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 Bishop 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 the other question of the Right Hon. Gentleman, it was rather for the House to decide than himself. The Right Hon. 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 de all that lay in his 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—(lt u ea r r s , hear)—and at this period of the session, whe n its very h were numbered, and there was such an amount of public bu siness, of course he must look to the business of most impor tance.— (Hear, hear.) However, he would watch the pro gress of public business, and if he could facilitate the appoint ment of the Committee, would do so ; but could not pledge 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 (as he deemed the question one of the highest constitutional importance) to detain the Hou ip at some length in supporting. these motions.—(A laugh.) lie was prepared to perform his duty on the matter, and thought 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 Hon. 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 was one of those who bad consented to serve on the Com mittee ?—(llear, hear, and a laugh.) Mr. HORSMAN said the Chancellor of the Exchequer had suggesteil to substitute the Hon. and Learned Gentleman's name for one that had been struck out.—( Hear.) The CHANCELL' IR of the EXCHEQUER said this was only on the under - Standing that all the other gentlemen whose names were on the list had consented to serve— (Hear, hear)—and he bad distinctly understood from the lion. Member that the Right Hon. Gentleman the Mem ber for Oxford University had agreed to sit cn the Corn mittee.—(Hear, 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 had asked the Right Hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary why the annual vote for the repairs of Maynooth 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 rote, and they had, therefore, omitted to place it on the estimates which the present Government had adopted. He wished row to ark the Hon. Gentleman, the late 'Jailer-Secretary for the Treasury (Mr. C. Lewis), whethe r it were not within his knowl3.lge that an estimate had been sent in from the Board of Works, Ireland (the proper autho rity 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 1,000/. or VOW. world be re • quirel for the repairs of Maynooth College. Befcre 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 beet proposed as usual to the House.—(Hear.) THE 0 UTE AGE_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 be desirable to lay it on the table (meaning, I presume, that reasons of public interest would prevent the Government from laying ion the table)—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 1 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 altogether unnoticed by Members of this House, such gentlemen as might have the good fortune to be elected for the next Parliament would be told that they had taken no notice of these capers, 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 is advisable that Members 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 skull, 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 plaint was made to my Noble Friend, Earl Granville, then eree Seel atary. of State for Foreign Affairs, who immediately to t ile to Mr. Scarlett, our acting mini-ter at Florence, and e 'Earl of Westmoreland, our ambassador at Vienna, statilig b tlke f acts of the case. But in the meantime a dis patchiattl been received from Mr. Scarlett, stating that a tion been c iairn had been asked for, and had at his solieita iniftituted, and was to commence immediately. Earl Granein :l7 therefore, wrote: "I have n heed a report from Mr. Scarlett, stating that at his re o gus r e e t e e by Mr. Math er: a:l 4 d in conformity with a desire expressed Taman government has consented to a judicial in k ' the I have, therefore , no official instruc tions to address to ; but if this inquiry is not fairly conducted and h e r o u .. !_nce is used to suppress the truth, the British Government he obliged to ask for reparation for this outrage upon an will ending and unarmed British subject from Austria, roar Majesty's G overn l Press the confident expecta tion of her rn that such' reparation will be promptly afforded b Austrian G . overnment. Y the ' ' " Mr. Mather has understood end ,statedthat it was said in the House by me, that there be proceedings before the regular 'bunals at Floren S e u n d tri , at 1 never said thing. What I said was report e d r . said any such had been offered in Hansard, that a judicial inquiry then, Mr. Scarlett had d obtained the "tu the case. Thus, then, Pilmai se of an inquiry, , which was to be at once instituted, 9, arising are—what was the nature of th : to_ first questions be required? o f 'mice, and what was the reparation to the course the second e offence was wa nton . or un y question depends entirely upon first. if the ...,. of a certain nature, entirely. f ' P "61 'eti kind ired, but i it were , one of reparation would be requ ation l merely wou a be yan ac cident, a different kind of reparation in ' ury, the str. sufficient. Now, Sir, as to the nature of the i in g t than T intu lts made by the two parties are more conflicting had at first supposed. Mr. Mather states : "On the forenoon of the 29th o f last month adeataelltaaut of the infantry regiment Minsky was marching hehsafeena err, the Via dei Martelli, preceded by its band. T them ( including Mr. persons accompanied the music, some of band 11- '• Mather and his brother) walking between theand the troops. An obst ruc ti on was cr eated in a narrow part of the street by the passage of a carriage. Mr. Mather came acci dentally in the way o f t h e com mander of the detachment, Lieutenant Forsthuber, and admits that he may possibl y 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 expostulate was struck in the f ace by another with his fist. Whil e s taggering from this blow he received a sabre -cut on the head from Lieutenant Forsthuber, which wounded him so severely that his life still still in danger. He was then taken to the hospital/ an d lies there." The account given by the Austrian officers is very different. It is stated by the Austrian Minister : " The detachment of infantry which, preceded by rani tary 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 officer, 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, but continued to walk in the same manner. After this proceeding had been several • times repeated, the officer became angry, and forcibly thrust the man who prevented him from conti nuing march, . and who he could not but think did so with mischievous intent, as he did n politely. ot attend to words spoken "Another officer who accompanied the guard, without being on duty, gave (under a like impression) another to this individual, who turned round with an irritated look and was no other than t ile Mather. Up on that Mr. Mather ' Pu tting himself in a boxing attitude advanced with isv d . h' fist towards the officer _who uplifted ..... .wa1 1 . ,_ was on duty, and had his . sabre in hand. The officer, w h o certain' could not submit to be treated after such a fashion, and Y. wno was exposed to the risk of receiving an outra geous insult at the head of his detachment, made use of his arms b y . wing Mr. Mather a stroke of his sabre." The House will see that there is the greatest difference be tween the two accounts.—(Hear , hear.) In the one ca se , - there appears to have been a Wan= an d ' lluPreveked ta - T E I 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 he could only prevent the dishonour of the insult by striking him with his sword. Sir, I naturally looked to se e w h at 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 hadtheparatineas who gave these two contradictory accounts confronted examined. That is the way i n which we proceed in this country in similar cases. It appears, however, that this t case no such cours e was t a ken. It never seems o have oc curred to the Gove r n m ent to ask to hav e the facts ascer tained, although, on the one han d, Mr. Mather states t e solicitationk y that the youn g man received the last blow while staggering o h t i h le erside,itis under the effect of the second; while , on stated as positively that his mena cin g attitude p rovoke d the sword-cut. I will read what Marshalappointed at the the House will observe that h e sets aside the deci s i on of the Tuscan court of inquiry Scarlett. The Marshal sa y s— Ra d tof m " On the 29th of December last, First Lieutenant Forsthu ber, marching at the head of his detachment directed to oc cupy the post at th e . 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 flat of his sword, and afterwards with his left hand, the first in timation having been ineffectual. In complying with this injunction Mr. Blather, apparently without intention, knocked against Lieutenant Baron de Barg, 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 of 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 diately a blow on the head with the edge of his sabre. Mr. carried to thewound,r,whosehospita. l moreover, did not seem serious, was " 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 de 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 proceeding 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 for a week." Sir, this seems to me rather a peremptory declaration upon the part of Marshal Radetzky.—("Hear, hear," from the Liberals.) He is a person whom all Europe respects for his gallantry and his character—(Loud cheers)—but he seems to set at naught anythinglike civil testimony, and to conclude that nothing but the evidence of soldiers is worth heving—(flear, hear.) Not a word do we hear, 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 ore no means of ascertaining whether the testi. raony of the soldiers was entitled to credit, or whether it were shaken or contradicted. But the Government having taken no means to ascertAn the truth, one would think that at least they would have decided themselves which was the story to be believed, and that they would have said either "horn 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 from 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 cenducive to the ends of justice, if the party aggrieved had been allowed to La present, either in person or by his advocate, during the examination of the various witneses, yet as it is stated that such a course wonid have been incon sistent with the practice observed in Tuscany in regard to such matters, her Majesty's Government are content to take the evidence as it has been communicated to then; 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 evidence 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 lust sentiments by which the Grand Duke of Tuscany is distinguished, that they are satis fied that the Government 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 ihitn 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 cf it as a " fortuitous accident :"-- "Her Majesty's Government entirely agree with his High ness that there ia 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 caused by a concourse of fortuitous and unfortunate cir cumstances' ( contours de circonstances fortuites et malheu 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 northern provinces of France by the allied armies, the soldiers were not under the civil tribunals of that country. Count ' Buol added, that as the question at present stood, he did not see that he could do more than wait for information from Tuscany as to the line that Government had taken upon the 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 no t 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, and 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 stated that there is no reason whatever to suPpose 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 ?Slender with the hilt or flat of their sword. It was, there fore. a brutal act, although unpremeditated ; and as I under stand the skull of the sufferer is iujured, and he is not in opulent ci rcumstances, a pecuniary compensation is both an ptutable and a legal demand on his part." hu c s a t t n n 't understand how a man could be " cut down by hnstlfn a Sol dier."—(Laughter from the Liberals.) The n do g" Wight, perhaps, provoke the soldier to cat the ma „vm, one can hardly speak of its beingac cident, that a “ violent soldier" should cut a man down. thus However, after a ll , Mr. Addington writes to Mr. Mather —: eudnraineritedaining traiction of informing you, by the direc tion of the Earl of flow negotiations with the that after long and yeas outit Tuscan Government, Mr- Scar for your son a practical a l e t t o t n e h a: : t s u f o e r c e t h e d e at Florence, by the. payment by brutal treatment he received of 1,000 francesconi. A h reL e l s that Government of the sum do not consider that this g" her Majesty's Government sum .i. . which Mr. Blather suffered, o r . o equivalent to the injury Court would have awarded hi m ast damn that which an English and although it is less than Mr. Scarlett was instructed to that Mr. Scarlett acted to the w it ~ 1, 19 A:e reason to believe concluding the controversy!, of hie judgment in thus This quite contradicts the idea o f an „ accident." "An unprovoked and bru tal outrage" can not be accident may be violent, but if it be once an accident.7An accident, that takes away its " brutal admitted to be an ," and it have been au "unprovoked outrage. -_(f ir) cannot Thus t it appears that with respcct to the very fi rs ,, hen, nature of the injury—whether it was an accident, un provoked outrage, the Noble Lord . has no r!! or an never been able to make aecidee has up his mind !--(cbeer. from Opposition.) It is net surprising, then, that ti'eov the meat having taken no store to ascertain the t roth, an. , ern ther Mr. blather's account or Marshal Radetzkr s „uerwhe right one —it is not to be wondered at that they should the have acted very consistently ac to the reparation t o be 7 ) t . tained. My Noble Friend Earl Granville had asked ample reparation, and, though the Government of Tuscany were xesponsible, my Noble Friend said if the inquiries institut e d , .. , • - , LONDON, TUESDAY 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. Mather, in the first instance placed the ques tion in the hands of E ar l G ranv ill e 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 coarse, or any other, by our receiving official authority and instructions how 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. lured, and Mr. Scarlett has a very cruel censure passed upon him by his Government. Mr. Mather 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 thought personal reparation should be obtained for Mr. Erskine Mather,and to desire Mr. Mather's opinion on this point, he begs to state that it is with the utmost pain that he addresses bimselt 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. Mather 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.) Hemmed 5,0001.; 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 fiir Tiverton called on the Queen's Advocate to state the amount of compensation which was due. The Queen's Ad vocate said that 201. a day was the sum which ought to be ached, 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 men:—(Hear. hear, and cheers)—never th oug ht o f li sten i ng 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 he 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. Bat what does Lord Malmesbury do? He does not fix the sum—he does not tell Mr. Mather what he thinks it oug h t to b e, b ut h e writes a general direction to Mr. Scarlett to obtain a sum of money, and he says that Mr. Mather has asked a sum of 5 0001., which he considers to be exorbitant. Now look at the injury which is thus done to Mr. Mather. 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 thah by asking him what reparation he ought to obtain, and then proclaiming to the Goiernment at Florence that Mr. Mather is a man who asks an exorbitant sum.--(Hear, hear.) Accordingly we have scon 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. Mather, 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 are given to Mr. Scarlett as 'to the sum which ho 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, supposing 5001. to have been a fair sum, the only clear course was to say, "We have estimated the injury at 500/. and that sum we will take, and no less." However, nothing specific is asked, but Lord Malmesbury expresses an expectation that a sum proportioned to the injury received by Mr. Mather should be paid by way of compensation, and according Mr. Scarlett made a demand to that effect on the Tuscan Go vernment. In one of his dispatches Lord Malmesbury directs that a sum of money should be demanded, and he says, " If the principle be admitted, we shall not be very long in agreeing about the amount." Again, on the 9th of April, Lord Malmesbury writes : "You must get Mr. Mather 500/., or such a sum as would purchase him an an nuity." Well, Mr. Scarlett finds that he cannot get NO/ , but he at length comes to an agreement with the Tuscan Government, which, I must say, is not a very satisfactory agreement, and which, it appears to me, he ought never to have cnnsented to without referring home for instructions from the Government. Bnt 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 quotdd, 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 M a j es ty' s G overnmen t are rea d y to a d m i t 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. Mather, the only persons who are found to suffer in the end are Mr. Mather and the agent to whom you entrusted your nego tiations.--(Hear, hear.) And do not tell me that Mr. Scarlett was not capable of carrying out his instructions. Mr. Scarlett has had considerable experience; and, if pro perly instructed, I have no doubt would have efficiently obeyed those instructions.—(Hear, hear.) And be it ob served that all this time the Austrian Government, which professes the most conciliatory disposition, whi c h s h ows 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 Tus 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 civilians, and it is beyond our power to arrest "or to puni s h an A us t r i an 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 troop s are s t a ti one d in countries which ought to be independent—l mean the States of the.Choh ry , and the Tuscan States—eve r y E ng li s h ma n, I. say, Is liable to suffer anything which an A us t r i an officer may tam i proper to inflict upon him, and there is no chance of redne_sas -al*, hear.) Nor is Mr. Mather's the only case of kind. I understand that a non-commissioned officer of Marines has been lately severely puni s hed according to the Austrian code.—(Hear, hear.) Then I say again, that al though this case was in itself simple eno u gh, and althoug h neither the Austrian Government and the Tuscan Govern ment_ seem to have been ready to resist any reasonable de mand, yet such was the mode in which Lord Malmesbury has conducted this transaction, that it can but lead to ridi cule and contempt on the part of the foreign Governmen ts. I shall only say a few words on the last part of the trans! , action, as far as we know it. On the 24th of May, Lord Malmesbury said, that though her Majesty's G o vernment did not approve of this settlement, yet that, under the cir cumstances, they could not refuse to recognise it. The dispatch containing that decision was signed and sent off on the 24th 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 re ad by Lord Malmes bury till after the other dispatch had been sent off on the 24th. It does seem extraordinary, considering the regu larity with which business is transacted in the Foreign-offiao: especially considering the regularity w ith w hich Mr. Ad dington, the Under-Secretary of State, iasure to transmit all dispatches of importance—it does seem strange that Lord Malmesbury should not have read that dispatch of the 2 . 2 t till after the 24th. But as he did not see it t i ll after the 24th it would have been better that he should have remained sa tisfied with what had been done, and not have disturbed the decision. But after having stated to Mr. Mather, and ll'ua claimed to the Tuscan Government that her Majesty's (Go vernment would not refuse to recognise the settlement, there comes another di s p a t c h open i ng up the w h o l e ques tion, and desiring Sir Henry Bulwer to leave Florence—to break off all diplomatic intercourse with the Tuscan Government .un less they should consent to make some farther 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 do not see h ow the charact er o fth e transac tion will be . at all improved. The onlyeconsequence w ill be that British glhJeCt. B residing there will not hays th e am i e tanse of S UN, EVENING, JUNE l5, 1852, 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 ell 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, bat 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 apportunity of giving it him thus publicly—is not to ask the present Government 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 CordoYa 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 course which Lord Derby did when ho 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 nd—that the high-minded, generous feeling, of this g people is opposed to measures suc h as h ave b een taken by the Government of the co u nt r y—th a t w e sepe rate our actions from theirs—our feelings from theirs—our r views of justice and good faith from theirs." I also take leave to separate my feelings—my notions ofjus tice and good faith—from the course which the Government case. —(Year, hear.) I beg leave to against conduct which seems to me to d egra de this Government i n t h e eyes o f E urope — aga i nst con d u ct which does not d egra d e t hi s coun t ry, b ecause the country takes far better an d hi g h er v i ews th an its ehnasterpmurysupedrotionatthis Go vernment of what is due to its character. I trust, 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 only country in Which a free press and free discussions in the Legislature can fairly be said to make themselves felt, because although the forms of constitutional ;government exist in se veral States of Europe, those forms are in some cases so per verted, while other countries in which they are not perverted, and where real liberty exists, are so small and so dependent on their more powerfal neighbours, 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 our character unhurt and our honour untarnished. It becomes us, if we have occasion to ask for redress from a foreign Go vernmeat, to proceed mildly and with temper ; but, at the sa me time, to insist on that which we really think due to us.—(Hear, 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 th e se, he will censidei# how great is the charge that has been intrusted to h im, 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 Ministers that they could not bring forward in the present Parliament those measures which they thought essential to remedy, in some respects, the evils which the measure of 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 naeure of their policy. With respect to the first of these points, something like a satisfactory under standing was eventually come to. The reluctance which at first seemed to be entertained of protracting the session to the usual period, 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 distinctly raised was the adoption or rejection of the Reform Bill. When Sir R. Peel dissolved, in 1834, 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 policy which be 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 of 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 what their opinions are with respect to that question on w hi c h f or s ix 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 head of the Government, then in 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 coon 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...4c Are you prepared to uphold the financial and commercial policy which has prevailed since 1842 ?—(Hear, hear.) Is it your opinion that the policy of the last ten years, ;1, wile- , 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 a nswer.—( e \ - 11- ar•e 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 the House looked upon it as conclusive in favour of a free trade policy, 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 on e thought of taunting the Right Hon. Gentleman or any of his colleagues with inconsistency. The Right llon. Gentleman, however, found a critic, a commentator, and an and who adversary; was he? He appeared at the Mansion house in the person of the First Lord of the Treasury.— (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 su pplied it by somethin g. 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 of those opportunities to answer my own Chancellor of the Exchequer. - (Hear, hear and laughter.) Though we have not obtained from the Noble Lord at the head of the Go vernment any clear declaration of the policy to be pursued, we have been favoured with expositions of it from other Members of the Gove rnment and its supporters. The Chan cellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and the Solicitor-General declare themselves anxious to reverse our existing commer cial policy. We hays seen rofes ee sed supporters of L or d Derby's n e -vernmalsent going into the country and declaring that above all: things they wish not to have the corn-laws re-imposed ; and lam told that on e of these Gentlemen, who is canvassing Maidstone, has have issued at l an eng addr ess in which he says, " I rejoice to say, we th an „ honest Government, and there is no l on ger any chance of re-imposing a tax upon bread."— (Laughter.) lam at, to told by a friend near me that the Tory o r Derbyite c andidate for Greenwich parades the town with a big loaf carried before him.—(Much laughter.) All these circumstances combine to shroud the intentions of the Government in ambiguity. At length, it seemed as if a light had b roken upon the Chancellor of the Ex chequer, when he h Stated in his recent address to his consti tuents that, — "The time has go neby when the injuries •• . which the great interests " dor removed by producing te endure can be alleviate a recurrence to the law s which, previously to 1846, protected them from such , calamities." The on ly circumstance to be surprised at is, that this light s h ou ld have be en so l ong i n reac hi n g the Right Hon. Gen tleman. The question was raised at the election of 1847. Since then it a - le undergone repeated discussions in Perlis - Inent, and it has been obvious to 19 persons out of 20, for the last three or fou tone the time for the re-imp r years, tion of the corn.] lt seems, however, that the Chancellor aWS was g. of the Exchequer did not make this discovery . Until the other day W e Chancellor of the Exche quer says besides *- * hisaddress is not very reassuring. He tells his constituentsn rent of land has diminished no less than 5,000,. that the I will not stop to inquire whe ther that e; u -- retlmsta a e Y ' ea a r itribntable to the cause to which the Chancellor of th n e e Ex is chequer refers it, but if the Right Hon. Gentlemen t h forward as a groundfor giving the landowners c pu stat 0 by imposing general burdens on the rest _ ._ompensation, P of the community, I can only say the idea is prepos terous.—..(Ree_., ( Hem '•) Suppose Lord Derby himself possessed of 5,®01 ' a 3rear, which are claimed by the parish as belong and to them The case is heard by the Lord Chancellor and goes to the House of Lords, and the final decision is that the A -, ° oo /. belong to the inhabitants of the parish, and must be surrendered t.o them. Imagine what would be the surprise of the Lord Chancellor and the House of Lords if La r d should be call e d u pon to make up the 5,000/. which Lord Derby hadwrongfully held from the poor by a general tax th • _ _ 0 parnh.—(Cheers and aug . 1 hter ) The corn-laws were Lever defended by any man of sense on the gronnd that they gave an addition to the income of the land °wllerse—(Hear, hear.) The ground taken by the ad vocates of those laws was that of general national ad antage ari s ing f rom independence of foreign supply. The n •. ply being of opinion that this was a fallacy, and that it unnecessary continue the laws, there was no pretee _ _ to . ratan tor saying believep ought to be given to the landowners. I that I are speaking in the interest of the landowners themselves. Nothing could be so injurious to their influence—which was very great—as the notion that instead of defending the corn-laws as a national advantage, they had done so for their own benefit, and now required compensation for loss sustained by their repeat-- (gear, hear.) The revision of taxation, and re adjustment of burden which the Chancellor of the Ex chequer "will not, I am says "looms in the future, afraid, : the Duke give much ' • satisfaction to the farmers, whom of Richmond has telling year after year that, as soon been as Lord Derby office, there would be a dissolution, and then the came into protection back again.—(Hear, hear.) That was would have at was the language of the Duke of Richmond, endorsed, The I must sa :1 D by the Noble Lord at the head of the Go vernment.' u k e always told the farmers not to lay out their m in expensive manures, and money drown •' g and . . that the wa y to get rich Was to drive out the late Ministers. The only a• fa r mer now has is to be told that a consolation the chance of light • hi s burdens looms laugh.) The lightening pursued in the future.—( t e y since 1842 was a n excellent mode of lightening the burdens of the people. The Chan cellor of the Exchequer ha d given a striking proof of this when he stated that sugar duties to the amount of 700,0001, had been reduced, with a loss to the revenue of only 3001. , Can there be better policy to pursue? All I hope is, that a . the farmers, having been deceived for the last six years by bein g Old that they would got back protection, will not allow themselves to be again deceived by being told that they can be restored to prosperity by any other means than the exertion of their own skill and industry.—(Hear, hear.) Passing from this topic, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in his address, claims credit for what Ministers have done and what they propose to do. With the exception of the Militia Bill—the credit of which I willingly resign to them —(A laugh)—all their measures had their origin with the late Government. Of these, Chancery reform was one of the most important. That was no party question. I am far from asking credit for it as a party measure, but a Commission having been instituted by the late Government, made their report upon the subject, and it was announced in the Queen's speech that on that subject a measure would be introduced. The Go vernment introduced a Bill, but even at the last moment there were clauses in it so objectionable that my Right Hon. Friend the Member for Ripon, who belonged to the com mission,- had to insist upon the report of the Commissioners 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 which the Government have, as I think, raised very grave questions, and made most dangerous admissions. In the first instance, I will advert to the system of education in Ireland.—(Hear, hear.) A plan of mixed education had been settled for years in that country, and people in general were satisfied with it, but the present Government were no sooner in office than they said they would make a change with respect to that system, and that they would do some favour to the Established Church, by which the Established Church should obtain a portion of the grant. Now, I cannot con ceive anything more dangerous for Ireland. because it is admitted—l believe it was stated by Lord Derby, and also by the Bishop of Ossory at a meeting of the Church Educa tion Society—that if you grant a separate system in order to have the children educated in the Scriptures according to the authorized version, or according to the wishes of the Church of England, you must at the Caine tine 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. for education in Ireland; and it will be impossible to give more than 30,0001., or perhaps 50,0001., to the Esta blished Church for that object. You will then be giving 100,000/. for exclusively Catholic schools. But that will come to be another Maynooth question.—(Hear ' hear.) If you give 100,0001. for educating child ren in the Roman Ca tholic faith, will there not be as much objection to that as there now is to the 26,0001. which you pay to Maynooth? —( Hear, hear.) See the dangenof raising a question,that was settled.—(Hear, 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 sdtisfied 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 education was 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 knew 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 bad made their dispositions, that they bad the means of forming a Government, when called upon to do so, and the event showed this rumour to be perfectly 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 preliminary, 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 aro 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 nooth, 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 education 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.—(Alaugb.) ludeed 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 not made up 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, atter 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. Friend 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 thing, for I gave no opinion whatever. '—(Laughter. ) My Right Honourable Friend sssays,,hTehadtiffies a rsivneroypinoidodn with the Government, and they y thing, for we have no opinions whatever. —(Great laughter.) But, with great deference to them, in this country of England that is a good and sufficient reason for my Right Hon. Friend's distrusts—(Hear, hear.) This country will never be satisfied unless they have 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 express an opinion in 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 popular de claration, and one likely to attract popular favour; but, de pend upon it, it is not so.—(Hear, see men a t r, hear.) Thwehpoeolpialedosfstmhies country would be better pleased opinions, and who were ready to bring quest i ons clearly before them.—(Hear. hear.) Is the country likely to place its confidence in a Government that has no opinions, no principles, and which is ready to be guided by any wind that may port that is open fo r th em ?—(Cheers.) m rise into any Lord STANLEY would not enter upon the serious but un founded assertions with which the Noble Lord, at the con clusion o f hi s speech, had thought fit to attack the Govern ment generally; but he must be allowed to say that when the Noble Lord made a direct assault upon one department of the Government, and went on to accuse a member 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 busines s o f t h e country.—(Hear, p hear.) In dealing with the more confined 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 first 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 ease; 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.— (Hear, hear.) The Noble Lord began his address by stating that the different stories, 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 he 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 Malmesbury, 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 had 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.) prevent . it being But that did not in the slightest degree "brutal equally true that, so far as regarded the individual who re ceived-- the injury, looking at it not in a personal, but in a national point of view, the outrage ked " as any that ever came under public notice. was sas unprovoked —( HZ. hear.) The Noble Lord complained of the case having been submitted to a Tuscan tribunal.—("No," 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 truth. 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 our 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 a court to do. It was impossible for any one to read th e mass of testimony the re g i ven—for it had since received the most unreserved publicity without seeing that it proved, in the most concl us i ve manner, Mr. Mather's statement to be correct. Lord JOHN RUSSELL had said nothing against the Tus can tribunal. Lord STANLEY must say the Noble Lord alluded to it briefly, but he understood him to do so in such a manner as to imply that it was a tribunal from which justice was not to be expected. Then the Noble Lord came to the material points of the case. The tribunal having completed the in quiry, and substantiated 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 do more. Two questions then arose for the consi deration of the Austrian and British Governments --the first e being, from what Government th e rep should the aration f committed was to come; and th e second, what k r ust sae nature and extent of that reparation ? Now , ti a s more that he looked upon the first questioo u e h outrage ml b e the important than it seemed t o b e re garded by the Noble ' 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 during the occupation of France by the allied army ; also in Spain, when that country was inv a d e d i n 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 officers, 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 was 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. Bat 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 's 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 th e war ; so 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 cfficers 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 justice and impartiality of the tribunal. Still, it was perfectly obvious that he had been brought before a legal tribune' 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 he 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 bad 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. blather—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 difficinty which might have occurred had it been determined to make Austria responsi ble. But the main difficulty of making Austria responsible Wail 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 no 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 done justice to the conduct of the Government, that was no reason why the Government should not do justice to hire.—(Hear, hear.) He admitted the difficult position in which that gentleman was put by the demand made on him. to state his own compensation for the insult; but he thought there was some misapprehension on Mr. blather'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 Government a fine should be inflicted, 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. Ile 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 jury- suffered was to be asked, then he thought the demand of 5,0004 would be. in that light, utterly unreasonable, and beyond what could he expected.—( Hear, hear.) He thought the Noble Lord had commented a little unfairly 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 himself 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 minimuni except (001. 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—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 2221. instead of 5001. —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 difficul 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 structons permitted him to accept, and under that impression informed yon, 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—bIr. Scarlett does not say so. Lord STANLEY—That dispatch was addressed by Lord Malmesbury to Sir H. Bulwer. He was endeavouring to show that Mr. Scarlett was not disavowed for taking 222/. 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 generalHe could.questions h o a w t h r a i c u ll a a t c h ti e o n N fi o a b d l e anything Lotd had a w d h irceh fme r o r r e e d . in o d b ic le at L ed ord on h t a n d ch ep a a r r g t of ed the G N 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 Member for London ; because if ever there was a question which ought to be con sidered separately on its merits, without the general oble imbe 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.—(Hear and laughter.) H e as k e d the House whether it ever heard a statement so lame and impotent as that made by the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs? The Noble Under-Secretary had said, that that House was not easily convinced ; b u t wou l d the country be easily convinced that the department over which the Under-Secretary did not preside, and he (Mr. O s b orne) 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 possessi on o f T uscany was peculiar in every re te ever ree r beento Itm enteredawr ca hs intoto i n thetoa b u e se ' ffc o ae n nc e ty t inde pendentsahnadt 8 o e o c o t A a nu state s s d t ri a u n c r a i ots with had ps a nw n o t 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 roops wre not to leave the country without the mutual consent e of both parties. Consequently, though the Tuscan Govern ment might say that they no longer required the services of the Austrian troops, they sould not be removed with out the consent of the Austrain Government.—(Heal, hear.) The very head and front of Lord Malmea t b h urY the Tuscan was entering into this petty huckstering with Tuscan Government, and not calling Govern ment to account for the insult.—(Hear, hear.) Mather was the Under-Secretary had insinuated that Mr. uniary m at the who first suggested the subject of the AustrisioNoblePelowed that the sation, but the papers before the Thusfirst a ppeared in a suggestion of pecuniary compensation li e s who teok a pp dispatch of Mr. Scarlett to Lord s lia _ early displayed an in to the Austrian °ll t aa i g l i Tapers it appeared t p a e a r t v io i n ew , in of e t a h a ti e c o a f se a , ny ina d sm iffi u c c u h lt . wale which was a most Government for reparation. v e l°"i irs Mather whether he that Lord Malmesbury asx to go the Foreign Minister to use to a Malmesbury then, in the true spirit Lord what will you take for your injury?" isealmesbury therefore suggested pe- Bmroint British monstrous a suggestion which was accepted by of a pedlar, asked. Lord (Hear, hear.) s ation— jeexctp.restsion =WY "mp l o t a pain and reluctance.—(Hear.) But on Mr. atather nam i ng 5,000 L, for which he stated his reasons, Ale. Blather Lord Pilainlesbury, behind his ba c k, an d without giving him formation on the point, wro t e a letter to Mr. Scarlett, d esi anY . in gnating this as an exorbitant d eman d , and naming 1, 0001. as the sumfor which a B r i t i s h subject mig ht down cut be in the streets of Fl orence.— (Cheers an d l aug ht er .) Lord Malmesbury in one of his dispatches stated that the snm named by Mr. Mather was exorbitant, but Mr. Scarlett would be able to judge "what can be got"— (llear, hear.) If the Noble Lord below him (Lord Palmerston) had written such a dispatch w h en h e presided w i t h distinction and honour over the foreip affairs of tue oulitry, what Would have been said by the then Opposition ?—(Hear, hear) "A pecuniary i(ie,aecor,rhiigidejulteeiarnnasg instinct s e a a , a indeed, on laughter.) we e r a h. s t tangible," said Lord the i n r.d Scarl e tt ; " you must hold firm language." Firitt the )ic T presidedht h n e t n aso in f over rh h et a h t ter c u a Fe n osrp b eii e rgi nt g .om got."--- (Cheers h That was on the 9th of March, but soon after Lord Derby made his memorable speech at the Mansion-house on the doctrine of compromise, and Lord Malteesbury, acting on that doctrine, wrote a very laconic dispatch, in which be came down to 5001., in a spirit which was worthy of the Board of Trade. The Noble Lord, who said he did not know mach of this matter —an assertion he was very ready to believe, for he doubted if he had read the whole of the rapers—remarked that Mr. Mather's character had not been much damaged, though Lord Malmesbury had endea voured to make it appear to the Tuscan Government that Mr. Mather had been the first to ask for a pecuniary compen sation. 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 slightet intention to damage it on the part of the Government, and that Mr. Mather (as we understood) had borne testimony to the fair and candid way 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 him 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 byin contempt, under the impression that he had first put the question on the national honour, and then said he was ready to take 5001., while Lord Malmesbury was ready to encourage that belief in the mind of foreigners and of the Tuscan Government. There was another matter wt-ich never had been explained to the House to this day -- the case of Corporal Baggs—he believed that to be one of the worst insults ever offered to the British power. Wha t security had we for the lite or honour of a British subject when Lord Malmesbury was ready to act in such a way? The boast of (;''iris Romanus sum" was gone now—it seemed merely to ticket a man to be insulted with impunity. Tee greatest temper, knowledge of law, and firmness was eequirecl for the office of Foreign Secretary, and he regretted the Noble Lord the Member for Tiverton had ever left his natural post, for no other man was able to take up the posi tion with foreign powers he had done ; and, if he had been at the Foreign-office, inch dispatches would never have been id on the table —(Hear, bear.) To show that the Aus trian Government expected that a demand would be made for reparation, Prince Lichtenstein bad, with the sanction of Marshal Radetzky, put Baron De, Barg, the officer who commenced th e ou t rage , un d e r arrest for a week. It was the Austrian Govertment they wer e bound to call upon to show Lieutenant Forethuber was justified in his conduct, and, if they failed to do so, then to demand some mark of their regret for what had occurred; but the Austrians., so far from expressing contrition, bad commended Lieutenant Forstbuter's conduct, and be was go;ng about Florence as a sort of hero," as the man who had cut down the Englishman." (No, no.) Yee, b e !,new it to be the case; and it was said Lord )Malmesbury had given Lieutenant Forethuber "a step."—(A laughs) The Noble Lord had been distinguished through this affair, not so much for incapacity as for infirmity of purpose and great ignorance. He bad never called on the Queen's Ad:* vocate for his opinion, but, having a ready but ungrammat''' cal pen, he trusted to himself altogether, and all who showed well in the case, and kept up thecharacter or the country, was Mr. Mather. How different was the conduc t of the Noble Lord when Mr. Russell was irnprisonep at SIW' Grenada, and the Government refused all redress! tl e at once took the opinion of the King's Advocate, and 8 British fleet appeared off the port, whereupon the Govern' sent of New Grenada at once paid 1.0001. Little had bee! said about Mr. Scarlett, but b e was a t a l oss t o s ay which was: the worst—the low views of the Foreign.efficee_ e ,' the total mismanagement of M r . S car l e tt. The Nob le Lord said the poor man was very ill, but h e (M r . ()Aherne) found that Mr. Scarlett had been very well till the difficulty of his position commenced. On the 29th of May the Righ c , lion. Gentleman opposite said there would be improveme nts introduced into our diplomatic service, and that in future e only men of classical attainments who had been at coliPg' should be admitted, [The CIIANCKLLOa of the Eseectinetu o —" I never used such words at all." Then, the Rige t floe: Gentleman had been grossly misrepres e nted—indeed, he wa s a man of too just a spirit to tollew such views, and, to use A popular phrase just now, there w?s " looming in the tepee" a chance that the Right Hon. Gentleman would kV . ; away from the very bad compa n y a b ou t him.—(A But as to Mr. Scarlett, he was on excellent visiting with Prince Lichtenstein and tho Duke de Casigliano; , a e n ie d, as Mr. Mather said, he at first treated the case very coldly ' He seriously impressed on the Chancellor of the Exehel li t the expediency of sending Mr. Scarlett to some quiet place where there were no foreign troops, and to put Lord Malmo' bury on the half-pay list, if there was such a thing at the Foreign-office. He regretted very much the question had been brought before the House in its present shape, and t ba e terra.; he was prevented by some form of the House from moving,: direct vote of censure on Lord Malmesbury for trifling with the honour of the country, and for having disgraced us l c the eyes of the whole continent of Europe.—(Cries es " Move, move !") The Marquis of GRANBY was anxious to refer, in the discussion on the question, to the commercial policy of the...v conntry. and particularly so because an election was n ow ~,, inevitably approaching, and he, perhaps, would not Da another opportunity. There never was a time, be mast say. when there were such boldjand reckless assurances made by the supporters of the free-trade policy as the present. '-tr e ''! Noble Lord then adverted in succession to the exhibited at state of the agricultural interest, the silk trade, as _ Spitelfields, the West India interests, and these Or c t n e: colonies generally, and proceeded to argue that it was I?e___°;' d nary that some modification of the free-trade policy should be adopted. The Hon. Member for Shrewsbury that agricultural labourers had not improved in ac interest with the wealth of the country. Well, then, what had improved? Ile had great doubts if even the mite_ facturing interests were in a prosperous state. The er t.he ny u..nouratne member for Scar- Noble Lord then referred to a statement made out borough (Mr. G. F. Young), for the purpose of shove' 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 labour ing classes. It was said that they had reaped advantages from the recent changes which had taken place in the corn.: laws. This might be true in certain places, where wage s , were high. Bat it was not correct as regarded the gr eat body of agricultural labourers, and he had letters from sev e n - ral clergymen and other gentlemen to prove this. It w as . . said that the labouring cusses had cheaper bread and clot h ' ing than formerly. Now, as regarded cheap clotting , e e l . though it was cheaper now than heretofore, it was yet te_°: that the clothing of former days was such that one go ry ' was worth two, and the same might be said with respect to male attire. The Noble Lord then said that crime, poveeeee and emigration had increased greatly since 1846, and Me! this resulted from want of employment. The questio tt ; issue would be betwee n indu s try and idleness. They bad Ministerial party) would put a duty on corn if they from the people of the country with th e m.—(Laughter ene the Opposition.) There were two remedies propose d_. the p resent evils under which the industrial classes strLe fered. The onewos a return to protective duties, an d other a revision of taxation, and he would infinitely gl'• b et the former. But if that could not be obtained, he th ilgL, the peculiar burdens that pressed on the agricultural introL rests ought to be removed. Her Majesty's Governmentwf g in great difficulties—(Hear, hear)—because they were yon i e in office, and had opposed to them a party long exper ien ce , cen and who had certainly not shown them much indulge._ They endeavoured first to force them to a premature dia"ri'd" lution—(Hear, hear, from the Ministerial benches) s tile then endeavoured to retard the public business. Even the Noble Lord himself had done everything he could that even' ing to bring the Government into disrepute. Tl,O Noblene Lord stated they had no opinions. He certainly had o n e opinion, and that was that nobody was fit to conduct as Government of this country but himself.—(Laughter.) pro , (the Marquis of Granby) was convinced of the truth of tectiouist principles, and had no doubt but the conene, would ultimately return to them. tie had no further aritThL, with regard to the coming elections than that the country might be able to avert the misery which must inevit r Po,y i result from a free-trade la side, and laughter from the Opposition.) • tea' policy..—(Cheersfrem the Ministe Viscount PALMERSTON said—Sir,. it is not my O . _ s tion to follow the Noble Lord who has just sat down into comparison of the relative merits of the miseries or ie7 e trade or the blessings of protection—(Hear, hear).—betw e _qi the calamities of cheap food and abundant subsistence , 11 °,,, the blessings of high-priced corn and the other conconeriaoenii of the system which the Noble Lord advocates. Str, upon all discussion on that questien as an idle waste of ti r, - (Hear, hear.) The principle of protection is dee, c er d, (Cheers, and a cry of " No.") I r e ly, lik e the Noble r ot on the good sense and judgment of the country, an d sac ral, quite sure the country will act the part of a registrar-gen e . sable (H ear, principle hear.) will s i b r, e I g e w n i e s r h a 1 lteo and that at the next election day the interment of that s';_u ed _ oh er s ,, tions to that which was the first topic of the speech ter'el a Noble Lord (Lord J. Russell), and from which the ra w e b u st and address universally O Lord who has just sat down has led the HOUSE! by May, in some respects, have been a convenient dievereibl; Sir, I certainly must confess that I read with anYth_n pe a feelings of satisfaction the papers which have been l aid that, the table relative to the affair of Mr. Mather. Io" w ish ould for the sake of the character of the country, ISh •din niefewregisst].... tha t the whole of that correspondence to have beenohau3ryie oblivion.—( Hear, hear.) Sir, lam concerned to the be. that feeling on my part applies to the whole, to m tha to it was not a comedy, but a tragedy-, of tin Lg d much to criticise in the conduct of (Hear, hear.) I cannot help saying cries concerned, ex ginning to the end —for I must own thatt.seefie.! Government he late Govern I think t present cept Mr. Mather and his son. I think the ear)— sorry to say, took a wrong view—( Hear, h and I am Florence Government took a wrong view;e rge d'Affaires at a think, in some respects, th s what is the course whenai. subject took a wrong view. N ow , fir g hat on a British ~,,,Jb y• personal outrage has been c°lll nt ought to pursue? the abroad that the British Government almost all parties c degree of injury which the facts of the case—to ascertain the e h g ow far he wag in the British subject has sustained, and how far those by whom_ nes _ wrong, or, if not in the wro g, themselvesn unjustifiable aggresw, injury was inflicted were it is the first duty of the Governmentd to ascertam clearly ration ought to be demanded. luen't been committed, p "e first in a demand for the nu iehtu to reparation may consist also in a demand for compensation offender; the prile if theeruovernment finds that an outraeri Upon these points it has always been nve e the sufferer. o ll f a t v h i e dg done that, of State to consult the Queen's A u • to as f to lay before that officer the facts of the case, o cats, to his view and knowledge of the habit to tice for the Secretary what, according sio courts of justice in this country, might be the fittingae_ra, demand as pecuniary compensation, and in how far, he l u g to international law, the British Government sigh r , justified in demanding the punishment of the wrong i u tbe e Now, this does not appear to have been done hY_ r thet e Government. But the first question that arises is, !Ae re ed an injury inflicted ? I think that no man who ha sj e jarY these papers can hesitate in believing that a grievous a __ .os t was committed, that a British subject was exposed vec i e _ ;00 violent and cowardly outrage without any pro au r a " whatever. A British subject harmlesely_ e fi le st of snot b 1 by an officer with his sword, then by the h is cut down band of music iu the streets of Florence. H a.c" fi m rs P t wre st officer, and then in a cowardly manner e him. " cow, sir, the sword of the first officer who struck man upon one who is unarmed? attack by an armed tcher, wee of the English bu we all know the old anecdote t. n ro b of his profession. what is the feeling of different countries with regard while employed in the avocation he had had words. " Vi r bY ie struck by knife in his hand, and can e you ain't , t has a . " to strike a man who said he, Sir, that is the English feeling French return the blow." _ e , ar. ) Now, what is the L.ee what h m a a t n wmitehanwaned cowardly fellow a subject.—(Hear, usll o fknow that here was a distinguisurn feeling? Many service, named Colonel Harvey:, w ° officer in the British en the engagement. Ho served J had lost his arm an D briec war, mutilated as he was. the act on it In Peninsular elee 9 re into battle, there happsned asn anu. ing his r q i—ent fled, between the cent ling trops, en( lifted was was technically e, ca u to h i m, and with-sabre tiP ant a French officer rode p m, oppon him down; but when he saw tw• a f ar ) going to cut .ae.., • had 911 1 7 93" arm Pie aroppici hilr3 IyeAPQ