morasses, which constituted the great strength of the natives in arms against us, to completely reduce them. That which he believed would be impracticable for us, he did not think the colonists would have the desire or ambition to attempt when our troops were withdrawn.

The discussion then terminated.

The ill-treatment of certain British subjects who had been imprisoned under circumstances of much rigour and cruelty by the Government of Abyssinia, was brought before Parliament on more than one occasion by Lord Chelmsford in the Upper, and Sir H. Cairns in the Lower House. The case of these unfortunate persons, one of whom was the British Consul, Captain Cameron, and several others were missionaries, was thus described by Lord Chelmsford. "In July, 1862, Captain Cameron, the new Consul, who was the bearer of certain presents sent by this Government to the Emperor of Abyssinia, met with a most flattering reception at the hands of that Sovereign, who expressed a desire that the negotiation for a treaty between the Government of Abyssinia and this country, which had fallen through in 1849, should be renewed. An autograph letter of the Emperor to Her Majesty's Government was forwarded to this country by Captain Cameron, but from various causes it did not arrive here until February, 1863. Shortly after this, an invasion of the northern parts of Abyssinia by the Egyptian Government took place, when Captain Cameron endeavoured to settle the dispute, but was compelled to desist from his pacific endeavours in consequence of the remonstrances of the Egyptian authorities. Captain Cameron having ceased to exert himself in favour of the Abyssinian Emperor, that Sovereign felt himself much aggrieved, especially as he had received no reply to his autograph letter to this country. Unfortunately, further cause of offence was given by the interpreters of a Mr. Stern, a missionary, one of whom was immediately beaten to death. Mr. Stern having expressed his disgust at the proceeding, was himself subjected to corporal punishment, to such an extent as seriously to imperil his life. Two days afterwards the other missionaries, including several ladies, were seized and sent to a distant prison, where they were loaded with chains and fetters, weighing from 15lb. to 20lb. Soon after, the other Europeans in Abyssinia, including Captain Cameron, were also committed to prison and chained. The Emperor then held a great council of his grandees to try the prisoners, who were alleged to have been guilty of high treason according to the laws of the country. The council found the prisoners guilty, and several of the grandees were of opinion that they should be put to death; but, fortunately, milder counsels prevailed, and the unfortunate persons were sent back to their prison. As if to complicate matters, just at this time a letter arrived from England, which, instead of being a reply to the Emperor's letter, simply directed Captain Cameron to return to his post and not to interfere further

in the Egyptian dispute. In consequence of this neglect of Her Majesty's Government to reply to the Emperor's letter, Captain Cameron was loaded with heavier fetters and was treated with far greater severity, and the whole of the prisoners were chained night and day to a native soldier."

In moving for copies of the correspondence which had taken place, and the various documents in the possession of the Foreign Office relating to this subject, Lord Chelmsford ascribed much of the unfortunate consequences which had taken place to the negligence of that department in not replying to the Emperor's letter, by which he had been much incensed.

Earl Russell said that remarks which might be supposed to reflect on the conduct of the Emperor of Abyssinia were very likely to be retaliated upon the unfortunate captives, and in that case the noble and learned lord would be responsible. The matter was an extremely delicate one, but the imputations levelled against the Foreign Office were altogether groundless. He had consulted the highest authorities on the best manner of approaching the Emperor, and had acted on their advice. Information had been received that the prisoners were no longer kept in chains, and as officers were already waiting at Massowah with a letter from the Queen, and presents for the Emperor, he trusted they would soon be set at liberty. In conclusion, Earl Russell declined, on grounds of public policy, and with a view to the true interests of the unfortunate captives themselves, to produce the papers moved for.

A division accordingly took place on Lord Chelmsford's motion which resulted in a decision against the Government by a majority of one.

In the latter part of the Session Sir Hugh Cairns again drew attention to the case of Captain Cameron and his fellow-prisoners, who had then been in confinement no less than eighteen months. Admitting to the fullest extent that the acts done by King Theodore were a violation of the principles of international law, there could be no doubt that there had been a certain amount of neglect and indecorous treatment by our Foreign Office of a sovereign with whom we had a treaty of alliance, in having refused to answer the despatch which he had sent to the Queen for nearly a year and a half, and he thought the time had arrived when a mission of a character that would be acceptable to the King might be sent to him with the view of obtaining the release of the prisoners.

Mr. Layard said that if the Government had refrained from entering fully into this painful subject, it was from no desire to screen themselves or avoid full inquiry into the facts of the case. The reason that Earl Russell in the House of Lords, and he in the Commons, had declined to discuss the matter was simply this: the fear lest any thing should be said which, being conveyed to the King of Abyssinia, might conduce either to the unfortunate captives being treated with still greater severity, or even put to

death. Moreover, it would have been scarcely fair that any statements should be made until a full explanation had been received from Consul Cameron. After the speech of Sir H. Cairns, however, and the gross misrepresentations of a portion of the press, he could no longer remain silent; but he disclaimed on the part of the Foreign Office all responsibility for any unpleasant consequences that might ensue. Mr. Layard then narrated the circumstances which had led to the imprisonment of the consul and missionaries, and which unhappy result he attributed entirely to constant unauthorized interference in the internal affairs of Abyssinia by Consul Plowden and his successor, Consul Cameron, and to the proceedings of rival missions. With regard to the relations between this country and the King, the fact was that the King had annulled the treaty we had concluded with his predecessor, and was desirous of extending his dominions by aggressions on his neighbours, and especially by exterminating the Turks; and Her Majesty's Government had refused to receive a mission from him until he had renounced his ideas of conquest. He should say, therefore, that if the letter containing that request were at this moment to be put into his hands, that it required no answer. The proposal had been made by Sir W. Coghlan to send him out some ships of war, and a numerous suite; but what was to be done, if the Government acceded to the suggestion and the entire suite were seized and imprisoned by the King? Were they to march a British army over the arid sands of the desert to the capital of Abyssinia, which, according to the latest intelligence, was in possession of a body of rebels? He had it on the highest authority that if a mission were sent out, it would at once be thrown into prison by the King. For what the King wanted was to bring such a pressure upon the British Government that they should assist him in carrying out his design upon the Turks. Every thing that could be done should be done to obtain the deliverance of the unfortunate captives. Information has been received from them up to the end of May, at which time, although in confinement, they were all in good health. Captain Cameron was even in good spirits, and there was reason to hope that we should shortly hear of their release.

Immediately before the prorogation of Parliament, the subject having been once more revived by Lord Chelmsford, with some observations impugning the conduct of the Foreign Office, Lord Russell again vindicated the proceedings of that department which he declared had not been to blame on the subject, but had acted with the best judgment on the information they possessed, and had done all that was possible to effect the release of the prisoners. To send out another embassy would only be to send those composing it to the same fate as the others. The King of Abyssinia had shown himself to be a bloodthirsty prince, murdering hundreds of prisoners in cold blood. It was the opinion of Sir W. Coghlan that the best thing to be done at present was to wait for

further advices respecting King Theodore's intentions, whether as to the release of the prisoners, or as to receiving a mission with the Queen's letter and presents. At all events we were not going to undertake a war in the matter.

CHAPTER IV.

RELIGION AND EDUCATION-Religious Tests and Subscriptions-A Bill founded upon the Report of the Royal Commission for inquiring into the subscriptions required by law from the Clergy, is brought in by the Government-Debates in both Houses on this measure-General concurrence of opinion in favour of the Bill, which is passedMr. Göschen's Bill for abolishing certain tests required on taking degrees at Oxford University-Debate on the second reading-Opinions expressed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and other leading members-The Bill passes a second reading, but is not proceeded with-Mr. Monsell proposes a Bill for altering the oath prescribed for Roman Catholic Members by the Relief Act of 1829-Important discussions on this measure― Division of opinion on the Conservative side with respect to the BillSir J. Pakington, Sir H. Cairns, and Mr. Disraeli endeavour to limit the operation of the Bill-The Bill is supported by Sir George Grey, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and other members of the Government--Declaration of Mr. Disraeli respecting the Irish Church-The Bill passes the House of Commons by a small majority, but is warmly opposed by the Earl of Derby in the Upper House-Debate in the Lords-Opinions expressed by Earl Russell and Earl Grey-The Bill is rejected on a division.-Ritual and Discipline of the Church of England-The increase of the Episcopate is advocated by Lord Lyttelton-Observations of the Primate, Earl Russell, and other Peers-Statement of the Primate respecting the Litany and Ritual of the Church.-Church Rates-Mr. Newdegate proposes a Bill for the settlement of the controversy-It meets with little support, and is rejected by a large majority.-National Education--Motion of Sir J. Pakington for a Committee of Inquiry into the system pursued by the Committee of Council, which is carried with the assent of the Government-Progress and condition of public education in Great Britain described by Mr. Bruce in moving the Vote for that purpose-Sir R. Peel makes a similar statement respecting the national system in Ireland-Varieties of opinion among Irish Members on this subject.-University Education in Ireland— Motion of the O'Donoghue for an Address to the Crown, setting forth the grievances of the Roman Catholics in regard to University Education-Concessions suggested by Sir George Grey and the Chancellor of the Exchequer Remarks of various Members on the overtures made by Government-The Motion is withdrawn-Subsequent explanations by Sir George Grey.

THE question of oaths and tests required to be taken under the existing laws on elections to Parliament, on taking Holy Orders, on graduating at the Universities, and on other occasions, received this year a considerable impulse in consequence of measures that were proposed, and discussions which took place, relative to those subjects. Important principles, affecting religious liberty and ecclesiastical policy, were brought under consideration in these debates, and though the immediate result, in point of practical legislation, was not great, there can be little doubt that the doctrines of those who desired to see a further relaxation of the

terms of admission to our national institutions by the diminution of religious tests, made a decided step in advance in the course of the Session. The first movement in this direction was made under the advantage of a general unanimity of opinion. A Royal Commission had been issued in the preceding year, presided over by the Archbishop of Canterbury, and including several persons of distinction, both lay and clerical, who were understood to represent various shades of opinion in the Church, for the purpose of considering the forms of subscriptions and declarations of assent required from the Clergy of the Church of England, and how far they might admit of alteration. The Commissioners were fortunately able to come to a unanimous conclusion with respect to the matters referred to them', and with the view of settling a controversy which had been for some time in existence, and had, on more than one recent occasion, given rise to discussions in Parliament, a Bill was brought in by Lord Granville on the part of the Government, to give effect to the recommendations of the Commission. In lieu of the old form, whereby the declarer pledged his "assent and consent" to every thing contained in the Book of Common Prayer, &c., the declaration proposed by the Bill to be made before Ordination was as follows: "I assent to the Thirty-nine Articles of Religion, and to the Book of Common Prayer, and of the ordering of Bishops, Priests, and Deacons. I believe the doctrine of the United Church of England and Ireland, as therein set forth, to be agreeable to the Word of God; and in public prayer and administration of the Sacraments I will use the form in the said book prescribed, and none other, except so far as shall be ordered by lawful authority." Lord Granville, in proposing the measure, stated that "this and the other alterations, recommended by so great a weight of authority, had met with the general concurrence of the clergy, and would, he thought, guarantee the object which all had in view."

The measure met with very little opposition in either House, but in its course through the Lords, the Archbishop of Dublin moved by way of an amendment that it was not expedient without the concurrence of the convocation of the Irish provinces of the United Church, to proceed with the Bill, so far as it might set aside and supersede the canons of those provinces, and that an address be presented to the Queen, praying her to convene the convocation of the Irish provinces for the purpose of amending those canons which relate to the subscription of the clergy and to the oaths against simony, so as to assimilate the laws of the Church of England and Ireland in relation thereto, and best to secure the united action of the provinces of the Church.

Earl Granville said the question of summoning the convocations of Armagh and Dublin had been considered, but it was not

See the Report of the Commissioners in the Appendix to the Annual Register for 1864.