and Mr. Disraeli, in the Commons, moved the following resolution: That this House has heard with deep concern that the sittings of the conference recently held in London have been brought to a close without accom

persuaded that to say that Mazzini had ever incited to periled in July, when Lord Malmesbury, in the Lords, assassination was as base a libel as could be uttered. Incredible as it may seem, it would appear that, on the first occasion of the subject being mooted, it did not occur to Mr. Stansfeld that " Flowers was merely the translation of the Italian word "Fiori." For, on a sub-plishing the important purpose for which it was convened. sequent night, he distinctly admitted that he had authorised Mazzini to have his letters addressed to his house under the designation of M. Fiori, an expedient to which Mazzini was compelled to resort, because letters addressed to him from abroad in his own name were certain to be opened and read in some foreign post-office.

Mr. Stansfeld's first explanation left the matter still involved in considerable mystery. The subject was revived by Sir Laurence Palk a few nights afterwards, and warmly discussed, Mr. Pope-Hennessy reading extracts from letters written by Mazzini, with reference to other transactions, in which he appeared to justify assassination in certain cases. Again, on the motion for going into Committee of Supply, Sir H. Strachey moved as an amendment," That the speech of the Procureur-Imperial on the trial of Greco, implicating a member of this House, and of Her Majesty's Government, in the plot for the assassination of our ally the Emperor of the French, deserves the serious consideration of this House." In the debate which ensued, Mr. Stansfeld made the admission respecting M. Fiori and his letters which we have already quoted; and also stated-with reference to the charge that he had acted as banker to the Tibaldi conspirators that he had never had any knowledge of, much less sympathy with, the plots of assassination with which the names of Tibaldi, Orsini, and others were associated. He admitted, however, that he had at one time allowed his name to be inscribed on banknotes (issued probably by the society of Carbonari, or revolutionary conspirators to procure the liberation of Italy), which he believed would have been used, not in the interest of assassins, but to aid in the establishment of free and united Italy; but, acting on the advice of friends, he had withdrawn the permission. Lord Palmerston and other members of the Government warmly defended their colleague, and the amendment of Sir H. Strachey was rejected by a majority of ten. Nevertheless, Mr. Stansfeld, finding that the discussion of his conduct was becoming prejudicial to the position of the Government, resigned his post as Junior Lord. And, however confident we may be that Mr. Stansfeld was incapable of consciously assenting to plots which included assassination within their scope, it must be admitted that the matter was sufficiently serious, and that he had acted in a manner which laid him open to the charge of great imprudence. For, as our readers will recollect, one of the witnesses on the trial of this very Tibaldi-Grilli-who had turned king's evidence against his accomplices, distinctly implicated Mazzini in the projects for the assassination of the Emperor which were then on foot. And a member of the British Government must be like Cæsar's wife-above all suspicion of complicity with the darker portion of the plots of revolutionists.

That it is the opinion of this House, that while the course pursued by Her Majesty's Government has failed to maintain their avowed policy of upholding the integrity and independence of Denmark, it has lowered the just influence of this country in the councils of Europe, and thereby diminished the securities for peace." To the arguments used by the principal speakers in this debate, we may, perhaps, hereafter return; at present we notice it merely as an incident in the political history of the session. In the Lords, the Government was defeated by a majority of nine; but this was not unexpected. In the Commons, there were some brilliant passages of arms between the party leaders; but Mr. Horsman, it was generally felt, was not far from the truth, when he said that "the Government had made mistakes, but their opponents had endorsed them; so the parties were pretty much upon an equality." On a division, the amendment to Mr. Disraeli's resolution, moved by Mr. Kinglake, was carried by a majority of eighteen in a very full House, so that the Government was saved.

66

On the question of Parliamentary Reform, little interest was at this time felt in the country, and the apathy of the constituencies extended itself to their representatives in the House of Commons. Yet the question may be justly held to have advanced a stage, in consequence of a remarkable declaration made by Mr. Gladstone during the debate on Mr. Baines' bill for substituting a £6 rental qualification for the existing £10 householder franchise in boroughs. The previous question had been moved by Mr. Cave; but Mr. Gladstone declared that although there was a general concurrence of opinion that the present was not a suitable time for the introduction by the Government of a comprehensive measure of Reform, yet he could not vote for the amendment, because it went to deny that the question of the reduction of the franchise was one which ought to be discussed and, if possible, settled. What," he asked, "is the present state of the constituency, any departure from which some honourable gentlemen deprecate as a domestic revolution? At present we have, speaking generally, a constituency of which between one-tenth and one-twentieth-certainly less than one-tenth consists of working men. And what proportion does that fraction of the working classes who are in possession of the franchise bear to the whole body of the working men? I apprehend I am correct in saying that they are less than one-fiftieth of the whole working classes. Is that a state of things which it weald be a domestic revolution to meddle with? I contend, then, that it is on those who say it is necessary to exclude forty-nine-fiftieths that the burden of proof rests; that it is for them to show the unworthiness, the incapacity, and the misconduct of the working classes." He argued earnestly that the proper way of dealing with questions The existence of the Government was seriously im- such as this, was not to wait till a vehement agitation

A.D. 1864.]

THE SYNODICAL JUDGMENT ON "ESSAYS AND REVIEWS."

had been commenced in their favour, but boldly to anticipate and meet such agitation, and by conceding so much of its demands as was just and reasonable, deprive it of its dangerous quality, and, so to speak, take the wind out of its sails. Nor should it be considered as other than a portentous symptom if the working classes, engaged as they were in a continual and pressing struggle for subsistence, should take to agitating this question. "When a working man finds himself in such a condition that he must abandon that daily labour on which he is strictly dependent for his daily bread, it is only because then, in railway language, 'the danger signal is turned on,' and because he feels a strong necessity for action, and a distrust in the rulers who have driven him to that necessity." Mr. Baines' bill was lost by the adoption of the previous question, but it was evident to all that the ten-pound limit was condemned in general opinion, and could not much longer be maintained.

Another minister was compelled by circumstances to execute upon himself the "happy dispatch" before the end of the session. This was Mr. Lowe, the Vice-President of the Council, whom Lord Robert Cecil (now Lord Salisbury) charged with mutilating the annual reports of Inspectors of Schools, and excising from them passages which did not chime in with his own views, before submitting them to the House. An adverse resolution, grounded on this allegation, was carried in a thin House, and Mr. Lowe had no choice but to resign. But the explanation which he subsequently offered made it so abundantly clear that the charge was founded on a misunderstanding, and that he had done nothing but what the practice of his and other departments justified, that Lord R. Cecil frankly admitted that, had this explanation been made at first, he should have abandoned his charges; and the House was induced with little difficulty, on the motion of Lord Palmerston, to rescind the inculpatory resolution which it had just passed.

65

court of justice and punish them." He went on to state that should any attempt be made to give validity to any act of Convocation, without the consent of the Crown, the persons so offending would incur the penalties of premunire. "I am afraid my noble friend has not considered what the pains and penalties of a premunire are, or his gentle heart would have melted at the prospect. The Most Reverend Prelate and the bishops would have to appear at the bar, not in the solemn state in which we see them here, but as penitents in sackcloth and ashes. And what would be the sentence? I observe that the Most Reverend Prelate gave two votes-his original vote and a casting vote. I will take the measure of his sentence from the sentence passed by a bishop on one of these authors-a year's deprivation of his benefice. For two years, therefore, the Most Reverend Prelate would be condemned to have all the revenues of his high position sequestrated. I have not ventured-I say it seriously-I have not ventured to present the question to Her Majesty's Government; for, my lords, only imagine what an opportunity it would be for my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to spread his net, and in one haul take in £30,000 from the highest dignitary, not to speak of the bishops, deans, archdeacons, canons, vicars, all included in one common crime, all subject to one common penalty.. Assuming that the report of the judgment which I have read is a correct one, I am happy to tell your lordships, that what is called a synodical judgment is simply a series of well-lubricated terms-a sentence so oily and so saponaceous* that no one could grasp it. Like an eel, it slips through your fingers

it is simply nothing; and I am glad to tell my noble friend that it is literally no sentence." Much more followed in the same strain.

The tone of indignation which pervaded the Bishop of Oxford's reply showed that the stinging words of the Chancellor had gone home; yet the Bishop's answer, unpremeditated as it must have been, was not lacking in force and dignity. "If a man," he said, "has no respect for himself, he ought at all events to respect the au

The Convocation of the Province of Canterbury-which, instead of being prorogued immediately after its opening, as had been the case since the reign of Anne, has gradnally obtained the royal license, since the friendly inter-dience before which he speaks; and when the highest vention of Lord Derby in 1852, of proceeding to the dispatch of business-after discussions of extraordinary prolixity, passed what was called a "Synodical Judgment" (June 21, 1864), condemning the well-known work entitled "Essays and Reviews." Some time after, the matter was brought before the House of Lords, Lord Houghton desiring to know what was the legal effect of the judgment, and whether, in passing it, the Convocation had not exceeded its powers. On this occasion the Lord Chancellor (Lord Westbury) made a speech, the like of which, for scathing wit and contemptuous banter, has been seldom heard. "There are," he said, "three modes of dealing with Convocation, when it is permitted to come into action and transact real business. The first is, while they are harmlessly busy, to take no notice of their proceedings. The second is, when they seem likely to get into mischief, to prorogue them, and put an end to their proceedings; the third, when they have done something clearly beyond their powers, is to bring them before a

representative of the law in England, in your lordships' house, upon a matter involving the liberties of the subject and the religion of the realm, and all those high truths. concerning which this discussion has arisen, can think it fitting to descend to ribaldry, in which he knows that he may safely indulge, because those to whom he addresses it will have too much respect for their characters to answer him in like sort-I say that this House has ground to complain of having its character unnecessarily injured in the sight of the people of this land, by one occupying so high a position within it. I know enough of this House, and of the people of England, to know that it is not by trying, in words which shall blister those upon whom they fall, to produce a momentary pain in those who cannot properly reply to them, that great questions can be solved; but that it is by dealing with

The reader will observe the allusion contained in this phrase to a nick-name at that time notoriously applied to one of the most able and versatile members of the Bench of Bishops,

those who hold her ministry, and shall we, her highest | civil.
ministers, having, under the sanction of our Queen, the
opportunity of disavowing these errors, shall we timor-
ously hold our tongues, because if we speak we may be
subject to ribald reproach? or shall we, in the name of
the Church of England, clear that ministry from being
supposed to be at liberty to declare one thing as the con-
dition of taking it, and then to speak another as the
habit of its exercise? It was not, my lords, to put
down opinion; it was to prevent men breaking their
solemn obligations that this step was taken."

Parliament was prorogued on the 29th July; and the records of the remaining five months of the year contain

The English people are commonly called by foreigners apathetic and dull, incurably infected with the gloom of their climate. But it is very certain that no people is more easily roused to a frenzy of enthusiasm by the arrival of a "lion." Generally, it is true, the lion must be a very rare one, and he must be royal; an Eastern monarch, with a swarthy face and a coat blazing with jewels, and a train of native followers holding their very lives by his good leave. If a personage of this kind arrives, though his political importance be infinitesimal and his moral character questionable, all classes of society vie with each other in doing him honour. England goes mad for a time. But once and once only in her recent

A.D 1864.]