conformity to the will and expressed intentions of those who founded the colleges. If this measure were passed, the result must be religious confusion or religious indifference. The establishment of the London University had taken away from Dissenters all real practical grievances in connexion with this question. Oxford and Cambridge were not national institutions in the common acceptation of the term, and never were so, if by that it was meant that those who went there had a right to share in the endowments and the government, which it was always intended should be conducted by members of the Established Church. He further objected to the Bill, that it disturbed the arrangement made by the Universities Act, which gave to Dissenters the privilege of a University education, whilst excluding them from participating in the management; that, although professing to be permissive, it would in the end become compulsory; and that it introduced the novel principle that those who would not be bound by the conditions on which the colleges were founded might claim a share in their endowments and their government.

Mr. Fawcett said the existing restrictions at the Universities injured their best interests. The University men were largely in favour of the Bill, and the movement in its behalf had sprung not so much from Dissenters as from the Universities themselves; and he argued that the benefits of these institutions were intended for the whole community, and not for a sect. One great advantage which he anticipated from the passing of the present measure was, that it would bring young men of different religious opinions together, thus producing unanimity of sentiment, and teaching them to respect each other, and that there were great works to be done for the public good, in which men of all creeds might unite.

Mr. B. Hope, Mr. Schreiber, and Mr. Selwyn opposed the Bill, and Mr. J. Goldsmid, Mr. Neate, and Mr. T. Chambers supported it.

Sir W. Heathcote said the Bill was a covert attack upon the Established Church, which was the inheritor of a large part of the property of the Universities, and that the remainder came into her possession since the Reformation. With regard to the argument that the Universities were national institutions, derived from the fact that many of the foundations were established previous to the Reformation, if any persons were entitled to use it as against the Church of England, it was the Roman Catholics. But who were excluded by this Bill? Who but the Roman Catholics? whilst every other class of Dissenter might come in.

Mr. Bouverie, in reply, said, if the House now decided against the demand, it would be renewed again and again until it was conceded.

Upon a division, the principle of the Bill was affirmed by 208 votes against 186; but the events of the Session, which caused so many other measures to be suspended, prevented its further progress.

A Bill for making the alteration so many times attempted in the Marriage Law, by enabling marriage with a deceased wife's sister, was this year brought in by Mr. Thomas Chambers, but rejected by the House of Commons by a majority of 174 to 155.

CHAPTER IV.

FOREIGN AND COLONIAL AFFAIRS.-Paucity of discussions in Parliament on these subjects during the present session. THE INSURRECTION IN JAMAICA.-Bill brought in by the Government to alter the constitution of that colony-Abstinence from discussion on the outbreak and conduct of the Governor pending the inquiry of the Commis sioners-Debate on these subjects after the publication of the Report-Resolutions proposed by Mr. Buxton-The first is adopted and the rest withdrawn-Declaration of opinion by Lord Carnarvon, the new Colonial Secretary, in the House of Lords. INTERNATIONAL LAW.-Motion of Mr. Gregory for an address to the Crown in favour of exempting private property from capture in time of war-Debate on this question-Able argument of Sir R. Palmer, Attorney-General, against the motion, which is withdrawn-Mr. Watkin brings before the House of Commons the subject of the impending termination of the Reciprocity Treaty with the United StatesStatement of the Colonial Secretary in answer. THE WAR BETWEEN PRUSSIA AND AUSTRIA.-Comments and discussions in both Houses of Parliament before and after the outbreak of hostilities-Observations of the Earls of Clarendon, Russell, and Grey, and Lord Stratford de Redcliffe, in the House of Lords-Debate on the position of affairs on the Continent and the attitude assumed by this country originated by Mr. Kinglake in the House of Commons-Speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer-Appeal made to the Administration of Lord Derby for a declaration of opinion previous to the conclusion of the War-Speech of the Prime Minister in the House of Lords-Important and interesting debate in the House of Commons on the effect of the new distribution of power in Europe-Mr. Gladstone expresses a favourable opinion of the results of the war upon liberty and civilization on the Continent -Statement of Lord Stanley, the new Minister for Foreign Affairs, respecting the future policy of our Government-Favourable reception of his speech.

THE discussions in Parliament during the present Session upon foreign policy or colonial affairs were both less frequent and less interesting than of late years. The attention of politicians was so much absorbed by questions of domestic concern, and especially by the engrossing subject of Parliamentary Reform and the party movements and changes which grew out of it, that international relations and Continental politics were comparatively disregarded. It is true that the great contest between Austria on the one side, and Prussia and Italy on the other, which wrought such speedy and decisive changes in the distribution of power in Europe, could not but excite a considerable amount of attention in England, and it naturally became the subject of remark in both Houses of Parliament; but the strict neutrality maintained by this country in the struggle confined the discussion of these affairs within the

strict limits of comment and criticism. The debates on Colonial Affairs were likewise very limited. It was to be expected that some legislative action would arise out of the recent insurrection in Jamaica, which had excited so profound a sensation in this country; but when Parliament met, the circumstances of that outbreak, as well as the means adopted for suppressing it, had been recently referred to the investigation of a Commission which left England early in January for Jamaica, and there were obvious reasons for abstaining from any Parliamentary discussion of the subject until the Commissioners had completed their inquiry. One step, indeed, which was urgently required by the existing state of the Colony, the home Government felt bound to take without delay, and that was to provide for a new Constitution for the island, ratifying in so doing the act of the Jamaica Legislature itself, which had resolved to place the Government in the hands of the Crown. Mr. Cardwell, on an early day of the Session, moved accordingly for leave to bring in a Bill, the object of which was to substitute a Government similar to that of Trinidad, consisting of a Governor and nominative Council, for that which existed in Jamaica. He proposed that the Bill should continue in force for three years only, an arrangement which would leave it open to Parliament, after receiving and considering the Report of the Commissioners, to decide finally upon what footing the island should be permanently placed. This proposal of the Colonial Secretary met with a favourable reception on both sides of the House; and the Bill for giving effect to it passed through Parliament speedily without opposition, a general consent being manifested to abstain from all discussion of recent events in Jamaica until the results of the pending investigation should be made known.

The Commissioners, after spending some months in the execution of the task assigned to them, returned to this country and made their report, the publication of which_removed the restraint upon a free discussion of the affairs of Jamaica. Mr. Buxton, who had taken a prominent interest in the question, now brought it formally before the House of Commons, and a debate took place in which the controversy which had so much divided the opinions of the public, was carried on with considerable warmth of feeling on both sides. Calling the attention of the House of Commons to the evidence furnished by the Report of the very severe measures pursued by Governor Eyre and those who acted under his authority, the excessive and unnecessary punishments of death, the reckless flogging, and the burning of houses of persons Leither directly nor indirectly concerned in the disturbances, Mr. Buxton moved the following Resolutions:-"That the House deplores the excessive punishments which followed the suppression of the disturbances of October last in the parish of St. Thomas, and especially the unnecessary frequency with which the punishment of death was inflicted; that, while approving the course taken by Her Majesty's Government

G

in dismissing Mr. Eyre from the governorship of the island, the House at the same time concurs in the view expressed by the late Colonial Secretary, that while any very minute endeavour to punish acts which may now be the subject of regret' would not be expedient, still that great offences ought to be punished;' and that grave excesses of severity on the part of any civil, military, or naval officers ought not to be passed over with impunity; that it is the duty of Her Majesty's Government to award compensation to those whose property was wantonly and cruelly destroyed, and to the families of those who were put to death illegally; and that since considerably more than a thousand persons are proved to have been executed or severely flogged on the charge of participating in these disturbances, all further punishment on account of them ought to be remitted."

Mr. Adderley, the recently appointed Under Secretary for the Colonies, said the Report of the Commission had been accepted on all hands, and he must decline to re-open the case and try it over again. The question now was, whether the House should pass Resolutions on the Report. The insurrection in Jamaica had been treated as a very small affair, but as news had recently arrived that another outbreak was anticipated, and the Governor had sent for reinforcements, perhaps Mr. Buxton would take it in hand. He urged that the Resolutions were inadmissible, and ought not to be agreed to, and especially because they only endorsed the censure which had been passed on the officials of Jamaica, without saying a word of the praise which had been bestowed upon them. He concluded by moving the previous question.

Mr. S. Mill said that he and those who acted with him might well be content to let the subject go forth for the opinion of the. country on the speech of Mr. Adderley. He, however, had to move an amendment, that recent transactions in Jamaica required investigation of a character which could only be satisfactorily made by a judicial tribunal. Whatever difference of opinion there might be as to the degree of culpability of the actors in these transactions, there was no doubt expressed as to the fact of culpability, and that the lives of persons had been wrongfully taken. Therefore a criminal court alone was competent to deal with that culpability.

Mr. W. E. Forster supported the first and second Resolutions. The Attorney-General suggested that it was not necessary to enter into the facts, as they had been fully ascertained, and that it was not desirable to discuss the questions of law involved, as that might become the duty of a judicial tribunal.

Mr. Cardwell urged, that in considering this question the acts of spirit and judgment done by Governor Eyre should be set against the errors and mistakes which he had made; and he contended that the decision in this respect to which the Commissioners had come ought to be upheld.

Mr. T. Hughes supported the amendment of Mr. Mill, and

pressed the point that if the deeds done in Jamaica were to go by without judicial investigation, this generation would be the first that had not vindicated the honour of England when it had been violated by its colonial officers.

Sir R. Palmer stated his agreement in the first two Resolutions. The first he hoped would be accepted; but the second was unnecessary, because it asked that to be done which the Government was already doing. He wholly dissented from any thing that was said in extenuation of the excesses which had been committed.

Mr. R. Gurney, who had been a member of the Commission, said he was still of opinion that Mr. Gordon was improperly convicted; and he could say that there was not evidence on which capitally to convict, however he might have been open to a charge of sedition.

Mr. Ayrton urged that the parties implicated ought to be visited by the condemnation of the House.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer said that the only way in which Parliament could act was by impeachment, and the first Resolution could not be made the foundation of an impeachment, as it assumed that every thing was done legally. The Resolution was one in which all sides might join, and he trusted that the House would accept it.

The first Resolution was then agreed to by the House; the second, third, and fourth were withdrawn.

In the House of Lords, when the same subject was brought under notice by a question addressed to the Government by the Earl of Romney, the Earl of Carnarvon, Chief Secretary for the Colonies, expressed his opinion in clear and unequivocal terms on the transactions of the insurrection and the measures adopted by the local Government for suppressing it. The noble Earl said he had no doubt that grave acts of undoubted cruelty, oppression, and injustice on the part of those in authority had been committed during and after the rebellion in Jamaica. There were three

classes of persons to whom blame attached-the naval officers, the military officers, and the civilians. The amount of excess charged against the naval officers was less than that imputed to the other classes. At the same time there were cases that required investigation, and this had been undertaken by the Admiralty. The charges against the military officers were of a more serious cha

At the same time the Commissioners had only designated by name three persons against whom they thought that proceedings should be taken. They mentioned the cases of Captain Elliot, Colonel Hobbs, and Lieutenant Adcock; and he must say that these and two or three other officers had been guilty of acts which it was impossible to look back upon without the deepest regret. The letters to which some of these officers had put their names were disgusting from their tone of indecent levity. The only persons, however, against whom, as he had said, the Commissioners