ber of men for the army, navy, and ordnance, there would be no increase voted before Christmas; the sum to be voted would exceed that of last year's estimate, for which increase satisfactory reasons would be given. The other measures of the Government were, first, a Bill to enable the Legislature of Canada to dispose of the Clergy Reserves; secondly, a Pilotage Bill, in introducing which the President of the Board of Trade would state the views of the Government regarding the various matters affecting the shipping interest; thirdly, the consideration of the disabilities of our Jewish fellow-subjects, with a view to their removal; fourthly, a proposal upon the important subject of education, which would tend to effect great improvement. The Government would likewise state the course they intended to adopt with reference to the reports of the Commissioners of Inquiry into the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge, and a Bill would be introduced upon the subject of education in Scotland. With respect to the transportation of criminals, it was the determination of Government to adhere to the intention of the late Ministry, and to send no more convicts to Australia; but in putting an end to this system it was necessary to look most attentively to the question of secondary punishments, respecting which the Government would have a proposal to make. Immediately after the Easter recess the Chancellor of the Exchequer would bring forward his financial statement. The Lord Chancellor would, in a few days, state the measures contemplated for the improvement of the law; and the landlord and tenant questions in Ireland would be con

sidered in a Select Committee, to be so constituted as to afford a prospect of arriving at a final settlement of this much-agitated question. With regard to another important question-that of the representation of the people-he said, that an amendment of the present system was one of the measures in contemplation. Referring to his attempts to extend the franchise in 1845, 1850, and 1851, Lord John Russell took occasion to correct an erroneous impression which seemed to exist in some quarters, that he meditated a more comprehensive measure than those which he had then proposed. At present it was the opinion of the Government that the question required the most careful consideration and inquiry, and that it would be premature to legislate upon it during the present session of Parliament. While himself believing this course to be wise, he should consider it to be the duty of the Government, immediately after the commencement of the next session, to bring forward a measure upon the subject. Alluding, before sitting down, to the numerous complaints of bribery and corruption during the late elections, he expressed the desire of the Government to prevent such complaints for the future; but considered it advisable to await the reports of the several Committees now inquiring into those abuses, before taking any steps for their remedy.

On the 17th of February, Mr. Kinnaird moved an Address to the Queen on the subject of the persecution of the Protestants in Tuscany. The case of the Madiais, he observed, was not an isolated one. It indicated a religious reaction and a determination on the

part of the hierarchy of the Church of Rome to put down Protestantism by force, wherever the civil power enabled them to do so, and on this ground he asked the House to call upon Her Majesty's Government, in concert with the governments of Prussia and Holland, to remonstrate, not dictatorially or menacingly, but in the name of religion and humanity, with the Grand Duke. He gave the details of the arrest of several Florentines, for no other offence than reading the Bible, to show that the persecution was systematic; thousands, he said, were living in Tuscany under a reign of terror. The objection that, this being a matter between a government and its own subjects, we had no right to interfere, had been disposed of in the admirable despatch of Lord J. Russell, and precedents were not wanting for such interference.

Lord D. Stuart seconded the motion, and justified the peaceable interference of this country, which ought, he said, as a Protestant nation, to raise its voice against the persecution of Pro

testants.

Mr. Lucas could not agree with the resolution, because, according to the papers laid before the House, it did not state the facts of the case correctly. It appeared from those papers, that the Madiais had engaged in a system of proselytism at the bidding and instigation of foreign emissaries and agents. The sentence against them declared, that they had not disproved the facts alleged against them; that they had been guilty of the crime of proselytism by the instrumentality of money supplied from abroad-that was, from England. But, admitting, for the sake

of argument, that the Tuscan Government were to be blamed for punishing the Madiais for the crime of proselytism, what had been the conduct of this country in respect to Roman Catholics persecuted in different parts of the world? Who ever heard of our Secretary of State remonstrating with the with Emperor of Russia for persecuting and torturing Roman Catholic nuns? Had not Lord Palmerston actually recommended the expulsion of the Jesuits from Switzerland? The conduct of that noble Lord in the case of Tahiti was, he contended, exactly parallel with that of the Grand Duke of Tuscany. If he believed that the resolution expressed the facts of the case, he could not adopt it, because he never could recognise the doctrine that the exercise of humanity and philanthropy was to be all on one side. At this moment, acts of persecution were going on against Roman Catholics in Protestant countries quite as deserving of our interference as the case of the Madiais, and he should bring some of them before the House. The system of law in Sweden was quite as persecuting as that of Tuscany, and in Mecklenburgh Catholic priests had been conducted by the police across the frontier, for the crime of saying mass in private.

Lord J. Russell professed himself totally at a loss to know whether Mr. Lucas approved or not of persecution for religious opinions. His (Lord John's) conclusion was, that if a Protestant State should condemn persons because they had become Roman Catholics, or taught others to become so, such conduct was morally wrong. Mr. Lucas alleged, that the Madiais were punished, not

because they had become Protestants, but that, being Protestants, they endeavoured to convert others to Protestantism at the instigation of a foreign agent; whereas the foreign agent had left the country, and the Madiais had followed their own convictions. But, be it as the Tuscan tribunals said, that those individuals had endeavoured to induce Roman Catholics to read the Bible, and to believe that certain doctrines were not authorised by the Bible, he still said it was a moral crime to punish them. Mr. Lucas had said we were not justified in considering ourselves friends of religious liberty while we were indifferent to persecutions against Roman Catholics. But it could not be maintained that such was our general conduct; in no part of our dominions were persons punished for endeavouring to induce Protestants to become Roman Catholics. Having vindicated Lord Palmerston from the charge of countenancing religious persecution in Switzerland, the South Seas, and Sweden, he insisted that the Government of this country had done nothing which misbecame it, in the representations it had addressed to that of Tuscany. Persecution for religious opinions was odious and detestable, and the Government of England was justified in raising its voice against it. Holding this opinion, he recommended the House to leave this case in the hands of the Government. Its voice had been heard, and he trusted that, although the Madiais and others might suffer, the general opinion of the world would secure religious liberty.

Mr. Bowyer entered into the details of the case, and contended

that the Madiais had been convicted, not of a spiritual, but of a civil offence; he complained of the attacks which had been made in this country upon the Grand Duke of Tuscany, and deprecated discussions of this nature, which he said were calculated to give offence to foreign States, and disturb the harmony of nations.

Mr. Drummond observed that religious persecution, even by the Inquisition, was always justified by the plea that the offence was against civil society. Before the Roman Catholics were condemned, however, he recommended that we should look to our own conduct.

Mr. J. Fitzgerald regretted that the Roman Catholic clergy had been dragged into this discussion. So far from the law applied to the Madiais being that of the church, it was a law which had destroyed the power of the ecclesiastical tribunals. As a Roman Catholic, he disapproved of the punishment of these persons, and he should ever raise his voice against persecution of every kind.

Lord Stanley explained, and justified the course of proceeding adopted in this matter by the late Government.

Sir R. Inglis maintained that it was the duty of Her Majesty's Government, expressing the sentiments of a Protestant people, and armed with the moral force of a Protestant country, to represent peaceably, but firmly, the wrongs of our Protestant brethren, inflicted by a foreign sovereign.

Mr. Kennedy spoke shortly in opposition to the motion.

Lord Palmerston repelled the imputations cast upon him by Mr. Lucas, in respect to the expulsion of the Jesuits from Switzerland,

and to the transactions at Tahiti. He complained that that hon. Member had made a partial representation of the facts in the former case; and in the latter the noble Lord justified the treatment of the Roman Catholic priests, who went, he said, to disturb the tranquillity of an island already pacified, for the purpose of turning Protestants into Catholics, instead of endeavouring to turn Heathens into Christians. Those priests had, however, not been put into comfortable prisons," like the Madiais, but had been merely told to go about their business.

Mr. Kinnaird withdrew his motion.

On the 18th of February, in pursuance of a notice, Mr. Disraeli called the attention of the House to the subject of our relations with France. This, he observed, was the most important subject of modern politics. Peace had now subsisted for nearly 40 years between Great Britain and France; during this interval the social relations between the two countries had multiplied, and, with enlightened legislation, their commercial intercourse was susceptible of infinite development. Having every security for the peace we desired, it was extremely strange, and even startling, he said, that we should be supposed to be on the eve of a rupture with France. The dogma that there was a natural hostility between the two nations was repugnant to the opinions of the wisest of our statesmen, who had held that an alliance with France should be the keystone of our foreign policy. The increase of our armaments was erroneously connected with certain incidents which had occurred in France; its origin was of a date much more

remote; it was to be found chiefly in the changes wrought in science, in the revolution in the art of war, which had deprived us of one of our natural sources of defence. Mr. Disraeli then referred to the plans of the late Government, which would, he said, furnish a Channel fleet of 15 or 16 sail of the line, with an adequate number of smaller vessels. But

there was no foundation for the too prevalent belief that this increase of our naval means of defence was occasioned by any political changes in a foreign country. Whoever might sit upon the throne of France, and however tranquil might be the condition of Europe, those who were responsible for the conduct of affairs in this country would, sooner or later, have felt it their duty to place it in a state of defence. Other causes of apprehension had been alleged: "the troubled state of France, it was said, had terminated in a revival of a military dynasty; but it did not follow that the descendant of a conqueror should be a rival, and the present Sovereign of France was not by profession a military man. Then France was supposed to be governed by the army; but it was a great error to assume that the army was anxious to conquer another country. There was no doubt a considerable prejudice in this country against the present ruler of France, but it was extremely difficult to form an opinion upon French politics, and so long as the French people were exact in their commercial dealings and friendly in their political relations, it was just as well that we should not interfere in the management of their domestic concerns. Mr. Disraeli read an extract from the speech of Lord John Russell,

on the 3rd of February, 1852, upon the subject of the then recent change in the Government of France, and, expressing his concurrence in the soundness of its sentiments, desired, he said, to ascertain whether they were at all modified, and whether similar opinions were entertained by the noble Lord's

present colleagues. He instanced various proofs of the cordial co-operation of France with this country in objects of general benefit, remarking that a nation which had thus entitled itself to the sympathy, respect, and goodfeeling of the people of this country, was not to be treated as a corsair and a bandit. In seeking to discover the views and opinions of the Government of Lord Aberdeen, he referred to the declarations of some of its members. Sir James Graham, he observed, had described the ruler of France as a despot, who had trampled upon the rights and liberties of 40,000,000 of men, thus holding up to public scorn and indignation both ruler and people. Another Cabinet Minister, Sir Charles Wood, had accused the Emperor of the French of gagging the French and Belgian press, though, "of course," without meaning the slightest offence to the Emperor. Upon these indiscretions, as he termed them, Mr. Disraeli commented with much severity and still more humour, observing that they suggested grave doubts as to the foreign policy of the present Cabinet, which were not removed by the programme of Lord Aberdeen, and, in these circumstances, it was the absolute duty of the House to obtain something more satisfactory-a frank explanation from the Government upon this important question; he was, therefore, entitled to ask what

was the system on which our foreign policy was to be conducted, and what was the state of our relations with France.

Lord John Russell said, if Mr. Disraeli had wished to obtain an explanation from Government respecting its foreign policy, he might have confined his observations within much narrower limits; for the statement made by him (Lord John Russell) the other night, that we were on terms of intimate friendship with France, might almost have sufficed for a member of that

House, anxious to obtain some assurance on that important point; he thought it a calamity if an attempt were made to convert this into a party question, and said, that Mr. Disraeli, in bringing it forward in the spirit manifested in his speech, had taken a part which became a mind deeply imbued with faction. He now repeated, that the British Government was on terms of amity with that of France. He was glad to hear it was not for us to interfere in the domestic concerns of France. It would have been well if those sentiments had prevailed in that House in February, 1793. Mr. Disraeli, he remarked, had referred to certain speeches delivered on the hustings. For what purpose was this done, except to excite irritation and provoke suspicions, and this by one who professed to have nothing more at heart than a cordial understanding between the two countries? Nothing was further from the intention of the speakers than to disturb that good understanding; and with reference to the programme of Lord Aberdeen, it contained a clear announcement of the foreign policy of the Government. He retorted the charge of inconsistency and aberration from