conse

having been summoned to appear before it. The Committee succeeded in tracing the abduction of these parties to a person named Edwards, an active agent for many years past in elections at St. Albans, but they totally failed in eliciting the facts alleged in the petition, or in connecting the sitting Member with any corrupt transaction. They were sequently obliged to declare Mr. Bell duly elected, but at the same time they reported to the House their impression that gross and extensive bribery had prevailed, and that Edwards had been concerned in abstracting the witnesses. The House committed that person to Newgate, where he remained till the end of the session, and they passed a Bill authorizing the appointment of commissioners to inquire into the mode of conducting the last and previous elections at St. Albans, with a view to the disfranchisement of that borough, if the charges made against its character should be established.

Mr. Cobden renewed this session, though in a somewhat modified shape, the motion which he had unsuccessfully proposed in the preceding year, having for its object the promotion of a pacific understanding among the nations of the world by a mutual reduction of armaments. Mr. Cobden premised that, in speaking of warlike preparations, he alluded not to armies which on the Continent were maintained for the suppression of domestic foes-but to navies and fortifications. He then showed, by quotations from speeches and reports, that in France, as in this country, the navy estimates were framed with reference to what the other State was supposed to be doing: the consequence of which policy,

he observed, was not only to keep up irritation, but to encourage exaggerated reports of the armaments of the two countries, the increased preparations of each reacting upon and provoking the other. Mr. Cobden quoted a passage from the recent speech of the First Lord of the Admiralty in moving the navy estimates for the present year :

"It was impossible to fix upon what was necessary in their own establishment without looking to the establishments of foreign countries. He might, however, observe, that they had had sufficient proof in the course of the last year, that a gallant, active, and intelligent people, not far from themselves, had not by any means neglected their naval establishments and naval power."

The phrase thus quoted had induced Mr. Cobden to give notice of his motion this year. In reference to navies, he put all other countries out of the question. The Russian fleet was large, but of such a nature that it wisely staid at home: manned by landsmen, it would be a laughing-stock to our sailors. The United States of America set us a wise example by the moderation of their naval expenditure. The convention between this country and the United States for keeping our mutual armament on the American lakes at only two or three small vessels formed a good precedent: Mr. Cobden believed that we had now actually no vessel left on that station. What could be more absurd than the game of seesaw which England and France were playing? If we made a friendly proposal, doubtless France would be glad to entertain it. Mr. Cobden stipulated for nothing specific; he only wished the effort to be made. The time was propitious.

"Compare," he said, "the present state of things with that which existed twenty-five years ago. At that time there were but two posts a week between London and Paris, on Tuesdays and Fridays. Down to 1848, thirty-four hours were allowed for transmitting a post to Paris: we now go in eleven hours. Where there used to be thousands passing and repassing, there are now tens of thousands. Formerly no man could be heard in our smaller towns and villages speaking a foreign language, let it be what language it might, but the rude and vulgar passer-by would call him a Frenchman, and very likely insult him. We have changed all that. In this the first year of the second half of the nineteenth century we have seen a most important change. We are witnessing now what a few years ago no one could have predicted as possible. We see men meeting together from all the countries in the world, more like the gatherings of nations in former times when they came up for a great religious festival; we find men speaking different languages, and bred in different habits, associating in one common temple erected for their gratification and reception. The Government of the country should put itself in harmony with the spirit of the age, and should endeavour to do something to follow in the wake of what private enterprise and public opinion are achieving. One step taken in that direction would be attended with important consequences, and would redound to the honour and credit of any foreign Minister, who, casting aside the old and musty maxims of diplomacy, should step out and take in hand the task now humbly sub

mitted to the Secretary for Foreign Affairs."

Mr. Urquhart disputed some of the positions of Mr. Cobden, and censured the foreign policy of the Government.

Mr. Mackinnon discussed the subject of war in the abstract, and with respect to the motion, which he did not disapprove, he recommended that the Foreign Secretary, who had kept the country so long at peace, should be left to take the steps he thought fit to effect the object.

Lord Palmerston said, however little he might think the method by which Mr. Cobden endeavoured to give effect to his principles the best calculated to attain the end he proposed, he subscribed implicitly to the general tendency of his views.

He first, however, claimed some credit for the results of his own policy. "I trust the part it has been my lot to take in administering one department of the affairs of this country has shown that there has been nothing in my conduct in any degree inconsistent with the opinions I am now professing; for, however it may be the fashion with some persons, in that easy, colloquial, jaunty style, in which they discuss public matters, to declaim against modern diplomatic and international intermeddling, yet at least I can appeal to facts. I can appeal to the fact, that during the considerable period for which I have been responsible for the conduct of the foreign relations of this country, though events have happened in Europe of the most remarkable kind and attended with great commotions of public feeling, and great agitation in the social and political system of the Continent, although during that

period events have happened which have brought the interests of England, I will not say into conflict, but into opposition, to the interests of other great and powerful nations, yet, at least, the fact is that we have been at peace; and that not only has peace been preserved between this country and other nations, but there has been no international war of magnitude between any of the other great powers of Europe. If, then, on the one hand we are taunted with perpetually interfering and intermeddling in the relations of other countries, we ought at least, on the other hand, to have the credit of the fact that that interference and intermeddling have been accompanied by the continuance of peace."

After briefly stating his opinion that nations were not yet wise and philanthropic enough to allow us to dispense with the means of self-protection, and the objections which he felt to be bound and fettered by a negotiation from which he could not foresee any practical result, the noble Lord thus continued :—

:

If the motion should be agreed to, I should certainly feel, in entering upon the negotiations, that there could not be any possible prospect of coming to any profitable conclusion. I shall be ready to adopt the motion and speech of the hon. gentleman as the expression of an influential Member of this House, responded to, I hope, by the unanimous feeling of the whole House of Commons, that not only do we hope that the relations between England and France will be, but that we almost think-if common sense actuates those who on both sides have the management of affairs-they must be, as far as

human foresight can go, friendly towards each other; that those mutual suspicions and reciprocal jealousies which may from time to time have misled the calculations of those who in each country have had the management of affairs, will disappear, and that mutual confidence will take the place of reciprocal distrust. I am glad the hon. Member for the West Riding has taken advantage of this meeting of the world to declare in his place in Parliament those principles of universal peace which do honour to him and the country in which they are proclaimed. I trust that my hon. friend will be satisfied with the expressions of approbation with which the sentiments he has expressed have been received by the House, and with the expression of the determination of Her Majesty's Government-who feel as ardently on the subject as any man in this country or in the world can do that, as far as their influence and power and persuasion may extend, they will, so long as it may be their lot to have anything to do with the affairs of the country, use every effort in their power to avert the misery and calamities of war. I trust the hon. gentleman will be content with this, and that he will not press his motion to a division, a course which may be liable to misconstruction, and from which it may be thought that those who oppose the motion differ with him as to the end he seeks to accomplish, instead of merely objecting to the method by which he endeavours to effect it."

Mr. Roebuck expressed his general admiration of the propositions of the noble Lord, but did not admire the manner in which he had treated the motion.

He

approved of the end, but disliked the means; whereas the means were simple and practical. If a solemn resolution of the House of Commons, not founded upon fear, should commission the Foreign Secretary-careless of the petty jealousies of diplomacy-to say openly to France, "We desire peace, and ask you to aid us in this great work," we should exhibit a noble spectacle to mankind, and set an example to other nations.

Mr. M. Gibson denied that the proposition of Mr. Cobden would reduce this country to a dependence upon the forbearance of other nations, or disable us from repelling an attack. He merely asked the Foreign Secretary to act, with reference to the reduction of warfare, upon the same principle as that he had adopted in increasing it-namely, by opening a communication with France and making mutual reductions as we had made mutual augmentations.

Mr. Hume supported the resolution, the object of which, he said, was to reduce our armaments to the footing upon which they stood before the unfortunate Syrian dispute. If the Government desired to promote amity with France and reduce our establishments, they ought to adopt the resolution, the withdrawing of which would imply that it wanted the support of the House.

Several hon. Members, among whom were Sir R. Inglis, Sir H. Verney, Mr. Brotherton, and Mr. Pryse, suggested to Mr. Cobden, that after the speech of Lord Palmerston, so nearly in the direction which he desired, his object might be better attained by not going to a division. To the advice thus given, Mr. Cobden

acceded. Declaring his great satisfaction at the tone of the discussion on all sides, he withdrew his motion, pledging at the same time his firm support to the principles involved in it, in justice to those out of doors, who take a deep interest in the question.

Lord Palmerston again observed that what he objected to was the particular mode recommended of arriving at the result which all desired, namely, the obligation to enter into negotiation with France. He begged, therefore, not to be understood as undertaking that the Government would enter into that negotiation: the Government must be considered as perfectly free to use its discretion in all circumstances that might arise.

The motion was then, by leave, withdrawn.

The Bill for legalizing the mar riage of widowers with their de ceased wives' sisters, which in the preceding session had been lost in the House of Lords after passing through the Commons, was this year brought into the Upper House in the first instance, the charge of the measure being undertaken by Earl St. Germans. The noble Lord moved the second reading on the 25th of February, in a speech which he illustrated by a good deal of research and statistical details. He began his argument by laying down the position that the Mosaic law was not binding on Christians. After quoting passages from Jeremy Taylor, Bingham, and several other divines and jurists in proof of this statement, Lord St. Germans proceeded to contend that such marriages were not in contravention to the principles of the New Testament dispensation. He showed by refer

ence to the results of an investigation into the subject which had lately taken place, that no less than 830 marriages of this nature had occurred within a short period in London and its vicinity, within a circuit of seven or eight miles from the General Post Office. The number had been continually progressive, so that it was evident that public opinion was unfavourable to the prohibition. In a district of the midland counties, including the Potteries, the number of cases recently discovered was 625 out of a population of about 500,000.

When it was considered how many respectable and moral people had disregarded the present law, being satisfied that these marriages were not prohibited but permitted by the law of God, their Lordships would, he hoped, be of opinion that it was dangerous to teach persons of such a class to live in perpetual breach of the laws of the country.

The opposition to the Bill was led by the Archbishop of Canterbury on religious grounds, which he urged in a gentle and tolerant spirit towards opponents, but with firm confidence as acting in the discharge of a public duty. He considered that the question was decided by the 18th chapter of Leviticus.

The passage in the 16th verse of that chapter, relied on by the supporters of the Bill, was of such uncertain interpretation that no argument could be based on it. In reference to the many mischiefs alleged to be the consequences of the present state of the law, it was no doubt to be lamented that this or any other law, divine or human, should be transgressed; but the part of the Legislature

must be, not to lower the law to the standard of the practice, but to elevate the practice to the standard of the law. Very grievous mischiefs arose from all unlawful connections-from the practice of concubinage, for instance; but we do not for that reason think of dispensing with the obligation of marriage, or legitimatize the guiltless progeny of a guilty connection. The Archbishop moved that the Bill be read a second time that day six months.

The Bishop of Exeter went over the general arguments in favour of the Bill with great minuteness. He maintained that as a bishop of the Church of England he was bound to call these marriages incestuous.

He gave a new interpretation of the 16th verse of Leviticus xviii.; one which he had received from Dr. Milner, the Professor of Hebrew at Cambridge. The verse which in our translation stands,

66

Neither shalt thou take a wife to her sister, to vex her, to uncover her nakedness, beside the other in her lifetime" when literally rendered is, "A woman unto sister thou shalt not take, to uncover nakedness, during life." There are no pronouns in the sentence. The phrase "during life" or "in life is one of emphasis, one of the strong expressions ordinarily used in Scripture; it applies unquestionably to the life not of the wife, but of the sister, and implies that the event shall never take place.

The Bishop of St. Davids went a certain way with Lord St. Germans in his argument, but was compelled to differ in the practical conclusion to which he asked the assent of the House. He could not take such high ground as the