man pretending to be a statesman.
Yet the right honourable gentleman aspired to be some day a Premier. What, he repeated, had this peal° post futururn Premier—this leader of the great Liberal party—done while he was in office? (Laughtes.) Much as he regretted that the time of the House had been taken up so long by this discussion, he was glad that the right honourable gentleman should be de- veloped in his true colours. (Laughter.)
Sir GEORGE GREY said he had always received th.e greatest assistance from Mr. Horsman, who was well-informed on Irish subjects ; but the public would be led astray if they imagined the duties of Chief Secretary are what Mr. Horsman represented them to be. Lord Naas and Mr. I. D. FrrzaanALD also dissented from Mr. Horsman's view of his duties ; though Mr. Fitzgerald gave his testimony to Mr. Horsman's courtesy and attention. Mr. Varies complained of Mr. Horsman's conduct in office. Mr. BLAND and Mr. BAGWELL testified to his courtesy. And here the subject dropped.
THE AMERICAN DIFFICULTY.-411 reply to a question from Mr. LINDSAYI Mr. FITZGERALD said that he had no official knowledge of searches of American ships instituted by English cruisers. The British Ambassador at Washington had sent home an extract from a New York newspaper. One reported capture Mr. Fitzgerald thought had been properly made. With regard to the other cases, he could only say that her Majesty's Government would deeply regret that any such occurrence should have taken place, and that they were as anxious as the Government of the United States that no such occurrence should take place. The real difficulty arose from the fact that slavers almost invariably hoisted the American flag. Her Majesty's Government bad signified to the Government of the United States that they were ready to adopt such measures as the latter might suggest to meet that difficulty. Orders had been already sent out by the Admiralty, giving peremptory instructions to our officers to observe the utmost caution, and those instructions would again be carefully repeated.
CHINA.—In reply to Mr. KINGLAILE, Mr. DISRAELI said that it would be inconvenient to lay on the table either the instructions given by the late or those given by the present Government to Lord Elgin, because , we are at present acting with allies." MEDICAL REPORM.—Mr. COWPER moved the second reading of the Medi- cal Practitioners Bill. He briefly explained that its object is to raise the standard of education; to have an authoritative register of practitioners, and to remove restrictions which prevent competent men from practising in _certain localities. Mr. WALPOLE said there were three bills before the House, Mr. Cowper's, Lord Eleho's, Mr. Thomas Buncombe's. All con- tained principles worthy ofadoption and all something from which he must dissent. He recommended Lord Elcho and Mr. Buncombe to • with- draw their bills, and he asked all sides to unite in making Mr. Cowper's bill satisfactory to all parties. At the suggestion of Mr. Hasra.ast, Mr. WALPOLE undertook to introduce the amendments he thought necessary. The bill was read a second time, and the other bills were withdrawn.
THE IRISH SECRETARY.—III Committee of Supply on Monday, Mr. Mix- TEE moved that the salary of the Chief Secretary for Ireland should be re- duced from 44251. to 3425/., on the ground that the office is a sinecure. Mr. WHITESLDE, Mr. DISRAELI, Mr. M'ALasiots, and a crowd of Irish Mem- bers, stood out against the proposed reduction. They urged that there is work enough to do if the Chief Secretary will do it. The Motion was nega- tived, by 151 to 55.
THE LONDON POLICE.—On the vote, in Committee of Supply,. of 128,6071. for the expenses of the metropolitan police, various complaints were made. Mr. Gnu-prim desired to see an approximation to the Conti- nental police so far as regards their action in clearing thoroughfares of "persons to whom he need not more particularly allude." Mr. Gusts desired to know if any portion of the increase of the vote (25,0000 was ex- pended in paying foreign officers ? Mr. Nicola, said that it was the practice to permit private persons to hire the police. He knew as a Magistrate that the police had acted as doorkeepers to one of the greatest sinks of iniquity London. Mr. WALPOLE accounted for the increased vote by referring to the new streets opened and deficiencies in the superannuation fund. As to clearing the streets the police would do what is necessary to preserve order and decorum. To go beyond that would he an arbitrary proceeding, and, once for all, he declared he would not go beyond that limit. Sir Jonic Tasiawarx suggested the postponement of the vote because it applied to purely metropolitan objects. On a division the vote was carried by 167 to MR. WASHINGTON Wn.xs.—Mr. GIBSON presented on Monday a petition Nat Mr. Wilke, in custody for having published a "false and scandalous oar upon Mr. Clive. In the petition, Mr. Wilke retracted the imputa- tion of corruption against Mr. Clive, but did not retract the imputation of ship. On Tuesday Mr. Gibson moved that Mr. Wilke should be barged, on the ground that Mr. Wilke had withdrawn and apologized for the particular imputation of which the House had taken notice. Hence arose a debate. Mr. CLAY on behalf of Mr. Clive, the SOLICITOR-GENERA; Mr. ROEBUCK, Mr. BOUVERIE, and Mr. Manama contended that Mr. Wilks had only partially retracted the libel, and the SOLICITOR-GENERAL moved that the order for the consideration of the petition should be dis- charged. Mr. Giensrorre insisted that the libel was withdrawn, and that the charge of partisanship was not a libel. The answer to this was that the allegation of the corrupt cause of the partisanship had not been with- drawn. The House discharged the order for the consideration of the peti- tion. On Wednesday Mr. GIBSON moved that Mr. Wilks, having "un- reservedly retracted every charge of corruption " against Mr. Clive, should be discharged. Mr. CUTE said that so far as he was concerned he would cheerfully assent to the motion, as the House would see that there was no truth in the charges brought against him. Mr. WALPOLE said that Mr. Clive stood completely exonerated. Motion agreed to.
Previous page
