Clause agreed to.

MR. LYGON said, he thought it would be unwise, if any persons who had been led to make the declaration under the Bill should afterwards see the errors of their ways, to forbid them the opportunity of returning to their position in the Church of England. With that view, he would propose the following new clause :

"When any priest or deacon whose declaration by the bishop as hereinbefore provided, shall apply to the bishop of the diocese for restoration to his ecclesiastical functions, the bishop may, after due examination of the applicant, issue a licence under his episcopal seal to revoke the declaration recorded in his registry, either immediately or after any period of probation he may think fit; and cancel the sentence pronounced against the applicant; and the applicant shall thenceforth be discharged from all incapacity under this Act to execute his ccclesiastical functions, shall cease to be entitled to the benefit of this Act, and at the expiration of twelve calendar months after the date of the episcopal licence may be presented to any ecclesiastical preferment."

of conscientious dissent shall have been registered

MR. E. P. BOUVERIE said, that the proposal had already been submitted to the Select Committee, who discussed and rejected it. He did not think it was a reasonable demand that a person, after deliberately declaring his conscientious dissent to the doctrines of the Church of England, should be allowed, on changing his mind again, to go back to the Church and resume his original position.

MR. HUBBARD said, he thought there would be no inconsistency in disagreeing with the Select Committee on the subject under consideration. He knew of a case in which within the last few weeks a clergyman had, unfortunately for himself, left the Church, and when he had had time for reflection he desired to return to it, and the bishop re-admitted him. By the Bill, however, unless this clause were inserted, if a clergyman left the Church he could not be re-admitted. It seemed to him that they ought not to shut the door. The whole object of the Bill was declared to be one of mercy, and the Committee should consider the merciful side of the proposal.

MR. DILLWYN said, he objected to the proposition. He had no indisposition to see clergymen who might leave the Church of England go back to it again but in such case they should be made minisand resume their functions as clergymen; ters of the Church in the ordinary way in which men were made clergymen. The Committee ought not to be merciful to clergymen at the expense of parishioners.

LORD HENLEY said, he should also oppose the clause, which, if passed, would cause the House to appear as holding certain doctrines on the question of the indelibility of priests' orders. The theory of once a priest always a priest, was only known in the Church of Rome, and was not recognised in the Eastern Churches. In Stanley's Eastern Church, it was stated that a man might lay down his orders and leave the Church when he would.

SIR WILLIAM HEATHCOTE maintained that the clause only assumed that which was well known, namely, that in the eyes of the Church of England these orders were indelible. The observations of the hon. Member for Swansea, to the effect that a seceding clergyman, if he desired to return to his position in the Church, should go to the bishop and be ordained again might well induce persons to doubt the propriety of passing the Bill, unless guarded by such a clause as that proposed. Nevertheless, as the point was considered in the Select Committee, he advised the hon. Member (Mr. Lygon) not to raise the question again, but to let the Bill go as it was to the House of Lords with the incu→ bus upon it of speeches which showed that some Members voted for the measure in opposition to the doctrine of the Church of England in reference to orders. Under the circumstances the Bill was not so likely to pass into a law as it otherwise might have been.

MR. LONGFIELD said, that as a Member of the Select Committee on the Bill, he had heard with reluctance the discussion of the theory of indelibility of Church orders. But he could never consent to a clergyman wavering between two churches, merely lest a dogma of that kind should be in danger. The whole dişcussion was of the same nature as if a question were started whether twelve angels instead of ten could stand upon a point in vacuo.

MR. NEWDEGATE said, there was no special Roman Catholic doctrine as to the indelibility of orders. It was a doc

of marching troops through Mexico would probably be attended with great loss of life. The Marines were landed, and for a short time occupied some forts. It seemed that the land forces met with difficulties, and Commodore Dunlop, in order not to have the appearance in any way of leaving the allies in the lurch, said he would provide, by his own activity and resources, camp equipage and conveyance. That, however, was not approved by the Home Government, and orders were sent out that the Marines should be re-embarked. Commodore Dunlop, on his side, very soon found that there was no immediate danger of collision with the Mexicans, and he determined to send away the Marines, who were never intended to march up the country. They were accordingly removed from Vera Cruz. After this came the Convention, and the allied Commissioners agreed to a procès verbal, with regard to which I will now say nothing, as I do not wish to enter into the great question involved in it. But it should be known that at that time there were only 150 Marines in occupation of the various forts; and when the rupture took place between the French Commissioners on the one side, and the English and Spanish Commissioners on the other, it was determined by Commodore Dunlop to haul down the British flag in the ports of Mexico, and to withdraw this small force. There was thus no question of withdrawing troops from Mexico, for there never were any land troops there; the only force we ever sent in the naval squadron was a force of 700 Marines, the greater number of whom had been withdrawn some time previously. I thought it necessary to make this statement, as I believe that great misapprehension has arisen on the subject. I am informed that considerable indignation has been expressed in France as to the presumed withdrawal of troops by this country at a very critical moment. That supposition, as I have shown, has no foundation in fact, as there were no British troops to be withdrawn from Mexico.

THE EARL OF MALMESBURY said, he was extremely glad that the noble Earl had taken the initiative in this matter, and had given so satisfactory an explanation upon the subject, which had certainly occasioned considerable anxiety both in France and in this country, and an impression that something like an unfriendly feeling had been manifested by England towards France. He (the Earl of Malmes

bury) had therefore intended to give notice to the noble Earl of his intention to ask him a question on this subject on to-morrow or Monday. In respect to the first part of the noble Earl's explanation, he must say he entirely agreed with the noble Earl as to the modification of the Convention which he proposed. He thought that the noble Earl had made a prudent arrangement, and that the danger which he anticipated would have very likely occurred if he had not provided against it. But he (the Earl of Malmesbury) did not think the noble Earl spoke strongly enough as to the indignation felt in France as to the supposed desertion of their allies by the British army. It was not only a common rumour it was not only a national misunderstanding; for if the noble Earl would read the Address sent to the French Chambers by the French Government, he would see that that feeling was likely to be prolonged. He read that Address this morning; but as he had come down to the House only for the purpose of giving notice of his intention to ask a question in respect to it, he was not prepared to give the exact words. But, undoubtedly, the meaning of it was, that there had been some common understanding between the two Powers with respect to a military advance into Mexico, and that the British Government had not carried out their part of the agreement, but, on the contrary, at a most critical moment had deserted the French troops and left them exposed to serious dangers, which with the assistance of the British troops they would have been able overcome. He thought it most important, as regarded the honour of this country, that the true facts of the case should be made known to the French people as speedily as possible. He was very glad that the attention of the noble Earl had been drawn to this subject, and he trusted the noble Earl would point out the real facts to the French Government, which he believed to be of precisely the character stated by the noble Earl, as soon as possible. He did not think that the noble Earl had used language strong enough in regard to this misapprehension of the public press and the French public on this subject, seeing that that misapprehension must have been very much strengthened by the language of the French Government.

THE EARL OF CARNARVON wished to ask a question of the noble Earl with

EARL RUSSELL said, that Commodore Dunlop and Sir Charles Wyke never went to New York. Sir Charles Wyke wrote home to say that it was his intention to go there, but he never executed that intention. He was now living at Mexico, but not in an official character, and he had informed the Mexican Government that he would pot resume that character until the Convention had been ratified by his Government. The Spanish Secretary of Legation was also, he believed, living there in an unofficial capacity. With regard to the Address of the French Government to the Chamber, it certainly contained a statement liable to misapprehension. But the papers which had been laid before Parliament, and those which were about to be produced, were likely to remove that misapprehension. He intended to write a despatch to the French Government upon the subject, which would, he hoped, tend to the same result.

THE EARL OF MALMESBURY said, there was one more point which he thought it important to notice. According to the public prints there appeared to be a feeling in Mexico that Sir Charles Wyke had taken a strong part with the Mexican Government as against the proceedings of the French. He did not believe that report at first, but it was said that Sir Charles Wyke had attended the theatre in public on an occasion when money was being raised for the Mexican wounded, and had thus identified himself with that party. Now, although the performances at the theatre might have been for a charitable object, it did not appear to him that it was a proper act of Sir Charles Wyke to appear publicly at the theatre on such an occasion. He (the Earl of Malmesbury) was sure that in this country there was no feeling whatever against the French in regard to their proceedings in Mexico. His own feeling was that they had made a great mistake in policy and were paying

EARL RUSSELL said, that Her Majesty's Government had no information that Sir Charles Wyke had acted in the manner stated. He knew that such a report had reached Paris, but Sir Charles Wyke's letters, dated May 12, contained nothing on the subject. If Sir Charles Wyke had appeared publicly at the theatre on that occasion, he quite agreed with the noble Earl opposite, that it was a very injudicious act on his part.

UNITED STATES-CASE OF "THE EMILY ST. PIERRE."

CORRESPONDENCE.

LORD BROUGHAM, on behalf of his noble and learned Friend (Lord Lyndhurst), whose health, as their Lordships would be glad to hear, had greatly improved of late, moved for the correspondence which had taken place respecting the capture of the Emily St. Pierre by the Americans, and her recapture from the prize crew. He understood that there had been some correspondence upon this subject, and he wished to know from the noble Earl whether there would be any objection to produce it?

EARL RUSSELL: I have no objection to lay the papers before the House, as the Correspondence is now closed, and Lord Lyons, in his last letter, promised to send it home immediately. The opinion of the Law Officers was taken upon this question, and they stated that there was no power in this country to surrender the vessel, or to give it up to the United States Government. It was said by them, and was at that time supposed to be the case, that there was no precedent on the case; but I have been informed this morning that there is a precedent, singularly enough, when the British Government demanded from the American Government the surrender of a vessel which had been recaptured by the crew after being seized as a prize. Mr. Adams, the grandfather of the present American Minister in this country-and he must say that the diplomatic agent who bore his name was a most worthy descendant of that distinguished statesman was then President of the