The Sun. — London, England, 1852-06-15 00:00:00

that motion to-night; and whether he would propose that the Committee should consist of 18 gentlemen instead of 15, the usual number? He also begged to ask him whether he meant to accede to the suggestion of his Right Hon. Friend (Mr. Gladstone) who had given two notices on the subject "After the nomination of the Select Committee on Frome Vicarage, to move that the Member for Cockermouth do reduce into heads or articles the several charges which he has made in his place against Richard Lord Bishep of Bath and Wells, and do present the said heads or articles to this House." " After Mr. Horsman shall have presented the heads or articles of his charges against the Bishop of Bath and Wells, to move that the said heads or articles of charge be referred to the Committee appointed to inquire into the circumstances connected with the institution of the Rev. Mr. Bennett to the vicarage of Frome, and that it be an instruc tion to the said Committee to report their opinion thereupon to the House." Mr. HORSMAN said it was his intention to proceed with his motion. He did not mean to propose that the Committee should consist of 18 Members, but 15—the three additional names had been printed by mistake. He had already been in communication with the Right Hon. Gentleman (the Chancellor of the Exchequer), and had hoped that he would allow him to nominate the Committee after the order of the day for supply, to avoid the inconvenience of its coming on at a late hour of the night. As to t h e other question of the Right Hon. Gentleman, it was rather for the House to decide than himself. The Right lion. Member for Oxford Univer sity (Mr. Gladstone) had given notice of his intention to move that the charges against the Bishop of Bath and Wells be reduced into writing, and had stated that he was prepared to show that what he proposed was in conformity with pre cedent. If the Right Hon. Gentleman did show that, and if it were the pleasure of the House, he should bow to its decision, and do all that lay in Lis power to conduct the in quiry in a manner satisfactory to the House and to the Right Hon. Gentleman. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said he wished to facilitate the appointment of the Committee, if he could be assured that no discussion would take place upon it ; but he could not satisfy himself that this would be the case—(Hear, hear)—and at this period of the session, when its very hours were numbered, and there was such an amount of public bu siness, of course he must look to the business of mpstimpor pledge tance.— (Hear, hear.) However, he wou l d wat c h t he pro gress of public business, and if he couldfatcilciteautledthneet appoint ment of the Committee, would do so ; but himself to permit the Hon. Gentleman to nominate it out of its proper order.— (Hear, hear.) Mr. GLADSTONE said,. as the Hon. Member did not ex press his assent to the motions of which he had given notice, it would be necessary (ashedeeed;hedeqtrzaienstiothn eonHeetieF4f,lthe t highest constitutional importance) some length in supporting these motions.—(A laugh.) He was prepared to perform his dut y o n th e matter, and tho ug ht it proper to give notice of his intentions.—(Hear.) Mr. HORSMAN observed, that all the Members whose names were in his notice had consented to serve. Mr. GLADSTONE said the lion. Member had forgotten that he had distinctly stated that nothing could induce him to serve on the Committee unless they proceeded according to the established course of having the charges properly and regularly placed before them. The SOLICITOR-GENERAL said, as his name was on the list, he wished to atk the Hon. Member whether he w as one of those who had consented to serve on the Com mittee ?—(Hear, hear, and a laugh.) Mr. HORSMAN said the Chancellor of the Exchequer had suggested to substitute the Hon. and Learned Gentleman's name for one that had been struck out.—( Hear.) The CHANCELI/It of the EXCHEQUER said this was only on the understanding that all the other gentlemen whose names were on the list had consented to serve— (Hear, hear)—and he had distinctly understood from the Hon. Member that the Right Hon. Gentleman the Mem ber for Oxford University had agreed to sit on the Corn mittee.—(Heer, hear.) The SOLICITOR-GENERAL said, when the proper time arrived, he had two questions to put to the Hon. Member be fore he could consent to serve on the Committee. GRANT TO MAYNOOTIL Mr. MONSELL said last week he hid asked the Right Hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary why the annuel vote for the repairs of Maynoeth College had been left out of the estiamates for this year, to which the Right Hon. Gentle- Man replied, that the reason was that the late Government did not consider that there were any circumstances which re quired such a vote, and they had, therefore, omitted to place it on the estimates which the present Government had adopted. He wished now to ask the Hon. Gentleman, the late Under-Secretary for the Trcesury (Mr. C. Lewis), whither it were not within his knowledge that an estimate had been sent in from the Board of Works, Ireland (the proper autho ritv for the purpose), for the repairs of the college this year, and whether the late Government had given any directions for the omission of the annual grant for the college before they went out of office. Mr. C. LEWIS said in the course of last autumn the usual circular was sent out from the Treasury to the dif ferent departments, calling upon them to furnish their re spective estimates, and before the late Government went out of office the answer was received from the Irish Board of Works, stating that a sum of LOCO/. or 1,2001. would be re quired for the repairs of Maynooth College. Before the• change of Government took place the estimates had not been prepared; but no directions had been given for the omission of the item from the estimates, and he had no reason to doubt that if the late Government had continued in office the vote would have been proposed as usual to the House.—(Hear.) THE OUTRAGE UPON MR. MATHER. On the Order of the Day for going into Committee of Supply, Lord J, RUSSELL rose and spoke as follows :—Sir, I am at all times unwilling to bring questions relating to the foreign policy of the Government before the attention of the House, for I think that, generally speaking, it is difficult to judge of the conduct of the Government as to particular transactions in which they may have been concerned with foreign powers— (Hear, hear)—and I am so little disposed to press the Government upon this subject that when, the other day, I asked the Noble Lord (Stanley) the Under- Secretary for Foreign Affairs, if it were true that a protocol had been signed with the great powers as to Neufchatel, and whether it could be laid on the table—the Noble Lord having informed me that there was such a protocol, which he described as being one of considerable importance —when he went on to say that it would not ha desirable to lay it on the table (mcanirg, I presume, that reasons of public interest would prevent the Government from laying it on the tahle)—l did not say one word more, or press for its production. But in the case to which lam about to call the attention of the House the Government have of their own accord, without any pressure on the part of the House of which I am aware, produced the correspondence respecting an assault committed upon Mr. Erskine Mather at Florence—a correspondence which was presented to both houses "by command of her Majesty." And, Sir, having read those papers, it could not but occur to me that if they were left ale ;ether unnoticed by Members of this House, such gentlemen as might have the good fortune to he elected for the next Parliament would be told that they had taken no notice of these papers, though they had been presented to Parliament in June, and that, therefore, it must be pre sumed that they had no fault to find with the conduct of the Government. Now, Sir, upon reading these papers, it appears to me that though it is not necessary nor advisable to come to any resolution upon the subject, yet that it ie advisable that Member; of the House should not be sup posed to be committed to the approbation of the course that has been pursued; and, therefore, I think it neces sary, to call the attention of the House to the contents of these papers. Sir, the House will recollect that at the end of last December. two gentlemen of the name of Mather, one of the age of 17 and the other 19, being in a crowded street in Florence, and having attempted to cross between ' a detachment of Austrian soldiers and the regimental band, `one of these gentlemen (the elder of them) received, first a blow on the back, next a severe blow on the face, and, when he was recovering from the blow, received a cut with a sword, which opened his and placed him in a situation of such extreme danger that he was carried to the hospital. I do not mean in any danger of his life, but certainly seriously injured. A com- Vault was made to my Noble Friend, Earl Granville, then eretary of State for Foreign Affairs, who immediately rot. Ur Mr. Scarlet, our acting Mini .ter at Florence, and to tb,elEarl of ;Westmoreland, our ambassador at Vienna, p " a a teh t4l kg the facts of the case. But in the meantime a (Hs , ad been received from Mr. Scarlett, stating that a forma • tion beenrrir• had been asked f or,. and had at his solicita- Earl Gran4rituted' and was to commerce immediately. e i have to le, therefore, wrote: that at his therefore, a report from Mr. Scerlett, stating by M r. et t e i lt , and in conformity with a desire expressed the Tuscan government has consented to a judicial inq I have, therefore; no official instruc tions to adde d fairly conducted asePi you ; but 'if this inquiry is' not uence is used to suppress the truth, the British Govein ni C i ' l fi t ant will be obliged to ask for reparation for this outrage upo n d un t rending and unarmed British su bject from Austria, In lionof her Majesty's G express the confident expecte asen..ment that such; reparation will be promptly afforded Austrian Government." Mr. Mather has underss oe d sli Te s ith stated that it was said in the House by me, that there (mid be proceedings before the regular tribunals at Fiore thing. What I said was rep o n etea te e b ri nt ,. l . nev . er said any such gutlY in Hansard, that es to the case. Th a judicial inquiry had been offered_ thnereraise of an inquiry, us, then, Mr. Scarlett had obtained . which was to be at once instituted. Thefirst • questions „_ offence, and what arising are—what was the nature of th e was I t ourse the second was the reparation to be required ? question depends entirely upon the the offence was of it certain nature, entirely. butt'pn jofristni Provoked, one kind of reparation would bo row reparation .. ury, ee t la ia :lse at r "l an Y ffl a c n ien ce t .. . • eident, a different kind of ' Now, Sir, as to the nature of the injury, conflicting tha n arraellts first supposed. the two par ti es are more c- . a bad at first suppcsed. Mr. Mather states .—_ "Oh the forenoon of the 29th of last n m ar re th hina iletechment of the infantry regiment liinsky was . The usu gdown Via del Martelli, preceded by its band erewathoef some of them eincludin eer . persons accompanied the music, Mather and his brother) walking and the between the band Mr troops. An obstruction wascreated in a narrow part of the street by the pass age o f a carr iage. 11Ir. Mather came ace; dentally in the way o f t h e co mmander of the detachment,- Lieutenant Forsthuber, and admits that he may possibly have touched that officer. He then received a blow from the flat of M. Forsthnber's sabre on his back, and on turning round indignantly to e x postu l a t e was struck in the face by another with his fist. While staggering from this blow he received a sabre-cat on the head f ro m Lieutenant_ Forsthuber, which wounded him s o sev erely that his dlif still in danger. He was then t a k en t o th e hospital) an lies there.' , still lies is The account given by the Austrian officers is very different. It is stated by the Austrian Minister : " The detachment of infantry which, preceded by mill - Vary music, was mounting guard, was passing through the narrow street which leads from the Via Large to the piazza del Duomo. There was a stoppage, and many people were pushing themselves between the music and the troops, inso much that the latter were forced to shorten step. One man in particular walked the whole time precisely before the MEcer, who being In command of this detachment was in the place prescribed to him by our military regulations, and prevented him from continuing his progress. The officer told him politely in Italian to give place to him, at the same time touching him with his sabre, in order, to make him understand that he was speaking to him. This man thereupon turned round, looked at the officer, b u t cont i nue d to walk in the same manner. After this proceeding bad been several times repeated, the officer became angry, a n d forcibly thrust th e man who prevented him from conti nuing his march, and who he could not but think did so with mischievous intent, as he did not attend to words spoken politely. " Another officer wh o accompanied the . guard, without being on duty, gave who_ turned a like impreoslon) another bl ow to this individual, n_edround with an irritated lo o k, and was no other than o b x r i rt ti h t e u •r de . Upon that Mr. Math er t,ag Ma at putting himself in a advanced with his fist uplifted towards the officer —who sabre in hand. The officer, wh was on duty, and had his certainly a could not submit • to be treated after such a fa s hi on ° insult who was exposed to the risk of receiving an outrag eous u . lt . at the_ head of his detachment, made use of his arms i by giving Mr. Mather a • stroke of his sabre." The House will see that there is the greatest differen • tween the two accounts. — (Hear , hear.) In the oneeecbasee ' there appears to have been a wanton and unprovoked at . T E S UN, tack— in the other case the officer had, if not a justification, at least an excuse or palliation in this, that he imagined Mr. Mather was about to strike him, and that be could only prevent the dishonour of the insult by striking him with his sword. Sir, I naturally looked to see what was the character Lord Malmesbury gave to the transaction —whether he took the one view or the other. It appears to me that the one he might have taken, without deciding the character of the transaction, was to have had the parties who gave these two contradictory accounts c onfronted and in examined. That ,is the wa y i n which we proceed in this country in similar cases. It a ppears, however , thatthis case no such course was taken. It never seems to have oc curred to the Government to ask to have the facts ascer tained, although, on the one hand, lair. Mather states that the young man received the last blow while staggering under the effect of the second ; while, on the other side, it is stated as positively that his menacing attitude provoked the sword-cut. I will read what Marshal Radetzky states, and the House will observe that he sets aside the decision of the Tuscan court of inquiry appoi nted at the solicitation o f M r . Scarlett. The Marshal says— " On the 29th of December last, First Lieutenant Forsthu ber, marching at the head of his detachment directed to oc cupy the post at the Palace, was passing through a narrow street. At that instant the Englishman Mather placed himself between the band and the commander of the detach ment. The latter, inconvenienced in his advance, intimated to him to withdraw, first by a slight pressure with the fiat of his sword, and afterwards with his left hand, the first in timation having been ineffectual. In complying with this injunction Mr. Mather, apparently without intention, knocked against Lieutenant Baron de Karg, who, not being on duty, was walking by the side of the detachment. The latter had the imprudence to strike him a blow in the face with his fist. The Englishman, irritated, turned round, in a threatening attitude, and with his fist uplifted after the manner ot boxers, against First Lieutenant Forsthuber, towards whom he advanced; when the latter, fearing to be exposed to a dishonouring insult, from which it neces sarily behoved him to secure himself, struck him imme diatelya blow on the head with the edge of his sabre. Mr. Mather, whose wound, moreover, did not seem serious, was carried to the hospital. " Although the civilians heard as witnesses by the Tuscan authorities do not represent the matter exactly as I have stated it, inasmuch as they pretend not to have remarked, or at least not to have perceived, the menacing attitude as sumed by Mr.. Mather against First Lieutenant Forsthuber, that circumstance is not the less proved by the depositions of the soldiers : and there is the less doubt attaching to it, inasmuch as all the civilian witnesses assert that Mather was walking between the band and the detachment, and one of them expressly declares that he had observed that a sharp dispute had taken place between him and the officer in com mand. " The character and previous conduct of First Lieutenant Forsthuber not allowing me to suppose that he acted without sufficient reason, I am of opinion that that officer was per fectly in the right, and that he absolutely did nothing but what he was bound to do to defend himself from an outrage and its inevitable consequences. " That being the case, it is my opinion that, saving better information, the conduct of First Lieutenant Forsthuber is fully justified." "Unfortunately, I cannot say so much for Lieut. Baron do Karg, who, by striking an Englishman in the face, without cause, necessarily excited in him a degree of passion easily to be accounted for, and who must consequently be considered as being the principal cause of the menacing gesture of Mr. Mather. "Although in general the previous conduct of Lieut. Baron de Karg i 3 equally altogether blameless, and although the proceiding of that officer, who is moreover well-con ducted, cannot assuredly be attributed to anything but hasti ness, I have nevertheless caused him to be put under arrest fora week?' „ Sir, this seems to me rather a peremptory declaration upon the part of Marshal Radetzky.—(" Hear, hear," from the Literals.) He is a person whom all Europe respects for his gallantry and his character—(Loud cheers)—but he seems to set at naught anything like civil testimony, and to 'conclude that nothing but the evidence of soldiers is worth having—(Hear, hear.) Not a word do we bear, . except as to the testimony of the soldiers; and at the same time no pains are taken to have that testimony; it is all to be taken on the word of the Marshal himself, who ordered a separate military inquiry; and there are no means of ascertaining whether the testi mony of the soldiers was entitled to credit, or whether it were shaken or contradicted. But the Government having taken no means to ascertain the truth, one would think that at least they would have decided themselves which wits the story to be believed, and that they would have said either " here is a most unprovoked assault (as Mr. Mather says); or, " it was a mere accident," occasioned by Mr. Mather having placed himself in a provoking position, and a menac ing attitude, towards an Austrian officer at the head of his detachment"- (Hear, hear.) Now, sir, I find on looking through these pages that Lord Malmesbury actually adopts both these stories !—(Hear. hear, from the Liberals ; ironical cheers front the Ministerialists.) He speaks of it sometimes as an " unprovoked outrage ;" and at other times as an. " ac cident, purely fortuitous."—(Opposition cheers). The Noble Lord, writing to Mr. Scarlett, calls it an unprovoked outrage, and says:— " Although it would unquestionably have been more satis factory to her Majesty's Government, and in their opinion more conducive to the ends of justice, if the party aggrieved had been allowed to be present, either in person or by his advocate, during the examination of the various witneses, yet as it is stated that such a course would have been incon sistent with the practice observed in Tuscany in regard to such metters, her Majesty's Government are content to take the evidence as it has been communicated to them, and they readily admit that as far as they can judge by the documents the Tuscan authorities engaged in the inquiry appear to have been actuated by a sincere desire to elicit the truth. " Now the evideece which has thus been obtained con clusively establishes that a most unprovoked outrage was committed on an unharmed and unoffending British subject by an cfficer in command of a military party acting for Tus can purposes in the Tuscan dominions. " But her Majesty's Government have such entire confi dence in the honourable and just sentiments by which the Grand Duke of Tuscany is distinguished, that they are satis fied that the Governinent of Tuscany must be anxious to mark their abhorrence of this outrage inflicted upon an in nocent individual by a becoming reparation. "And even if her Majesty's Government could take a lenient view of the conduct of the Austrian officer, and con sider the blow inflicted by :him as the result of a misappre hension on his part, still it would be impossible for her Ma jesty's Government to release the Tuscan Government from the performance of an international duty by making repara tion to Mr. Mather for the personal insult and bodily suffer ing which he has sustained." But when the Noble Lord writes to Lord Westmoreland he speaks of it as a " fortuitous accident " liar Majesty's Government entirely agree with his High ness that there is no reason to believe that any national feeling of animosity to Englishmen moved the Austrian officer on duty to repel so hastily and with such violence an anticipated affront from an unarmed man. It is equally cer tain that no object of private 'or personal malice provoked the act. "Assuming, therefore, with his Highness that it was ca used by a ' concourse of fortuitous and unfortunate cir cumstances' (contours de eirconstances fortuites et molheu reuses), it is nevertheless the duty of the Tuscan Govern ment, on whose territories these occurred, to present the suf ferer with such pecuniary compensation as he would have obtained in his own country if his life had been endangered either by a premeditated or an accidental injury. With the conviction that such a demand is consonant with those prin ciples of justice and humanity which are equally binding to nations and individuals, her Majesty's Government has re quired of the Tuscan Government this reparation for the severe sufferings and great peril which Mr. Mather has ex perienced." Upon this Count Buol, very naturally (although the con duct of the Austrian Government has been most considerate and respectful. so far as the British Government demanded redress from them)—Count Buol, very naturally, writes thus to the Noble Lord : - " Count Buol also stated that during the occupation of the B northern e p du r ,onvtdhienarctte the s s e o tfehiveFrancequestion u etribunalst the . b ie y n at allied armies, the soldiers presentof that stood, coun trhyn. did Count nnot see e t h a n a y t he to c could i d n o e t m h a o r t e G t e h v a e n r n w ra a e i t n t for d information ue n fr t o h n e a reply they had received from your Lordship; and in the meantime he would recommend an arrangement upon the principle of compensation, not for an insult (for, according to your Lordship's correspondence, that was not the ground upon which you placed this question), but for an unfortunate accident in which no nationality was concerned; and he would at the same time state the disposition of the Emperor (upon such an understanding) to come forward himself with the proposition I have already mentioned for the arrangement of this question." The House cannot but observe that when the Noble Lord writes to Florence it is an" unprovoked assault ;" but when he writes to Vienna it is " an unfortunate occurrence."— (Cheers from the Opposition.) When the Noble Lord is• writing to Florence, however, there is a curious passage in one of his dispatches which it is difficult to understand. He says : " You will thank Count Buol for his amicable offer re specting the Mather case, and state that I consider it as an earnest of his friendly feelings towards this country and its Government. :You will, however, explain that as her Ma jesty's Government have always:insisted on the independence of Tuscany, azik its responsibility either to open her civil courts to foreign plaintiffs, or, if she closes them, to enter tain the complaint through the executive, there would be considerable awkwardness in our receiving compensation from Austria, with whom we have had no official correspon dence in the matter. If Count Buol wishes to serve us in this dispute he can best do so by giving his advice to Tus cany to refer the amount to an arbitration which Mr. Scar lett is instructed to propose at Florence. My determination is that Mr. Mather should get what he .would have ob tained from an English court had he been cut down at a review in Hyde Park by accidently hustling a violent soldier. " I have before stat e d th a t th ere i s no reason w h atever to s ti PPose that malice or any anti-English feeling stimulated the act ; but certainly ninety-nine out of a hundred would, under the circumstances, have only struck the supposed ro te re e • vi a . b i_ rn e tet act, offender with the hilt or flat of their sword. It was, there although unpremeditated ; and as I under hustlin°g Er op a i e g a .skull of the sufferer is injured, and he is not in aq u i t 4:rcumstances, a pecuniary compensation is both an / cane t and a legal demand on his part." understand how F. man could be "cut down by man dow n " htletling , l4- c Howe," that a (Laughter from the Liberals.) The , baton perhaps, provoke the soldier to cut the one can hardly speak of its being an " ac or all, Mr. Addington • " violent soldier" should cut a man down. ver, aft writes to Mr. Mather thus — I — have the satisfaction tious negotiation s tion of the Eari e Scar lett has succeed e d atonement for the tin at Florence, by th m terill aie s y t o y u , 8 , b G y o t v h e e rn d m ir e e n c- t w i t t inl esburY, that after long and vexa practical it, the Tuscan Government, Mr- Scar e. p e ....... et aad o , rt b i zta G l o t v r e e ro atm m e e n n t t h of e r t e h c o ei s v o e m l. reeriotebrnin iigitoefor your son a eisalwesasrd4oh'ur. of 1,000 francescom. '"'' y Althoabn do not consider that this Sum which Mr. Mather suffered, Court • 1 m tied demand, q t u h i a v t al w en h t io t h o a t o he En in g j l u is ry h Scarlett was instructed to that Mr. Scarlett acted to the concluding the centroversy,e ',.`t and al t w h o o ti . -I .g d h h i a t v best of reason to believe his judgment in thus 3 the ide This quite contradict a of an ~ brutal outrage" accident." "An unprovoked and . l t brit 'f • cannot be an • accident.: An accident may be vio en , ,It be en , accident, that takes away its .. b rii ,..admitted to bean ,g unprovoked ontrage. , Crgy and it cannot have been an with respect to the Pe (bear,) Thus, th en , it appears that uhether it was - first question—the nature of the injury--•--ether it an 4 teid Noble ord has ent, or an un provoked outrage, the b • m i d , not d 'd a eci ee Lc never been able tomake up is n ...._ ft , (Cheers —" 'n then from the Opposition.) It is not sure risi g, . , that the G to ascertain the truth, overn ment having taken no stern hal Rad t k and whe ther Mr. Mather's account or Illars e z y2 B .. e wondered at that they " all u re the right one—it is not to be ld not he rep aration ° have acted very consistently as to t ._.. f., -s• be ob tained. My Noble Friend Earl Granville had asked ample reparation, and, though the Government of Tammy were responsible, my Noble /Friend paid if the inquiries instituted L m 4, 4 were not fairly conducted, or resulted in no redress, he should hold Austria bound to give reparation. That is the true way to state the case—treating both Governments as re sponsible. Mr. blather, in the first instance, placed the ques tion in the hands of Earl Granville and his successor. He had an objection against taking the course of going before the Turcan Court, but he says— " We are, however, entirely in the hands of your Lordship and the British Legation here. If it be deemed best, for reasons of State, which I do not understand, to take such a course, or any other, by our receiving official authority and instructions bow to act, as far as we are concerned, they shall be promptly and willingly obeyed. What may be fitting for the honour and satisfaction of our country, of which your Lordship, in such a case, is the guardian and judge, cannot but be so for us." Nothing could be more fitting or becoming than the tone taken by Mr. Mather on the occasion. His son had suf fered a great injury; he had gone out to Italy in great anxiety, and found his son still weak from the effects of the injury ; and he says to the Foreign Minister, " You will pre scribe the course to be pursued, and though it may not be according to my judgment, it will be the judgment of my own Government, and a decision to which I shall bow." W ell, Sir, Lord Malmesbury has so contrived that Mr. Mather, who was the object of the injury, and Mr. Scarlett, who was the person endeavouring to obtain reparation, should be the only persons insulted, and that the officer who inflicted the injury should be the only person to get off with applause—( Hear, hear)—for Mr. Mather's character is in jured, and Mr. nicarlett has a very cruel censure passed upon him by his Government. Mr. Slather is invited to a con ference with Lord Malmesbury, and is told that the Noble Lord has demanded pecuniary reparation. Mr. Mather states— " Lord Malmesbury having been pleased to indicate that he thcugbt personal reparation should be obtained for Mr. Erskine Mather,and to desire Mr. blather's opinion on this point, he begs to state that it is with the utmost pain that he addresses himself to it, and that nothing but the official commands of his Lordship should have made him deviate from the uniform course which he and his unfortunate son have invariably taken in this matter, of refusing to make it a personal question, but one of a higher and more important nature. " Mr. Mather, taking into consideration the grievous in jury inflicted; the risk of his son's life; his sufferings; the continued injury to his health; the eventual uncertainty of future results; the party that inflicted being the officer of a Government which has been implicated in his act; and the probability that an appeal for reparation to an im partial court, and on the principles universally recognised, would have produced a large amount of reparation in such a case; Mr. Mather names to his Lordship 5,0001. as what seems to him, under all these circumstances, just and proper, and is not overvaluing the injury and its probable consequences to his son. "Mr. Slather again begs to repeat to his Lordship that this is the most painful part of the duty imposed upon him in all the trying circumstances with which this unfortunate affair has been attended, and that respect for the views and wishes of Lord Malmesbvry have alone induced him to ex press an opinion upon this point of the question." Nothing could be clearer than that Mr. Mather did not desire it to be made a question of pecuniary reparation, but showed a due deference to the opinion of Lord Malmesbury, and was, induced to name a sum to be demanded. He named 5,000/.—(Laughter)—at the same time stating that this was the sum he deemed due, not only to himself for his anxiety and his son for the injury, but to the honour of his country for,the breach of international law.—'(An ironical Hear, hear.) But, whether the sum he named were right or not, Mr. Mather had no business to fix the sum due for the breach of international law— (Hear, hear)—that was a question en tirely for the Noble Lord.—(Hear, hear.) He named 5,000/. ; he might have named 5001. All he meant was, that the sum to be demanded for such an injury should be considerable, but it was for the Noble Lord to fix the sum.—(Hear, hear.) The Noble Lord might have directed the Queen's Advocate to state the proper sum to be demanded. I remember the case of a South American merchant who had been imprisoned, in which the Noble Lord the Member for Tiverton called on the Queen's Advocate to state the amount of compensation which was due. The Queen's Ad vocate said that 20/. a day was the sum which ought to be asked, and the Noble Lord immediately wrote and demanded it. I believe that the merchant was not satisfied, and thought that his reparation should have been greater; but the Noble Lord, who understood the business of his depart ment—( Hear. hear, and cheers)—never thought of listening to the complaints of a private merchant.—(Hear, hear.) Lord Malmesbury having committed this, what I think a very great mistake, had it in hispower to repair it, and if be had said to Mr. Mather, " I think that 5001. is the money due by way of reparation," Mr. Mather would have said that he would have been satisfied with anything that the Government of his own country approved of. But what does Lord Malmesbury do? He does not fix the sum—he does not tell Mr. Slather what he thinks it ought to be, but he writes a general direction to Mr. Scarlett to obtain a sum of money, and he says that Mr. Slather has asked a sum of 5 000/., which he considers to be exorbitant. Now look at the injury which is thus done to Mr. Slather. Mr. Ma ther stands in the position of a man who says, " My son has suffered a cruel injury; I have suffered a cruel injury; I put my case in the hands of my country and in the Government of my country, to do what they think fit." But the Secre tary of State for Foreign Affairs has no better means of ob taining that redress than by asking him what reparation he ought to obtain, and then proclaiming to the Government at Florence that Mr. Mather is a man who asks an exorbitant sum.—(Hear, hear.) Accordingly we have soon afterwards a dispatch from Mr. Scarlett, saying that the Tuscan Go vernment thinks that sum is exorbitant; it becomes well known that an exorbitant sum has been asked for, and con sequently the sympathy which had been felt for Mr. Mather is very much diminished.—(Hear, hear.) And this is the way in which a Secretary of State obtains redress for a man who is evidently and undoubtedly an injured man, by put ting him in the light of a person who is greedy for money and anxious to obtain an excessive sum from the Tuscan Government. Thus the character of Mr. Mather is very much injured, and injured, too. by that very person who ought to have undertaken his defence. One would have thought that on hearing this, at least, Lord Malmes bury would have written to Florence to state that no blame was due to Mr. blather, and that he had never asked for money until he had been desired to do so ; but no such course is taken.—(Hear, hear.) Well, then, what directions aro given to Mr. Scarlett as to the sum which he should demand, since it had been determined that moral reparation, which would have been far better, was not to be given? Lord Malmesbury does not lay down any sum whatever. Now, suppoeing HU to have been a fair sum, the only clear course was to say, "We have estimated :the injury at 5001. and that sum we w ill ta k e , an d no less. " However, nothing specific is asked, b u t L or d M a l mesbury expresses an expectation that a sum proport i oned to the injury received by Mr. Math er s h ou ld be. paid by way of compensation, and according l'Ar. Scarlett made a demand to that effect on the Tuscan Go vernment. Ia one of his dispatches Lintel Malmesbury directs that a sum of money should - De demanded, and he says, "If the principle be admit'aed, we shall not be very long in agreeing about the arneant." Again, on the 9th - of April, Lord Malmesburyye . rites •"You must get Mr. Mather 500/., or such a sum MS would purchase him an an nuity." Well, Mr. Scarlett that he cannot get 5001, but he at length comes te an agreement with the T uscan Government, which, I Intent say, is not a very satisfactory agreement, and which,, it appears to me, he ought never to have consented to without referring home for instructions from the Government. But be it observed that up to that moment Lord Malmesbury had never told Mr. Scarlett what it was precisely that he was to ask for, and his words to Mr. Scarlett, which I have just quoted, gave a discre tionary power to the latter. Well, Mr. Scarlett, being in great uncertainty and anxiety, makes, I think, a very un becoming agreement, and agrees to take 2201., and very strangely says he will be satisfied with that sum, provided the Messrs. Stratfords are released from custody.—(Hear, hear, and laughter.) No doubt Mr. Scarlett was to blame for making such an agreement, but it is a great palliation of Mr. Scarlett's conduct that he had never received any specific instructions as to what he was to ask.—( Hear, hear.) Well, when this agreement is made, Lord Malmes bury turns round on Mr. Scarlett and writes to him in these terms:—" Her Majesty's Government are ready to admit that in this last transaction Mr. Scarlett has acted to the best of his judgment, but I should not be strictly ex pressing my feelings if I did not state that the Govern ment regret that Mr. Scarlett should have taken a view of what was expedient as much at variance with his in structions as with sound reason."—(Hear, hear and a laugh.) Now the result of all this is, I think, a very disagreeable one for this country, namely, that when the object is to obtain a sum in reparation for Mr. Slather, the only persons who are found to suffer in the end are Mr. Mather and the agent to whom you entrusted your nego tiations.—(Fear, hear.) And do not tell me that Mr. Scarlett was not capable of carrying out his instructions. hlr. Scarlett has bad considerable experience, and, if pro perly instructed, I have no doubt would have efficiently obeyed those instructions.—(Hear, hear.) And be it ob nerved that all this time the Austrian Government, which professes the most conciliatory diepositien, which shows every wish to gratify her Majesty's Government in every reasonable demand, are not asked to take any steps on the subject, and this after the communication made by the Tule. can Government to the Government of this country.-- (Hear, hear.) I have said already that I think that the Tuscan Government, being an independent Government, the first demand for reparation should have been made to them ; but when they said, " This is an Austrian army; and, by the convention we have signed, no Austrian officer can be brought to trial by us, or punished for offences com mitted against clviliaua, and it is beyond our power to arrest or to punish an Austrian officer;" I think, in that case the Austrian Government became responsible for the conduct of its officers, and that a proper demand should have been made for reparation, if with no other object than this—that the Austrian military should not any more indulge in the wanton habit of cutting down' men merely because they conceived that some insult was offered.— (Hear, hear.) That would be some satisfaction and security ; but as it is, every Englishman who goes into Italy, where, unfor tunately, Austrian tro o p s are stat i one d i n countries which h ought to be independent—l mean the States of the Church and the Tuscan States — every En g li s hman, I say, is to suffer anything which an Austrian officer may think proper to inflict upon him, and there is no chance of redress. —(Hear, hear.) Nor is M r . M at h er ' s th e on ly case of f i kind. I understand that a non - comm i ss ioned officer of Marines has been lately sever e ly p un i s h e d ac cording tothe Austrian code.—(Hear, hear.) The n I say again, that al though this case was in itself simpl e enoug h, and although neither the Austrian Government an d th e T u scan Govern ment seem to have been ready to res i s t an y r easonable de mand, yet such was the mode in whi c h L or d M a lmesbury has conducted this transaction, that it can b u t lead to ridi cule and contempt on the part of the foreign Governments. I shall only say a few words on the last part of the trans action, as far as we knew it. On the 24th of May, Lord. Malmesbury said, that though her Majesty's Government did not approve of this settlement, yet that, under the.9,!re cumstances, they could not refuse to recognise it. The dispatch containing that decision was signed and sent off on the 2lth of May ; but it appears that on the 22d of May there arrived at the Foreign-office a dispatch from Florence, which totally changed Lord Malmesbury's views of the trans action • but that dispatch was not r e ad by Lord Malmes bury till after the other disp a t c h h a d b een se n t off on the 24th. It does seem ex t raor di nary, cons id er i ng the regn . larity with which busi ness i s t ransac t e d i n t h e F orei gn-office, especially considering the regularity with which Mr. Ad dington, the Under-Secretary of State, is sure to transmit all Lora Malmesbury of importance—it does seem s t rang e that Malmesbury should not have read th a t di s p a t c h of the 22d till after the 24th. But as he did not see it t i ll a fter the 24th it would have been bettor that he should have remained sa tisfied with what had been done, and not h ave disturbed the decision. But after having stated to Mr. Mather, and pro claimed to the Tuscan G,overnment that her Majesty's Go vernment would not refuse to recognise the settlement, there comes another di s p a t c h o p en ing up th e w h o l e question, and desiring Si r Henry Bulwer to leave Florence .. to break off all diplomati c i ntercourse with t h e T uscan Governmen t un • less they should consent to make some further reparation. What may be the consequence of this last dispatch I know not. All I shall say is, that if Sir Henry Bulwer be ordered to leave Florence, I de not see how the character of . the transac tion will be at all unproved. The onlyconsequence will be that British subjects residing there w ill no t h ave the assistance of E C), TEJ 8 1)A Y an able and intelligent British resident to protect their in terests in that part of Italy.—(Hear, hear.) As for any redress that may be gained to British subjects by all these transactions, I cannot imagine that what has been done will be at all effectual. I have received a letter from a gentle. man to-day, saying that he had been much wronged ; that he had been detained at Berlin, and put in prison for four-and -twenty hours; that the Noble Lord the Member for Tiverton, and after him Lord Granville, had taken up his case, and remonstrated with the Prussian Government, but that the present Govern ment had taken no notice of his request for redress. The only advice I can give this gentleman—and I take the P° giving it him th us p u bli c ly—i s no t to ask a th P e present Government of to interfere in his case at all.— (A laugh.) If he has a grievance to complain of I recom mend him to follow the example of the great Captain Gonzales de Cordova in a similar position, who, when his Sovereign wanted to pacify him by a gift of the city of Lugo, told his Majesty that he liked his grievance better than the city.—(Laughter.) As far as Mr. Mather is concerned, the result to him is the offer of a thousand francisconi, which he rejected with disdain ; in addition to which his character as a man of independence and disinterestedness, has been blasted by the interference of our Government.—(Hear. ) All I can say on the subject is, that I will not take the coarse which Lord Derby did when he saw reason to censure the conduct of the late Government in regard to the affairs of Greece, but I will content myself with protest ing against what has been done in Mr. Mather's case in terms similar to those which his Lordship then employed. Lord Derby said on that occasion : " Surely it becomes the British Legislature to step for ward and say that the Foreign -office of England is not England—that the high-minded, generous feeling, of this people is opposed t o measures suc h as h ave b een taken great by the Government of the country—that we sepe rate our actions from theirs —our feelings from theirs—our views of justice and good faith from theirs." I also take leave to separate my feelings—my notions of jus tice and good faith—from the course which the Governmer,t has pursued in this case.—(Hear, hear.) I beg leave, to enter my protest against conduct which seems to nee to degrade this Government in the eyes of Europe—against conduct which does not degrade this country, because the country takes far better and higher views th en its Go vernment of what is due to its character. I truot, however, it will be recollected that in the present state of the conti nent of Europe this is almost the only country in which a free expression of opinion can take place. It is almost the y on ly country in which a f ree press an d f ree discussions in the ,trrLegislaturebta c of constitutional :gove rnmen t ex i s t i n se veral those forms are in some cases so countriesper in which they are not p erver t e d, d where exists, are so small and so depende n t per verted, and States while re eaao of nit forms hE f a eu i fairly libertyp be said to make them se l ves f e lt, b ecause r b the i on their more powerful neighboiers, that no bold and loud ex pression of public opinion can take place in them. No such addresses as are delivered in our Legislature, and no such publications as that which, to his immortal honour, the Right Hon- Member for the University of Oxford issued from the press last year—(Cheers)--can be made or put forth, at present, in any other country of Europe. Under these circumstances, it more especially behoves us to keep oar character unhurt and our honour untarnished. It becomes u s, if we have occasion to ask for redress from a foreign Go vernment, to proceed mildly and with temper; but, at the s ame time, to insist on that which we really think duo to us .—(Elear, hear.) It would be an inestimable loss, not to this country alone, but to all the world, if our character as a great and independent nation should be in any degree im paired. I trust, therefore, that before the Noble Lord at the head of the F oreign -office again writes such dispatches as these, ho will consider how great is the charge that has been intrusted to him, and that he will not lightly commit the great interests and the high character of this nation by . heedless ex p r essions. —(Cheers.) I gave notice that when I should , make some observations on Mr. Mather's case I would also call the attention of the House to the present state of public business, and I will now proceed to do so as shortly as I can. The House will recollect that immediately after the accession to office of the present Government those who sit on this sideof the House—having heard the declaration of the in som Ministers that th ey could not bring forward in the present Parliament e respects, these m re e s e p e e ur s e , the evils measures whichthey which thought the essential to remedy,of measure 1846, and the commercial policy subsequently adopted, had created—were -of opinion that Ministers were bound, first to make the session as short as they possibly could, consistently with the dispatch of urgent public business; and, secondly, to declare the nature of their policy. With respect to the first of these point'., something like a satisfactory under standing 'wee eventually come to. The reluctance which at first seemed to eie entertained of protracting the session to the usual per s od, and not assembling the new Parliament until the beginning of next year was abandoned. With respect to the second point, however, I must say I have been totally disappointed. We asked Ministers to do only what has been done—gladly done—by other Ministers. When Earl Grey dissolved the Parliament, in 1832, the issue d istin ctly raised was th e adoption or rejection of th e Reform Bill. When Sir R. Peel dissolved, in 1831, he issued a clear and explicit declaration of the course he intended to pursue; and, the principles which he laid down being inconsistent with the opinions of the majority of the House, an adverse vote compelled him to resign. When Lord Melbourne dissolved, in 1841, the measures of commercial poli c y w hi c h he intended to propose to the ensuing Parliament were clearly subMitted to the public; but, the appeal to the country having produced a larger majority against him than the preceding election had furnished against Sir R. Peel, his Lordship was soon obliged to resign. The present Government, however, from the very moment cf their taking office down to the present day, so far from proclaiming their opinions to the world, seem to me to be bent on studiously concealing wh a t th e i r opinions are with respect to that question on which for six years they have agitated the country — (Cheers)—the great question of the abolition of the corn laws. At the beginning of February we were told by the Noble Lord now at the bead of the Government, then iu opposition, that in his opinion it was desirable to impose a duty on imported corn. When the Right Hon. Gentleman opposite, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, came into office he also said it was a most desirable thing to impose a duty on imported corn. It soon began to be understood that this favourite measure was to be abandoned; but, at the same time, we were left as much in the dark as before as to the precise course which was to be taken. "What we and the country, generally, desire to know is not so much the particular measure to be proposed as the spirit in . which they are to be framed. We want Ministers to answer ay or no to this question—." Are you prepared to uphold the financial and commercial policy which has prevailed since 18.12?—(Hear, hear.) 18 it your opinion that the policy of the List ten years, il, e wh-c prevailed during the Administra tion of Sir R. Peel and the existence of the late Govern ment, has been beneficial to the country, and ought to be adhered to, or that it had been mischievous, and that it is necessary to avert further injury by altering it ?" To this question the House and the country have never had anything like an answer.—(llearn I At various times circumstances have occurred which seemed to indicate the course about to be taken. When the Chancellor of the Exchequer made his most able speech on Opening the budget, we on this side of th e House looked upon it as conclusive in favour of a free trade po li c y, and we believed that thenceforward that policy would be the rule of our proceedings. Everybody here was delighted with the Chancellor of the Exchequer's speech, and no one thought of taunting the Right Hon. Gentleman or any of his colleagues with i ncons i s t ency . Th e Ri g ht Hon. Gentleman, however, found a critic, a commentator,_ and an a d ve rsary; and who was h e ? H e appeared at the Mansion house in the person of L the First Lord of the Treasury.— 1 (Laughter.) That was the scene which Lord Derby chose for criticising his Chancellor of the Exchequer. The Noble Lord pointed out a great omission in his colleague's address, and supplied it by 'ometbing, not as lucid and con clusive as the Chancellor of the Exchequer's statement, but by something that was eminently obscure and ambiguous.— (Hear ) This was Certainly a novel proceeding. As a Member for London, I have often had occasion to dine in the City, but it never occurred to me to avail myself of any 1 of those opportunities to answer my own Chancellor of the Exchequer.- (Hear, hear, and langlater.) Though we have no t obtained from the no' ble Lord at the head of the Go vernment any clear d eclaration of the policy to be pursued, we have been favoured with expositions of it from other Members of the Gover nment and its supporters. The Chan- cellor of the Duchy o f Lancaster and the Solicitor-General declare themselves anxious to reverse our existing commer cial policy. We have also seen professed supporters of Lord Derby's Government going into the country and declaring that above all things they wish not to have the corn-laws reimposed ; and lam told that one of these Gentlemen, who is canvassing Maidstone, has issued an addr ess in which he says, "I rejoice to say, we have at length a n honest Government, and there is no longer any chance of re-imposing a tax upon bread."— (Laughter.) . an , 1 aiso told by a friend near me that the Tory or Derbyite ca ndidate for Greenwich parades the town wit h a big loaf carried before him.—(Much laughter.) All these circunista -.sees combine to shroud the intentions of the Governmennt in ambiguity. At length, it seemed as if a light had broken upon the Chancellor of the Ex chequer, when he stated in his recent address to his consti tuents that, — The time has g one by when the injuries which the great b producing interests endure can be alleviated or re moved y themurrence to the la ws which, previously to 1846, protected from such calamities?, The only °ken .._ beteni-neic to be surpr i sed at is, that this light should have n the Right Hon. Geie. es; long in reacing tleman. The c lhestion Yeas raised at the election of 1847. si nce then it h - aa under one rsated discussions in Parlia ment, and it has been 8 to 19 persons out of 20, for the last three o r f "'" e u obv i ous n t the time for the re-imposie time of the core laws ears, t a that " - was gone. It seems, however, - t the Chancellor f 0 the Exchequer did not make this discovery until the other ea Wh t the Chancellor of the Exche quer says beeid 7. a is reassuring. He ea in his address not very tells his constitu of land has dimhaished no less than s,ooa b ents that the rent to inquire whe ther that cilia, 004 a year. I will not stop attributable to the cause to which the Chancellor ne!itance is refers it, but if the Right of the Exchequer Hon. mane equer rd as a ground for giving the landowners co puts that forward as a groundfor giving the °iflpensation, by im posing general burdens on the rest of the Inpensation, by I can only say the idea is prepos terous.......o Community, ID Lord Derby himself possessed of 5, ° 001 . a ereaear which p " oae laimed by the parish as belong ing to ultra. , ,r are c is heard by the Lord Chancellor and p ee w to the House cam of Lords, and the final decision is that the koeos, belnto the inhabitants of the parish, and must be surrendered ° to them. Imagine what would be the surpri se of the Lord Chancellor and the House of Lords if they should be called upon to make up the 5,0001. which Lord Derby hadwrongfully held from the poor by a general t ax on the e. d laughter.) The co-laws parish.—(Olie.era an were man of sense on the ground never d f d by any een ed . that they to the income of the land gave an addition owners.. The ground taken by the ad .i. (Har beat ) v"ea of those laws was that of general national ad vantage 1 aragn •• from independence of foreign supply. The nation beingopinion that this was a fallacy, and that it was n nne of r t() continue the- laws, there was no pretence for saying cees th t compensation ought to be given to the land a that I am speaking in the interest , owneee I believe . of th e Ind • Nothing could be so injurious a oWners themselves. to their ifl n uence—which was very great—as the notion that instead of defendingthe corn-laws n-laws as a national • own benefit, and advantage, they had done so for their by their now required= compensation for loss sustained. repeal,_ (gear, e Hear, hear.) The. revisio • - n of taxation, and re adjustment of burden which the Chancellor of the Ex chequer says " looms in the future," will Duke afraid, giv e much satisfact i on t o th e farmers, whom the as soon they of Richmond h as b een te lli ng year after year that, as Lord D er b came into oi fi ce, t h er e would be a dissolution, and then would have protection back again. —(Hear, hear.) That was the language o f the Duke of Richmond, endoreed,lL The Duke sa mast by the Noble Lor d at the head of the Governme na l w ays told the farmers not to lay expensive manures, and out their money in draining and the late that the way Y rich was to drive out Ministers. . to get The only consolation the farmer n ow has is to be told that a in the future chanceof lightening his burdens looms --(A , , laugh') Th e - uea since 1842 was an excellent policy pursued the people. The mode of lightening the burdens of . Chan cellor of the Exchequer had given a striking proof of this when he stated that sugar duties to the amount of eeo,ooo/. had been reduced, with a loss to the revenue of only 3001. to pursue ? All I hope i; Can there be a better policy -,that the farmers, having been deceived for the last six y ears by being told that hey yf Qtad got beck protection, will not J UNT& 'allow themselves to be again deceived by being • told that they can be restored to prosperity by any other m tans than the,exertion of their own skill and industry.—(H a ar, hear.) Passing from this topic, the Chancellor of the Lxchequer, in his address, claims credit for what Ministers , have done and what they propose to do. With the excel )tion of the Militia Bill—the credit of which I willingly resign to them —(A laugh)—all their measures had their orig 1n with the late Government. Of these, Chancery reform we ts one of the most important. That was no party question. lam far from asking credit for it as a party m assure, but a Commission having been instituted by the late Government, made their report upon ti ie subject, and it was announced in the Queen's spee ch that on that subject a measure would be introduced.. The Go vernment introduced a Bill, but even at the 1 ast moment there were clauses in it so objectionable that my Right Hon. Friend the Member for Ripon, who belonged to lthe com mission, had to insist upon the report of the Comulissioners being carried into effect in order to make it a good and useful measure.—(Hear, hear.) But there are other cir cumstances with respect to wtiieh the Government have, as I think, raised very grave questions, and made most dangerous admissions. In the first instance, I will advert 'so the system of education ira Ireland.—(Hear, hears) A plan of mixed education ',lad been settled for y ears in that country, and people in general were satisfied with it, but the present Goverament were no sooner ka office than they said they would make a change v eith respect to that system, and that they would do some favour to the Establishod Church, by which the EP 'sablished Church should obtain. a portion of the grant. T.,sew, I cannot con ceive anything more dangerous for Joeisnd. because i t i s admitted-4 believe it was stated by Lord Derby, and also by the Bishop of Ossory at a meeti:ag of the Church Educa tion `society —that ifyou grant a separate system in order to hav e the children educated in the Scriptures according to th.e authorized version, or according to the wishes of the church of England, you must at the. same time give the same advantage to the Roman Catholics.—( Hear, hear.) And I observe that those who belong to the Roman Catholic commmunity, who are most opposed to the mixed education. are quite ready to meet you on that subject.—(Hear, hear.) I have seen to-day, in an address published by the Catholic Defence Association, these words, "Catholics of Ireland, do you especially trust no man who is not distinctly and ex plicitly in favour of Catholic education for Catholics, Pro testant education for Protestants."— (Hear, hear.) If you give way to the Protestant, you must give way to that de mand, instead of having the mixed education established by Lord Derby himself, and so highly creditable and honour able to him, but which he is now ready to forego.—( Hear, hear.) Supposing, however, you adopt this principle, are there no other questions raised thereby? You now give 150,0001.4°r education in Ireland; and it will be impossible to give more than 30,0001., or. perhaps 50,000/., to the Esta blished Church for dint object. You will then be giving 100,0001. for exclusively Catholic schools. But that will come to be another Maynooth question.—( Hear, hear.) If you give 100,0001. for educating child ren i n the Roman Ca tholic faith, will there not be as much objection to that as there now is to the 26,000/. which you pay to Maynooth? —(Hear, hear.) See the danger,of raising a questionithat was settled.—(Hoar, hear.) For twenty years you have gone on without disturbance, and you might have so gone on still, but for what has been said by the present Government, which has unsettled the question, and once more tossed it up into the air. —(Hear, hear.) Then it appears they are not satisfied with disturbing education in Ireland—they are disturbing also the plan of education adopted in England.— ( Hear, hear.) I have seen what I wish I had seen six weeks ago—for the' vote for education was only taken a week ago.—(Hear, hear.) I have seen it stated that the Govern ment have made up their minds to do that which they say they have always been anxious and earnestly desirous to do—to do justice to the Church of England in the matter of education, as they thought there was undue restriction upon the Church in that matter. Then why should not the minute containing this announcement have been introduced before the vote for eclucatiotrwas agreed to ?—(Hear, hear.) They must know that this question produces, and will pro duce, the greatest excitement. They must know that the condition of the National Society is now such that many per sons wish there should be an alteration in the charter of that society.—(Hear, hear.) Surely that was a question to be kept, at least, in abeyance. Or, if they were determined to make an alteration, they should have made it some time ago, though the better course, I think, would have been, not to take it up at all till they had found time to look into the whole question.—( Hear, hear.) • Then I must say that the Government have suffered from the mode in which they had themselves prepared to accept office. We all know that in the course of last year, when called upon to form a Go vernment, they declared themselves incapable of doing so, because they were unable to fill the several offices of the Government. Soon after that it was publicly announced that they had made their dispositions, that they had the means of forming a Government, when called upon to do so, and the event showed this rumour to be nerfectly true. A very eminent person accepted the office of Lord Chancellor; and several gentlemen pursuing the agreeable pursuits and easy business that belong to an English country gentleman, and which makes life so easy and agreeable, were ready to accept the troubles, the responsibilities, and the obloquy of office. But there was one thing they seem to have entirely forgotten, and that was, what were the principles and opinions upon which as a Government they were to act.—(Hear, hear.) They entirely lost sight of that which appears to me to be an essential p re li m i nary, but which I sup pose they thought trivial.—(Hear, hear.) They seem to have had no fixed opinions on any one subject.—(A laugh.) No sooner does any gentlemen start a subject than they avow themselves quite ready to agree to his proposal.— (Hear.) An Hon. Gentleman opposite proposes to raise the question of Maynooth. That is another dangerous subject to meddle with; but no sooner is it brought forward than the Government exclaim—" We are quite ready to go into that question; we have, to be sure, not made up our minds what to do; we have no present intention of abolishing May nootb, but we will leave Ireland to be disquieted till we make up our minds on the subject."—( Hear, hear.) Then Mr. George Denison says he wants an alteration of the ma nagement clauses in the system of educat ion in England, and they exclaim, " With all my heart, let us have an alteration in that scheme."—(A laugh.) A party in the Irish Church come forward and say they wish a change in the mixed sys tem of education in that country. "By all means, we are quite willing," is the answer of the Government.—(Alaugh.) Indeed all that seems necessary is that some gentleman should start a crude notion upon any subject, in order to have the Government saying, "We have nut made, tip our minds upon it, but we are quite ready, nevertheless, to go into the consideration of it."—(Hear, hear.) Why here is a direct premium upon agitation.—(Cries of " Hear, hear,") I have said that it was our object, after obtaining an assur ance that Parliament would be dissolved as soon as possible, to get some explanations from the Government as to their policy. That explanation we certainly have not obtained; but we have obtained that which is quite sufficient—we have obtained enough to enable my Right Hen. Friend the Mem ber for Ripon to say that the question before you is, whether you have confidence in Lord Derby's Government, or whe ther you have not.—(Hear, hear.) I know that some people say my Right Hon. 1 riend is very unreasonable—that he is in the situation of Sir Lucius O'Trigger when he said to Captain Absolute, " I think we did differ in opinion," to which Captain Absolute replied, " That is a very odd ff i e s rs a in ver o y pin o i d o d n thing, for I gave no opinion whatever."—(Laughter.) My Right Honourable Friend s with the Government, and they saar"hTehadti thing, for we havens) opinions whatever."—(Great laughter.) But, with great deference to them, in this c ountry o f England that is a goo an d sufficient reason for my Right Hon. Friend's distrust.—(Hear, hear.) This country will never be satisfied unless they h ave men ruling th e country who have some principles and some opinions.—(Hear, hear.) It may seem to be a popular thing to say that the country has only by a majority to expres s an favour of a corn-law, and that the corn-laws will be re -imposed ;or that, if there is a majority against such a policy, then we shall have free trade. That may seem to be a pop u l ar de claration, and one likely to attract popular favour; but, de pend upon it, it is not so. — ( Hear, hear. ) The people of this country would be bet ter pleased to see men who had some opinions, and who were read to bring questions clearly before theme-(Hear. hear.) ready the country_ likely to place its confidence in a Gover nment that has no opinions, no p r inciples,- and which is rea d y to be guided by any wind that may rise into any port that is open for them?—(Cheers.) Lord STANLEY would not enter upon the serious but un founded assertions with which the Noble Lord, at the con elmsion o f his speech, had thought fit to att ac k th e Govern ment generally; but he must be allowed to upon one department say that when the Noble Lord mad e a directassault - of the Government, and went on to acc use a mem b er of the Administration of incapacity, he thought it came with little grace from the leader of a Government which fell from power through its own internal weakness, and from sheer incapacity to carry on the business of th e country.— (H ear, hear.) dealing with the more con fi ne d question upon which alone he was entitled to touch, he felt that he must threw himself upon the indulgence of the House,not merely because this was the that time he had come forward upon a question of such magnitude and importance —not merely because of the great mass of detail which was contained in the volume that comprised the facts of the case; but be cause from the very first moment when this question was submitted to Parliament till now there had been an amount of prejudice and misrepresentation, and misstatement of the facts, such as he believed had hardly ever been paralleled.— (Ilear, hear.) The Noble Lord began his address by station that the different storiela resting upon different circum stances, had gone forth with regard to the outrage com mitted upon Mr. Mather, and _ he observed that his Noble Friend the Foreign Secretary had not adopted either one or the other of these statements, but that he mixed them up together, contradictory and opposite as ho said they were. Now, he thought that if gentlemen would look into the volume from which the Noble Lord quoted, they would see that the discrepancy to which he alluded entirely vanished. Lord Mahnesbury, it was true, stated in one place, that the outrage was accidental, and that in another he spoke of it as " brutal and unprovoked ;" but this apparent discre pancy disappeared on looking more closely at the connexion of these statements. There were two ways of looking at the question; one was with , reference to the Goverment, and the other was with reference to the individual : - outrage. He could quite understand that his Noble Friend used the word "accidental" as applied to this coun try and the Government. He said—and his opinion was justified by the evidence before them—that the outrage bad nothing to do with any intended insult to the national cha racter, that it was no premeditated insult to England, and that it was so far accidental that no one could have antici- pated that it would arise; that, in short, it sprang out of an occurrence that no one did or could foresee.—(Hear, hear.) But that did not in the slightest degree prevent it being equally true that, so far as regarded the individual who te ceived the injury, looking at it not in a personal, but in a national point of view, the , outrage was as " brutal and unprovoked as any that ever aline under public notice. —( Lear, hear.) The Noble Lord complained of t he case having been submitted to a Tuscan tribunal.--("Xo," from Lord J. Russell.) The Noble Lord at least spoke of the Tuscan tribunal as one in which he thought there was little. likelihood of eliciting the troth. Now, he did not contend that a tribunal acting in secret was as good a mode of eli citing facts as one conducted according to out English system; but, looking at the tribunal by the results of the inquiry that took place, he was bound to admit that they had gone into that inquiry as impartially as it was possible for /Lama to do. It was impossible for any one to read the mass of testimony there given —for it had since received the most unreserved publicity--without seeing that it" proved, in the moat conclusive manner, Mr. Mathees statement to be correct. Lord JOHN RUSSELL h a d sa i d nothing against the Tu scan tribunal. Lord STANLEY must say the Noble Lord alluded to it briefly, but he understood hiin to do so in such a manner as to imply that it was a tribw , al from which justice was not to be expected. lieu the Noble Lord came to the material points of the case. The t r ib una l h av i ng comp l e t e d th e in quiry, and su b stantiated the statement of Mr. Mather, the 'Tuscan Government declared that their power was limited — that they had elicited the facts, but that it was not in their Power to d o m ore . T wo ques ti ons t h en arose for the consi deration ~.r _, of the Austrian and British Governments --the being, from what Government th e reparat i on f o r the outrage o te t h e committed was to come; and the secon d, w h a t shou ld e us m t s nature and extent of that repa ra ti on ? Now ? _ the Noble ore ay that he looked upon the fi rs t qu estio; important than it seemed to b e regarded 1852. 15, Lord; he looked upon it as important, because the in fluence such a precedent would possess would lead to the establishment of a rule of proceeding in all similar cases, and because it would be the means of establishing the best mode of bringing to justice an offender who might commit an injury upon a British subject.—(Hear, hear.) References had been made to several instances which it was said were analogous to the present; such, for example, as an outrage committed daring the occupation of France by the allied army; also in Spain, when that country was invaded in 1823 by the French army. Neither of these instances could be cited as precedents, for both the countries referred to were occupied by hostile armies. Another argument employed was that in the Nizam's terri tories of India, where there was a large force commanded by British of f icers, if one of those British officers insulted a foreigner, reparation, it was said, would be sought, not from the native princes, but from the British Government. He might remark that that case entirely failed to bear upon the question in the most important point, because that native State referred to had by treaty no external relations whatever. It *as independent it its internal affairs, but with respect to its foreign relations was absolutely depen dent. Therefore those cases offered no precedent to prove the irresponsibility of the Tuscan. Government in this matter. But there was a precedent which he considered had a consi derable bearing on the question, and that was the case of our troops in the Peninsula; for it had been stated by the Duke of r. ellington that those troops, even at a time of war, when the country was greatly disturbed, were subject to the Por tuguese tribunals, and remained so during the war; se strongly impressed was the British Government with the danger of not admitting the responsibility of foreign officers to native tribunals.—(Hear, hear.) Now, supposing the present Government had thought fit to take an opposite course with respect to Tuscany. Suppose the Government had said, " We admit your excuse, your irresponsibility ; we know you have no power to compel those officers to appear before your tribunals, and that being the case, we shall apply to the Austrian Government." That was the course which the Noble Lord recommended. Lord J. RUSSELL—I said both Governments. Lord STANLEY—Undoubtedly the Noble Lord spoke in reference to both Governments, but the Noble Lord said that his own colleague, Lord Granville, intended to apply to the Tuscan Government in the first instance, and, if he failed in obtaining reparation from that Government, he was then prepared to go to the Austrian Government. Thus the Noble Lord, professing to dread the influence of Austria and despotic Courts, and to be the warm advocate of all the liberal Governments in Europe, was prepared to take a course which would have amounted to a distinct and formal recognition of the absolute military occupation of Tuscany by the Austrian troops.—(Hear, hear.) It was stated by the Noble Lord that it could not be said that the Austrian officer in question had not been brought to trial, whatever might be thought of the nature of the trial and the jestice and impartiality of the tribunal. Still, it was perfectly obvious that he had b een b roug h t b e f ore a legal tribuna,, and by that tribunal tried and acquitted.—(An Honourable Member—Not a legal tribunal.) He had always ima gined that that court-martial was a regular court; and admitting that the Austrian Government took on itself the responsibility, trial by court-martial was the only trial pos sible. Now ho thought there could be hardly a more diffi cult question for diplomatists or cabinets to settle than to say what was the course which a Government should take when one of its subjects had been injured or insulted in a foreign country, and when the person committing the wrong had been brought to trial according to the legal forms of the country in which the offence took place, and after such trial acquitted, manifestly in defiance of all law and evidence. It was difficult to say how far a Government was justified in in terfering in such a case. An instance had occurred in which gross insult and violence had been offered in this country to a distinguished subject of Austria. He (Lord Stanley) would suppose that that person, having been so insulted at a time when there existed among a certain class of the population strong political feelings, had taken the case before a jury, and that in consequence of political excitement a verdict of not guilty should have been given in refer ence to the perpetrators of the outrage, in defiance of law and evidence; he did not think that in such a case it would have been in the power of the British Government to do anything except what the Austrian Government had done in the case of Mr. Mather—viz., express regret.— (Hear, hear.) He was quite sure that no civilized Govern ment, whether liberal or despotic, could take the matter into their own hands after the person had been once tried and acquitted according to the forms of law.—(Hear, hear.) He mentioned that merely as a difficulty which might have occurred had it been determined to make Austria responsi ble. But the main difficulty of making Austria responsible was the violation which it involved of a great international principle, and the admission that in the Tuscan dominions an Austrian officer serving the Tuscan Government was to be subject to ne Government but the Austrian.—(Hear, hear.) The Noble Lord had referred at considerable length to the nature of the reparation awarded to Mr. Mather, and had argued that the transactions of the British Govern ment had a tendency to damage that gentleman's character. The Government certainly had no intention to inflict such da mage, and if that were the case, he must say the Govern ment ought to take, and would take, the earliest opportunity of bearing testimony to the character of Mr. Mather.— (Hear, hear.) Mr. Mather, in the whole transaction, had suffered much pain,• anxiety, and annoyance, and if under feelings naturally excited he had not at all times donejastice to the conduct of the Government, that was no reason why the Government should not do justice to him.—(Hear• hear.) He admitted the difficult position in which that gentleman was put by the demand made on him to state his own compensati on f or th e i nsult; but he thought there was some misapprehension on Mr-Mather's part. Mr. Mather's view appeared to be that an Englishman having received a premeditated insult on the part of a' foreign Government, upon that Govern men t a fi ne s h ould be indicted, he would not say proportionate, for it was difficult to measure an in jury by money, but sufficient to express the sense of the En glish Government on the subject. He was willing to believe that that was Mr. Mather's view, and therefore he did not in that case think the demand of 5,0001. exorbitant or unreasona ble. But if the question was treated - as a personal, and not an international one, and that compensation equal to the in jury suffered was to be asked, then he thought the demand of 5,0001. would be, in that light, utterly unreasonable, and beyond what could he expected.—( Hear, hear.) He thought the Noble Lord had commented a littl e un f a irly on the various sums named in the papers, and stated that Mr. Scarlett had been ill-treated, because, after a wide discre tion had been left him, he had been disavowed for going below the sum of 5001, Now Mr. Scarlett had hipeself stated, in one of the papers before the House, that if he treated the Mather question by itself, his instructions absolutely pre vented him from consenting to any minimum except 5001. He did not wish to say one word that could be consi dered harsh or unjust to Mr. Scarlett, and would repeat what was stated in the papers, that Mr. Scarlett was suffering at the time under a state of health which almost terminated his life. If, under those circumstances, Mr. Scarlett committed an error of judgment, that was an error which ought to be dealt with as leniently as possible. But the real question- e and that was the point which the Noble Lord seemed to avoid—with reference to which Mr. Scarlett was disavowed, was, not that he had taken 222/. instead of 500/. —not that he had consented to accept, as part of the bargain, the release of two political prisoners, whose release had been, indeed, previously promised—not for one or other of these deviations from his instructions, but he was disavowed because he had expressly and in contraven tion of his instructions disclaimed that principle which it was the great object of the Noble Lord at the head of the Foreign-office and the Government to assert—the responsibi lity of the Tuscan Government in such a case as the one un der consideration.—(Hear, hear.) -Lord J. RUSSELL—Where is that? Lord STANLEY—It was stated in one of the dispatches. "Although her Majesty's Government were willing to consider that Mr. Scarlett, under a combination of diecul ties, acted to the best of his judgment when he agreed to re ceive a sum so much smaller than the Minimum which his in struct'ons permitted him to accept, and under that impression informed you, on the 21st inst., that they recognised his act, it is impossible for her Majesty's Government to sanction the renunciation of so important a principle as that to which Mr. Scarlett now appears to have surrendered, and still less to admit that a British subject cruelly injured on Tuscan territory is indebted to the charity of the Grand Duke for that protection and compensation which he has a right to claim from justice and international law." Lord J. RUSSELL—Mr. Scarlett does not say so. Lord STANLEY—That dispatch was addressed by Lord Malinesbuty to Sir H. Bulwer. He was endeavouring to show that lllr. Scarlett was not disavowed for taking 2221. instead of 5001., or for accepting in a most unusual way the release of two political prisoners, but for expressly surren dering that important principle which it was the main ob ject of the negotiation to establish.—(Hear.) He thought he had now gone through the principal points which the. Noble Lord had selected for comment, and he would not . further detain the House by entering upon the wider and more general questions to which the Noble Lord had re ferred. He could not in this transaction find anything which' indicated on the part of the Government that which the Noble Lord had charged against them—an insensibility to the rights of British subjects, and he was content to let the case rest on the evidence contained in the papers before the House.—( Hear, hear ) Mr. OSBORNE said, he was one of those who lamented' the course taken by the Noble Lord the Membor for London ;! leeteusse if ever there, was a question which ought to be eemel siarea separately on its merits, without the general imbe-I cility of the present Government being mixed up with it, it was the case of Mr. Mather and the conduct of the Noble Lord whom the country had the misfortune to see installed in, the Foreign-office.—(H ear an d laughter.) He asked. the House whether it ever heard a statement so lame and impotent Se that made by the Under-Secretary for Foreign - Affairs? The Noble Under-Secretary had said,' that that House was not easily convinced; but would.the country be easily convinced that the department over which the Under-Secretary did not preside, and he (Mr. Osborne) lamented that, because he thought the Noble Lord's here ditary spirit would at least impel him to conduct the affairs of the country better than the Earl of Malmesbury, had treated this case, with common decency or propriety ? (Hear, hear.) The Noble Under-Secretary had referred to our expedition to Portugal, but he was bound to have told the House that the convention by which the Austrian troops had' possession of Tuscany was peculiar in every re speete and such as had never been entered into by one inde pendent state with another. It was to the effect that 8,000 Austrian troops were to march into Tuscany and take possession of the country, and were not to be amenable to any authority but the Austrian Minister of war. There was also a remarkable stipulation, that those troops were not to leave the country without the mutual consent of both parties. Consequently, though the Tuscan Goveircne-s yofhLokSr.dteL3Linaagil °Voer ment might say that they no longer required the services of the Austrian troops, they sould not be remoer ed , Tear, out the consent of the Austraiu Government.iEnweisthuryiil offencehear.) very wTasheenteringh into dthisfrontpett ea and Tuscan Government, and not calling the ho A ar7 .l. Vie N the meet to account for the insult.—(Hear' Mather was . orp-ecuniary wed that the person who first suggested the m e lee Under-Secretary had insinuated tdi c a t t subject sae - eare d in a satin, but the papers before the y , rge „ p p Lordcompensation Granville, ye la di s played an in- of Mr. Scarlett to uch suggestion of pecuniary as ho eo the Austrian per view' of the case, inasmuch of aa in aifucultee to?„P p a pers it appeared tention, case reparation. Fru ° --- Mather whether he 1 3 1; took a pro. Government for asked Mr. r . e , a GovernmentMalineenrY g ° to oreign ' wmcn was a most compe Minister to use to a that Lord wished the e u 'o for the L e y then, in the true spirit you take for your injury ?f' k " W ha imesbury therefore suggested pe of a' pedlar, as ere hear.) Lard e fea a suggestion which was accepted by (Hear, compensa tion and reluctance —(H cu 'ary .t,nein • ear. ; But on British nionsrls subject. ex )1. asks s L o r m e m blather ,"5,000/., for which he stated his reasons, u s ' u ni r y le , is behind his back, and without giving him Dir. m a u l er Lord Malin,,ciion on the point, wrote a letter to Mr. Scarlett, any infirig this as an exorbitant demand, and narahlk (Le w ° j 'g o n t a ! ls ri the sum for which a British subject might be cut clover: l a the streets of Florence.— s s (Cheers and laughter;) Lo Malroesb ury in one of his dispatche stated that the Ba ne n amed by Mr. Mathe r was exorbitant, but that t Hear, hear wo uld w ould he able to judge " w h at can be got."—( ?) had written If the Noble Lord below hi m (L or d Paim er rta and how& such a dispatch when h e pres id e d w ith distill OMthe foongz3 affairs of the country, 'flat wv"" b' Y e been said by the then Opposition?-4Hear, hear ) "A palmier compensation is at least tangible," said Lord Malmesbury to . Mr. Scarlett; "you must hold firm language." Firm language, indeed, on the theme of " what can be . (Cheers and laughter.) That was in the true spirit of the peddling instinct which presided over the Foreign•office. That was on the 9th'of March, but soon after Lord Derby dinoacdtreinheisonf'e co m m o r p a r b o l n e l e speech and a L t r t d h e mal a n3 n s e i s o b n u - T h y Mouse a c ti o n n g ! ga bs that doctrine, wrote a very laconic dispatch, in -which he; same down to 5001;, in a spirit which waa worthy of the Board of Trade. The Noble Lord, who said he ctid not knot' s , much of this matter —an assertion he was very ready to believe, for he. doubted if he had read the whole of the r r9rs—remarked that Mr. blather's character had 'not been much damaged,- though Lord Malmesbury had endea voured to make it appear to th e T uscan Government that Bit. Mather. had been the first to ask for a pecuniary comp"' cation. Lord STANLEY explained. He never intended to say ; that Mr. Mather's character might not have been damaged: but he said there was not the slightest intention to damage it on the part of the Government, and that Mr. Blather. Oa w e understood) had borne testimony to the fair and candid will in which the Noble Lord had acted towards him. Mr. OSBORNE—If Mr Mather was satisfied with such an apology at the eleventh hour he was not the man he took hint for. He said it was Mr. Mather who first suggested a pecu niary compensation, whereas it was clear Lord Malmesbury had proposed it, and he knew that the English at Florence had passed Mr. Mather by in contempt, ender the impression that he had first put the question on the national honour,. and then said he w as rea d y t o t a k e 500/ ., whil e L ord MahnesbUri was ready to encourage that belief in the mind of foreigner and of the Tuscan Government. There was another matter welch never had been explained to the House to this day -- tho case of Corporal Baggs—be 'believed that to be one of the worst insults ever 'offered to the British power. What security had we f or th e lif e or honour el' a British subject when Lord Malinesbury was ready to act in such a waYf e natural e ttuh N rea o l b rp l. The boast ot " Civis Romanus sum" was gone now —it seemed merely to ticket a man to be insulted with impunity. greatest temper, knowledge of law, and firmness erg! o e o r s L e t i ,: n rd for:n o e c seep:red for the office of Foreign• Secretary, and he regretted t i h em er b ni er an fo w r i l s 'iv a e h r l t o on to litaakdeenvoerthleett hia posi tion with foreign powers he had done ; and, if he had been such dispatches would never have been id on the table —(Etear, hear.) To show that the At' s ' trian Government expected that a demand be made for reparation, Prince Lichtenstein ha d ' witk the sanction cf Marshal Radetzky, put Baron Pg . Barg, the officer who commended the outrage, under arrest for a week. It was the Austrieu Govertment they we re bound to call upon to show Lieutenant Forsthuber rag justified in his conduct; and, if they failed to do so, ther,t ° demand some' mark of their regret 'for what'had occurren_l but the Austriane, so far from expressing contrition, bad commended Lieutenant Forsthuber's conduct, and he It, going about Florence as a sort of hero," as the man w"," had cut down the Englishman." (No, no.) Yes, n 6 knew it to be the case ; and it was said Lord Malmesbury would had given Lieutenant Forathuber "a step."—(A laugh.) The Noble Lord had been distinguished through this stra l : i . not so much for incapacity a s fo r i n fi rm ity o f pur pose r e great ignorance. He had never c a lled on th e Q ue en's vocate for his opinion, but, having a ready but ungrarearati cal pen, he trusted to himself altogether, and the only m g c s i who showed *ell in the - case. and kept up the charecter the country, was Mr. Mather. Howdifferent was the coeclatt of the Nobre Lord when Mr. Russell was imprisonep at 5 4 8isr Grenada, and the Government refused all redress! ei g at once took the opinion of the King's Advocate, and s British fleet appeared off the port, whereupon the Govern' meat of New Grenada at once paid - 1.0001. Littl e had bee t, said about Mr. Scarlett, b u t h e Was at a loss to say la ict, was: the worst—the low vi ew s o f th e Foreign-office. or the total mismanagement of Mr. Scarlett. The Noble Lord said the poor man was very ill, bat he (Mr. Osborne) found that Mr. Scarlett had been very well till the difficu lt y t of his position commenced. On the 29th of May the Rlg Hon. Gentleman opposite said there would be improveme nt ; introduced into our diplomatic service, and that in )mere only men of classical attainments who had been at collet: should be admitted, [The CHANCELLOR of the Fereonesent"' —" I never used such words at all."] Then, the Right hleu Gentleman had been grossly misrepresented—indeed, he by': a man of too just a spirit to follow such views, and, to O d e popular phrase just now, there was " looming in t he g twice" a chance that - the Right Hon. Gentleman would We, wile/ away from - tire very bad corimany about him.—(A 'L e s But as to Mr. Scarlett, he was on excellent visiting te..-- A OLS, with Prince Lichtenstein and the Duke de Casigliano; as Mr. Mather said, he at i rs t t reate d t h e case ve ry en''''-h; He seriously impressed o n th e Ch ance ll or of t h e Exchequ er the expediency of sending Mr. Scarlett to some quiet Pig! e where there were no foreign troops, and to put Lord Walt: bin)? on - the half-pay list, -if there was such a thing at t he Foreign-office. He regretted very much the question bnu at been brought before the H ouse i n its present shape, and th he was prevented by some f o r m o f th e House from m oving i. direct vote of censure o n L or d M a l mes b ury f or trifling WI; the honour of the country, and for having disgraced ug o f the eyes of the wh o l e con ti nent o f Europe.—(Cries,. • " Move, move .1") the The Marquis of GRANBY was anxious to refer, se, the discussion on the question, to the commercial policy n i country, and particularly so because an election Wag inevitably approaching, and he, perhaps, would not baps..,, another opportunity. There never was a time, he must sPers; when the re were suc h b o ld and reckless assurances made, e, : r e the supporters of the free trade policy as the present. Noble Lord then adverted in succession to the dep.... s state of the agricultural interest, the silk trade, as exhil?lf; at Spitelfields, the West India interests, and these ()t e r.. colonies generally, and proceeded to argue that it was nary that some modification of the free-trade policy shout be adopted: The Hon. Member for Shrewsbury had stated that agricultural labourers , had not improved in accord: with the wealth of the country. Well, then, what inter had improved? He had great doubts if even the man he e facturing interests were in a prosperous state. Noble Lord then referred to a statement made ou t of the House by the Honourable Member for Scar' borough (Mr. G. P. Young), for tke purpose of show' ing that last year there were 400,000 quarters of corn less consumed in this country than had been con' sumed in the year 1846. Now, with respect to the labou r ing classes., It was said that they had reaped advantag es from the recent changes which had taken place in the cam' laws. This might be- true in certain places, where wag es were high. But it was not correct as regarded the great body of agricultural labourers, and he had letters from sea!: ral clergymen and other gentlemen to prove this. It I said that the labo u ring Classes had cheaper bread and cloth ing than formerly. Now, as regarded cheap clothing, al. ' though it was cheaper now than heretofore, it was yet true e that the clothing of former days was such that one go t o was worth two, and the same might be said with respect male attire. The Noble Lord then said that crime, p d ver ; th and emigration h a d i ncreas ed grea tly dna° 1846, an . at this resulted from want of employment. The queshq.e, issue would be b e t ween industry and idleness. They had Ministerial party) would put a duty on corn if they rroo the people of the country with them.—( the Opposition.) There were two remedies propose eise,..`. the present evils under which the industrial classes the' fered. The one was a return to protective duties, and _ fa other a revision of taxation, and he would infinitely I'7 the former. But if that could not be obtained, he thoughtarse- Laughteri. the peculiar burdens that' pressed on the agriculture lin great difficulties—(Hear, hear)—because they were r y o u_pel rests ought to be removed. Her Majesty's Governmentewel! ie in office, and had opposed to them a party long expee_c_7 and who had certainly not shown them mach maul r o ; They endeavoured first to force them to a premature lution—(Hear, hear, from the Ministerial benches v ) n Pe E a the then endeavoured to retard the public business. ' . ova .. Noble Lord himself had done even thing he could that The Noble ing to bring the Government into disrepute. eue_e the Lord stated they had no opinions. He certainly he. Government of this country butdaimself.—(Laught el i pro opinion, and that was that nobody was fit to conduct Ss i e s (the Marquis of Granby) was convinced of the truth 0 _ erg . tectionist principles, anti had no doubt but the sou 'Z e . count* would ultimately return to them. Tie had no further al 33 “` with regard to the coming elections than that tbenev,_,l, might be able to avert the misery which must i result from a free-trade policy.—(Cheers from the Mines"' side, and laughter from the Opposition.) tion to follow the Noble Lord who has jest sat down 0 1,,t i l' eee Viscount PALMERSTON said—Sir, it is not my ! ri nt . s e ll : --bete/ere. trade or the blessings of protection--(Hear, hear) _ e d . comparison of the relative merits ot the miseries r the calamities of cheap food and abundant subsistence!. the blessings of high-priced corn and the other concomitant of the system which the Noble Lord advocates. SIT', e rr,,,,,, upon all discussion on that questien as an idle waste 0 . 1 Z . __ - (Hear, hear.) The principle of, protection is dead. (Cheers, and a cry of " No.") I rely, like the Noble Lord. on the good sense and judgment of the country, ana or quite sure the country will act the part of a registrar-ge___..e., and that at the next election day the interment of tha Te e 'e e. rablo principle will be generally and universally regesatee"...7:., —(Hear, hear.) Sir, I wish to address some ieve tions to that which was the first topic of the speecele the Noble Lord (Lord J. Russell), and from which th Lord who has just sat down has led the House what may, in some respects, have been a convenient ier n e r_g'Z at feelings of sati s f ac ti on t h e Sir, I certainly must confess that I read with anytet In g that , the table relative to the affair of Mr. Mather. low wish for should wise. for the sake of the character of the country-, been buried in. the whole of that correspondence to have . say diet ohlivion.—( Hear, hear.) Sir, lam concerned hoe to 1 from the be that feeling on my part applies to the oepers-whiolehave been laid upoo the wrong.--- it was not a comedy, but a tragedy . . of I that I find much to (Hear, hear.) I cannot help sa y in g __ parties concerned, ex ginning to the end—for I must own that : it seems tome to me ate criticise in the conduct of almost all cept Mr. Math think the t present hear) -el t took a wrong view—(Hear, and I am sorrytu.say, Government took a wrong v.ec t i argo d'Adaires at I ionence think in some respects, the . t i s the course when . a ' W 3 tcoo a wrung view. Now, mate d on a British subject has been com ht to pursue? Why , personal outrage Government oug Mather and his eon. I the late ("overnient abroad that the British it is the first duty of the ascertain dree of injury which the facts of the case—to asctearined, r and how far he was in the ment to ascertain clearly the how far those hy whom the or, if not in the msves unjustifiable aggressors wrong, , Elbe' Government infliete finds that an o a e has utr g injury was t e Having done the , A eparation ought to ue demanded. That been committee, r British subject has sus w G ro : g e , rn i s t first in a demand for the punishment may COLIS reparation d r next also in a demand for compensation to of the offen t'epon these points it has always been the prace tary of State to consult the Queen's A.dvo tice for before that officer the facts of the case, to ask bins sate, to lay ding to his view and knowledgeofthe habits of what, according . courts of justice in this country, might be the fitting sum to enand as pecuniary compensation, and in how far, accord ing to international law, the British Government might ber 'justified in demanding the punishment of the wrong-doer. Government. But the first question that arjsea the suffetrbeer.Lcre Now, this does not appear to have been done by either an injury inflicted ? I think that no man who has 'et - ` these papers can hesitate in believing that a grievous inlnL' t was committed, that a British subject was exposed to a as violent and cowardly outrage without any provocation whatever. A British subject harmlessly accompanies band of music in the streets of Florence. He is first another officer an officer with his sword, then by the fist of , officer, and then in a cowardly manner he is cut down e v! , the sword of the first officer who struck him. Now, what is the feeling of different countries with regard . ;, b il7 y, attack by an armed man upon one who English le butcher, e wil ° ' we all know the did anecdote of the n. while employed was therts, in the avocation of his profess a i , o wl3 7 cowardly fellow you m ust be said he, ' *hat a mean and _e his and ca n't striketo a man who has a knif in_ hand,. such that is the English feeling on struck by , a man with whom he had had words. retain the blow." Sir, Now, what is the French a subject.—(llear, hear. ) eknow that there was a distinguieb P " w bo officer in the British service, feeling? Many . 0 1 u 'named Colonel Harvey', had lost his arm in engagement. He served in tile a 5 it • t into battle, there happened a 'fete d ing his regimen mutilated as he was. In the act of bring' called, between the contending trwP 6 '' a French officer rode up to him, and withsabre "Antal oat wasPe Peninsular i t n e s c u h l n a r i technical) y r' down; but when he saw 0 114 going to cut him 9 _ - • 1114 0 2 4 9/1. arw PPE ' 124 Tf"P c4h , "4--r.144r:P5:- R