The Senate is engaged in maturing a permanent law,--not merely for a year, not only for the present Rebellion, not for any exigency of the day, but an enduring statute,--and as such it will be a record of the sentiments and the civilization of our time. But I am not disposed to present this question on any ground of sentiment, though such an appeal would be difficult to answer. Time is precious, and I content myself with another appeal,--I mean to practical experience. I think I do not err, when I say, that, in the history of the Christian world, you will not find a single evidence of a country where clergymen have been compelled to serve as soldiers,--at least I do not recall such instance,--while the most military country of modern times has refused to sanction the compulsion. I have before me the well-considered military statute of France, where everything was matured with the greatest care and consideration, and so as to secure the largest amount of service. No exemption was recognized, except after conscientious debate and for sufficient reason. Therefore this statute is testimony of the highest character. But here I find exemption, not only of the clergy, including all denominations recognized by the State, but also of students of divinity preparing to enter the ministry. If not absolutely indifferent to practical experience, the example of a military people like the French, especially in exemptions from conscription, cannot be neglected. I doubt if we shall lose by following it. Mr. Wilson then said:-- “If they cannot bear arms, if they cannot perform military duty, they at any rate can furnish a substitute, or pay the sum provided for, be that more or less.” Mr. Sumner replied:-- I do not understand that our clergy throughout the United States are rich. In some of the larger towns they may be comparatively so, but in the country such is not the case. Goldsmith’s village preacher, “passing rich with forty pounds a year,”--that is, about two hundred dollars,--was not unlike large numbers of the clergy among us. Now, Sir, to compel persons living on such a small allowance to pay two hundred and fifty dollars for a substitute is really asking too much. I think it unreasonable; and I think my colleague, who is pressing this bill with so much energy, would adapt himself better to the sentiment of the country and of civilization, if he admitted this natural and humane exemption into his list. The amendment was lost. PROTEST AGAINST FOREIGN INTERVENTION, AND DECLARATION OF NATIONAL PURPOSE. CONCURRENT RESOLUTIONS OF CONGRESS, REPORTED IN THE SENATE FEBRUARY 28, 1863.