confirm me in that conviction. This de- of the Government. The Solicitor General showed that there was a clear legal remedy in the hands of Mr. and Mrs. Taylor against the Italian Government, and that they might bring their action against-whom? Why, against General Garibaldi. So that General Garibaldi having presented the Sovereign of Sardinia with the kingdom of Italy is to have an action brought against him by Mr. and Mrs. Taylor. Now, I think nothing could be more ungenerous than this suggestion of the hon. and learned Solicitor General. I remember, some years ago there was a debate upon China in this House. It was the commencement of that unfortunate policy so much favoured by the Chief Minister that has cost us such millions of money. We had a debate upon China, in the course of which we had a speech from a distinguished lawyer-I dare say it was the Solicitor General of that day-and it was impossible to resist the chain of arguments by which he proved the legal remedy which certain unfortunate people had against the Emperor of China, I recollect Sir James Graham, who followed on that occasion, saying, "Mr. Speaker, for God's sake, let us get this question out of Nisi Prius.' Well, I say, the same in reference to this case of Mr. and Mrs. Taylor. If the only remedy for the sufferers is to be had in an action against General Garibaldi in a court at Naples, I must say I can hardly congratulate them upon their character of British subjects. But, as to viewing this question in a political sense-why, Sir, when a country is in a state of revolution everything relating to it is political, and it is ridiculous and mere pedantry to talk about having recourse to courts of justice. The noble Lord has in this respect taken a right view of the case. He has generously offered his assistance towards procuring redress, but at the same time he intimated his opinion-not very generously I think-that if Mr. and Mrs. Taylor had behaved otherwise than as they had done, they might not have been placed in so painful a position. My opinion is that Mr. Taylor was placed in a most difficult position, and that he has acted on the whole with as much discretion as one could reasonably expect. But we are not to look at his discretion in the matter, but to his rights as a British subject who has been grossly injured, and whose property has been outrageously violated. The noble Lord referred very strongly to Sir James Hudson, Now, I look upon that gentle bate, after the statement of my hon. Friend near me a statement ample and perspicuous, and which did justice to all the circumstances of the case-was encountered on the part of the Under Secretary by an announcement that any remarks made on it would be looked upon as an expression of want of confidence in the Government. There is an old saying, "Once in a way," and in the hands of a great master, and one entitled to use weapons, which ought seldom to be had recourse to, such a proceeding may be justified; but it is one which ought to be used very seldom, as I think its constant repetition might be somewhat dangerous to our Parliamentary Government. I have always been of opinion that successes obtained by such means are of a very dangerous character even to those who are successful, and that sometimes, instead of making a Government strong, they only make a House of Commons weak. But in the present case, when the wrongs of an English gentleman are brought under the consideration of the House of Commons, I cannot conceive anything more indiscreet than that the first member of the Government who rises to speak upon them should meet the question with a cry of a party debate, and cast an imputation upon others of gross party feeling. [Mr. LAYARD: I said nothing of the kind.] Well, perhaps you said something stronger. I believe I have only weakly expressed the views of the hon. Gentleman. But I think the course of the debate has dispelled any opinion of that kind; and it appears to me that there is a conviction on all sides that the only motive of my hon. Friend, and the only one which influenced those who expressed similar views from both sides of the House, is that we are called upon to discharge one of the highest duties of a representative in this assembly-namely, that when a question of the grievance of a British subject is brought before us, we should give it that calm and attentive consideration which it requires. I will make no remark on the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, except that it seemed to me to be pitched in the same unfortunate tone as that of the Under Secretary, and for which I admit that the Chief Minister who has just addressed us has completely compensated. It has been said that this question must be considered either in a legal or political point of view. Well, we had the legal aspect of it put by the Solicitor General and another Member man as a valuable servant of the Crown. that threatened Prussia with a revolution. I have no hesitation in saying, that he I say, there is some hope for Mr. Watson possesses great energy and zeal-though Taylor when such a distinguished person Talleyrand thought zeal not the most as that First Minister of the country prodesirable quality in a a Minister and mises to do something; and it is from the is an able public servant. But Sir unfailing patriotism of the noble Lord that James Hudson is not free from indis- we have some chance that a little more cretion, and in his time he has committed spirit will be infused into the diplomatic acts of indiscretion. I remember, only relations between the Italian Government three years ago, vindicating him in this and this country than the Under Secretary House from an act of great indiscretion, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave on the ground of his far superior public us any hope to expect. If Mr. Watson services. We ought not therefore to Taylor had been a Don Pacifico, then I am look with severity on the supposed faults confident that he would not have pleaded of Mr. Taylor, or to visit him with the in vain to the noble Lord; but I wish to charge of indiscretion, when Sir James do justice to the noble Lord, and I think Hudson himself is not always free from it. that what he has done to night is most There is no doubt that Mr. Taylor is an encouraging, and that the recollection of English subject, a gentleman, and the the great feat of the noble Lord in the near relative of gentlemen who have sat Pacifico case will animate him now, and in this House. It cannot be denied that he will say, "I who vindicated the rights he has been greatly injured and treated of Don Pacifico, a foreigner and alien, with gross injustice. His claim for repa- I will not be backward now because the ration cannot be put off in this House so sufferer is an Englishman and an English easily as some hon. Members seem to sup- gentleman. I will not accept the course pose. We cannot be put off in our demand chalked out by my colleagues, but in this, for inquiry with a view to the redress of as in all other cases where I am concerned, his wrongs by such arguments as those I will vindicate the honour of my country, urged by the Under Secretary and the and protect the rights of my countrymen. Chancellor of the Exchequer. I say that the view expressed by the noble Viscount is more liberal, more wise, more politic, and more conducive to the interests of Italy itself, than that expressed by his colleagues in the Government. I say, looking at the grievances and injuries which this honourable man, Mr. Taylor, has experienced, I think that the noble Lord is right in holding out what is in form only a hope of reparation; but, coming from such lips, must be viewed as a certainty that Mr. Taylor will receive that redress to which he is entitled. That is only what the noble Lord has done in many cases before. Why, it is only a year ago that a gentleman-an English gentleman who could not obtain a place to which he thought he was entitled in a German railway carriage -I suppose you all remember what a sensation was created throughout the country on that subject-I will not speak of the thundering articles in thundering newspapers; I will not speak of the murmurs of an indignant and sympathizing country; but we had the noble Lord the First Minister of the Crown, because that gentleman did not get a place in a German railway carriage, coming down to this House and absolutely delivering an oration MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCK said, he had never intended to accuse Sir James Hudson of having wilfully misstated the facts of the case. What he had stated was, that in his multiplicity of business he had probably forgotten what had occurred. Having heard the assurance of the noble Lord, and believing that the noble Lord would always act up to what he said, he would withdraw the Amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Question again proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair.” CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY AND THE ACT OF UNIFORMITY.-OBSERVATIONS. MR. E. P. BOUVERIE said, he rose to call attention to a Petition from Resident Fellows and Masters of Arts of Cambridge University, respecting the Act of Uniformity. The Petition went to show that certain provisions in the Act of Uniformity, which required all persons before admission to fellowships in colleges to make a declaration of conformity with the doctrines of the Established Church, were, in the opinion of the Petitioners, injurious to the University, and the Petitioners therefore prayed that those provisions might be repealed. The Petition for the purpose of taking part in carrying on education in those establishments, as they otherwise naturally would. This circumstance attracted the attention of those who took an interest in the cause of liberal education, and they stated that the repeal of the statute would enable them to deal with the matter in a manner beneficial for educational purposes. He knew that it was always supposed that these great foundations of Oxford and Cambridge were pure Church of England establishments, and that the Church of England was entitled to a monopoly of their emoluments. That was true with respect to many of the colleges at Cambridge in the present day, and their statutes framed under the University Act of 1856 required that their Fellows should be mem. bers of the Church of England. It was not, however, true with respect to some other of the colleges at Cambridge, which had no such strict limitatation of the college emoluments; and there was nothing but the Act of Uniformity which prevented them from electing qualified Nonconformists to fellowships; and as regarded the remainder, it was competent for them, if they thought fit, to alter their college statutes with the consent of the Queen in Council. If the Session were less far advanced, he should not have hesitated to propose a Bill to repeal that portion of the Act of Uniformity which excluded Nonconformists from fellowships; but he gave notice that it was his intention in a future Session to move for leave to introduce such a Bill. was signed by seventy-four resident Fellows of the University; and among them were comprised no fewer than sixteen tutors and assistant tutors of different colleges. The signatures, therefore, were those of gentlemen who were best qualified to form an opinion on the subject, and that opinion was entitled to the greatest weight upon a question of the kind. A few years ago the subject was comparatively of no importance: but in the year 1856, upon the passing of the Cambridge University Act, the operation of the Uniformity Act was brought fully into view in reference to the exclusion of Nonconformists from the emoluments of the colleges of Cambridge. Previously to that time a statute of the University, dating from the time of James I., required all who took a degree to sign a declaration of membership of the Church of England, and that statute was found to be so complete a barrier to all who were not members of the Established Church that it was not necessary to consider how the Act of Uniformity operated. In 1856 the great barriers to Nonconformists becoming members of the foundations were removed. It was enacted that for the future, with reference to all degrees except in theology, no subscription or declaration should be required, and the University Statute of James I. thus became imperative. The operation of the Act of Uniformity being thus brought more distinctly into view, the Petitioners came to the conclusion that it was for the interest of education that the remaining barrier should be taken away. They wished the colleges to be left free. It appeared, that MR. NEWDEGATE said, that having if a certain portion of the Act of Uniform- been in the House when the Cambridge ity was repealed then, with the approbation University Act was under consideration, of Her Majesty in Council, the authorities he fully remembered the ground upon of the University would be enabled to which the restriction now in question was deal with the matter in such a way as retained. It had been preserved from to them seemed best, and the Petition- no wish to debar any person, not being a ers were satisfied that the remaining member of the Church of England, from restrictions should be removed, and any of the emoluments of the University that a wider field should be now opened-not in the least; but as the Fellows to those who were to take part in the formed the governing body of the differeducation of the youth at Cambridge. ent colleges, and thus in great measure of They had had a most convincing proof of the injury which this statute imposed on them at present. Two of the Senior Wranglers within the last two or three years were respectively members of the Free Church of Scotland and of the Baptist Church, and not being admitted to compete for fellowships in the colleges to which they belonged, they had no inucement to remain in the University VOL. CLXVII. [THIRD SERIES.] the Universities of Cambridge and Oxford, it was thought inappropriate, considering that the Universities were the great source of the education of the clergymen of the Church of England, and also of the great body of the laity of the Church of England, who desired that their sons should be brought up according to the doctrine of the Church of England-it was thought and decided, that it would be inappro X priate that the governing body should | proclamation by the United States Governbe exempted from that test which se- ment, nor of censure and condemnation cured uniformity with the Church of of its author. Although, however, under England. The House then held, and he these circumstances, the hope he had thought wisely, that as the University of entertained was greatly weakened, still he Cambridge was not like the London Uni- did indulge the hope that the reply of the versity, an open University, but a Univer- hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for sity intimately connected with the Church Foreign Affairs would allay that deep and of England, therefore, while the Noncon- indignant feeling that had been created formists were admitted to all the advan- among all classes of Englishmen by the tages of education, that still in the go- publication of so extraordinary a proclamaverning bodies of the principal colleges tion, so utterly repugnant to the spirit of conformity with the doctrine of the Church the 19th century and the whole of the of England should be secured, since that usages of civilized warfare. In the few was the Church with which the University observations which he wished to make in was connected. introducing the question, he should carefully abstain from raising any question as UNITED STATES-GENERAL BUTLER'S to the merits of that great contest which PROCLAMATION AT NEW ORLEANS. QUESTION. SIR JOHN WALSH said, he rose to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether Her Majesty's Government has received official information authenticating a Proclamation at tributed to General Butler, the Military Governor of New Orleans, menacing the women of that city with the most degrading treatment, as a punishment for any mark of disrespect offered to any officer or soldier of the United States Army; and, in the event of an affirmative answer, whether Her Majesty's Government have deemed it right to remonstrate with the American Government against the issue of such an order; and to move for any Papers relating to this subject? The hon. Member said, that when he placed the notice of this Question on the paper, he hoped the answer of the Government would have been that the proclamation in question was one of those fabrications which had been so ingeniously circulated during the civil war in America; for when he first saw the proclamation, it did appear to him absolutely incredible that a General Officer filling so high a position in the United States army as General Butler should have issued an order which must inflict so much obloquy and disgrace. But he had observed in the journals of that morning, and from the letter written by the generally accurate New York correspondent of The Times, that this proclamation had been eagerly canvassed at New York, that it had excited great attention, and was generally believed to be genuine. He regretted to see also that up to the time when the last mails left America there was no report of any formal repudiation of the was now raging on the other side of the Atlantic. We had hitherto maintained an impartial and strict neutrality, and in Parliament we had also maintained a wise and prudent reserve; but while refraining from saying a word upon the merits of the civil war, it was necessary that he should make the observation that it appeared from the testimony of all travellers, confirmed by both official and semi-official reports, that wherever the Northern armies had penetrated into the South they had been universally received as invaders or foreign foes, and there had not been the slightest evidence of the existence of any party, in deed of scarcely an individual, who did not look upon the soldiers of the Northern States with the most determined hostility, That would appear to be the universal feeling throughout the South, and the Southerners, rightly or wrongly, identified their cause with the sacred names of independence, liberty, and love of country. Was it, therefore, wonderful that through out the whole population of the Southern States the women should partake of the feelings of their husbands, their brothers, their sons, and their lovers? It was, indeed, inevitable not only that they should partake of those feelings, but that they should express them with a vehemence and excitability, which was part of their nature. Such feelings were not only natural, but even praiseworthy; and we, who looked upon the progress of this strug gle with less bitterness than those actually engaged in it, and could afford to award merit to both sides where it was due, must feel that our sympathies were with those women who identified themselves with those who, nearest and dearest to them, were daily risking their lives in that great intended it. He would not allude further to that than to say, that it was a most singular and ambiguous way of threatening confinement in a gaol to say that ladies should be treated like common women of the town plying their vocation. He was quite sure that in every country in Europe, wherever this proclamation became known, struggle, and in what they considered a most sacred cause. He should have thought that those sentiments of honour and chivalrous observance which distinguished their profession would have animated the officers and soldiers of a civilized country, and would have made it impossible that anything like discourtesy or insult would have been offered to women-public opinion would brand its author with and those women their own countrywomen. But what was the fact? New Orleans had been captured; and the arms of the Northern States had been successful in establishing a military occupation of that great city. It was to be anticipated that that conquest would lead to a feeling of bitter animosity of the citizens against their successful conquerors. Such a feeling being inevitable, one would have expected the conquerors to have exercised a generous forbearance; instead of which, General Butler issued this most monstrous proclamation, which would disgrace for ever the name of the officer who had issued it, and would disgrace the Government of the United States if it was not immediately repudiated. The words of the order were that "Inasmuch as the officers and soldiers of the United States had been subjected to repeated insults from women calling themselves the ladies of New Orleans, in return for the most scrupulous courtesy, it is ordered that hereafter when any female shall by word, gesture, or movement, insult or show contempt for any officer or soldier of the United States army, she shall be held liable to be treated as a woman of the town plying her avocation." What did that mean? Was it (by the most merciful construction of the words) that there were certain legal penalties which in all countries were applicable to disorderly women, and that they should be sent to the House of Correction? Were the ladies of New Orleans, because they might happen by some gesture, by some movement, by something which some soldier or some officer of his own free will might chose to interpret as an insult, to be liable to be dragged off to the common gaol, and to be subjected to the most degrading associations with the lowest and vilest of their sex? That in itself would be more intolerable tyranny than any civilized people in our day had been subjected to. But there was another construction which he could not refrain from alluding to, though it was an interpretation so horrible that he could scarcely conceive that a human being with a mind not that of a demon could possibly have He disgrace, and there would be one burst |