The Sun. — London, England, 1852-06-22 00:00:00

rences would exist on the subject of the management of these schools, and as to the moral and religious character of the teacher. The alteration which was made by the relaxation of these clauses he thought would be beneficial to the public, and, instead of increasing the divisions cf the Church, would have an effect the very reverse.—(Hear, hear.) In '46 there 'had been divisions in consequence of the restriction laid down by the management clauses; and in '4B reso lotions were carried against the Government by the National Society. The same was the case also in 1849. In 1850 Lord Lansdowne said, on the application of Lord Har rowby, that he would not object to a Committee if it were moved far. The consequence was that the agitation par tially ceased, because those members of the Church who bad been deprived of the grant had a prospect of receiving it. This year, for the first time, the National Society was in perfect harmony with the Government.—(Hear, hear.) Now, that being the case, it was very desirable that they should give to the members of the Church the power of en dowing the school upon their own opinions, and that they should not be deprived of a portion of the grant. The clauses introduced by the late Government, he con tended, had been a source of great division among members of the Church. He be ieved with the Noble Lord that the Church of England had its elements of weakness, as well as of strength. He thought its element of weakness of late years was to be attributed to the great discouragement it met with from the Government, and he considered they would be increasing its elements of strength if they were permitted to give encouragement in the way they proposed.—(Hear, hear.) That wss the object of the minute they had introduced, and the effect of it would be for the first time to place them on a footing of equality (Hear.) He therefore said, give them freedom of action in the construction of their schools. The policy on which they proposed to act was wise in itself and its consequences, and he firmly believed, if it had the effect of allaying the diffe rences which had arisen in the Church, no greater boon could possibly be conferred on it.— (Hear.) Sir H. VERNEY said one important question wasayhetber the schools authorised and supported by Parliament were good for those who went to them to receive instruction. It was their duty to see that the children in those schools should receive the education that was intended. He felt certain that it was because the Church lived in the affections of the people that it existed, but its usefulness would not be in creased by giving more power to the clergy, but by uniting them with the laity.—(Hear, hear.) Mr. GLADSTONE said he agreed with a previous speaker as to the immense importance of the subject of education, and of everything belonging to it. 'Were it not for the im portance of the subject he should have been surprised at the exaggerated terms which had been used with reference to this particular minute. After all that he had heard of satisfac tion on the one side, and of alarm on the other, the case ap peared to him to be not altogether unlike that of the moun tain and the mouse. He confessed he felt a difficulty with respect to the construction of some parts of the speech of the Right Hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary. He did not see how they could maintain the doctrine that unlimited freedom should be given to founders of schools to choose the terms on which they should be conducted. The change which had been made in the minute did not appear to him to be unreasonable. The Noble Lord had spoken of the danger of investing the clergyman with a power of de ciding as to the moral conduct of the schoolmaster; but the same thing might ,be said with reference to the question of religion. Previously a discretion was given to the cler gyman with reference to the teaching, and now it was pro posed to submit it to the conduct of the teacher. He did not think that that was an unreasonable extension. He agreed with the Noble Lord that the laity should have as large a share as possible in the management of the Church schools. He thought that to give up the Committee alto gether would be on evil ; but he believed that under these relaxations they might very often have a Committee con stituted where, but for these relaxations, they might not have had one at all. Now, with regard to the question of power to suspend temporarily in cases of scandal, it might be right to have that power exercised ; but then again, it might be abused by the clergyman. As to the importance and duty of elevating the character of the schoolmaster, if it was in tended to do any such thing, some security should attach to hie.position.—(Hear, hear.) Wheu he (Mr. Gladstone) spoke of security, he meant that in order to effect that they should do a great deal more than they could eflect by means of the minutes of the Privy Council. These minutes were after all, nerely experimental, and he should say he alto gether differed from the opinion of the Right Hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary in thinking that the honour of Parliament was ple ged to these minutes. To which of them he wished to know was the honour of Parliament so pledged? They had new minutes every year. W hat he (Mr. Gladstone) took to be the case was this—that, by the tabours of the Privy Council, they were feeling their way to a system of educa tion which, when developed, ought to come under the view of Parliament in all particulars and details, and that then was the time to be availed of to afford security to the masters of those schools.—(Hear.) If they wished to have a high class of schoolmasters, these men should not be subject to be dismissed at the dictum of any individual. — (Hear.) Therefore he did not think it too much to say that the situation of schoolmaster was not sufficiently secure under these minutes.—( Hear.) In such an experimental condition, they should look into the schools as a whole. Tne question was not whether they could provide against every case of abuse; and, however many might differ from the clergy, and think them over-strict, he had no doubt that the great majority of the clergy—entirely irrespective of party distinctions—were in earnest in reference to religious education.—(Hear.) That schools might be deprived of their masters he regarded as a very good objection in the abstract ; but would it not be better to have a school brought to a stand still in its operations than to have it conducted by a man whose practices and general demea nour were a disgrace to the community ?—(Hear. hear.) There was no class of men throughout the country who had a deeper anxiety in the keeping open of their schools than the clergy, and therefore the objection that the school might be brought to a stand-still by the dismissal of the Master was more an objection in the abstract than it ever would be in practical effect.—(Hear, hear.) Therefore he should say he (Mr. Gladstone) saw no ground for impeaching these minutes. It might be considered unwise were Government to introduce any fundamental changes; but he saw no such changes in these provisions to intimate an animus on their part.—( Hear, hear.) He recognised the principle that it was the duty of a State to take care how the public funds should be expended ; and looking at these provisions on their merits he could not find cause to censure them.—(Hear, hear.) Whether, then, the present Government or any other Go vernment was in office, if, whilst the principle of public con trout was steadily adhered to, these questions of detail would be dealt with in a liberal spirit, he hoped that Mem bers of that House who possessed great influence would not increase the difficulties of the questions by attaching exag gerated importance to those changes now before them, or to any other changes of a similar nature that might hereafter be introduced.— (Hear, hear.) Mr. HUME was always of opinion that these schools could never go on harmoniously, unless the committees and the clergy went band in hand. lie had, he should say, found amongst the clergy a disposition to exact more power than laymen were inclined to allow them. He felt certain that unless they secured competent schoolmasters, as well by good salaries as by assurance against the caprices of the clergy, education would not be advanced in this country.— (Hear, hear.) By the present proceedings he thought the Government were sowing the seeds of discord, and that all harmony of feeling and action would be destroyed as a con sequence..--(Hear, hear.) Mr. W. MILES said that the Committee of Privy Council on Education and the National Society were not acting to gether harmoniously. The system had therefore not worked well, and these alterations had been made to obviate those inconveniences. He thanked the Committee of Privy Council for allowing these alterations to be made, as they entirely did away with the jealousies entertained of their superintendence by the National Society. Sir H. VERNEY was understood to say, in explanation, that he wished the clergymen and the Privy Council to be arbiters of the propriety of the removal of the schoolmaster, and not the bishop. Mr. J. ABEL SMITH said that these minutes extended the power of the clergyman, and that, in the present state of the Church, was objectionable. He was a dissentient from these changes, and he did not think that they would work beneficially. He wished to know the causes which led the Government to make these alterations, so important and so extensive in their nature. In the speech of the Secretary of State (Mr. Walpole) that was entirely omitted. He thought there was a design in that omission, and conceal ment. He looked upon this course with the greatest pain and apprehension. He thought this step would be injurious to the Church which it professed to benefit. The conse quences would be to weaken the real power of the clergy men, and widely to extend the seeds of jealousy and ill will. He denied that there had been dissension between the Com mittee of Privy Council and the National Society. There had, indeed, been dissension between the committee of the National Society and the Privy Council, but the National Society itself, by a large majority, had approved of the management clauses. They said they were,_ upon the whole sound and judicious. Would the Hon. Gentleman, in the face of the paper he held in his hand, and bearing the signa tures of the majority of the National Socieiy, venture to say, that the society was in favour of these changes? There was harmony in the meeting this year, but, looking at the ground of the harmony—namely, the withdrawal of the re solution by the Archdeacon of Taunton—there was no ground to refer this harmony to the changes under discussion. If these alterations had been submitted to the Archdeacon,. there Might have been some grounds for this supposition. Mr. P. SCROPE said the word religious was better than the word " moral" upon this subject, and that the latter word would introduce great uncertainty. He believed that the alterations in the minutes would cause great dissatisfac tion, because indicating a distrust of the laity Mr. SLANEY said he objected to the alterations, as tend ing to produce a preponderance of the clerical over the lay element in the Church. The whole subject of education must ere long be considered and settled by Parliament on a principle of public rating, by means of merely enabling sta tutes for separate education. Mr. J. EVANS said the address presented to the Arch bishop of Canterbury represented that the priestly power in the Church ought not to be increased, and that if it were, there would be a great secession from the National Society. He considered the alterations in the minute extremely im portant and objectionable. The discussion then dropped. GRAND JURY (METROPOLITAN DISTRICT) BILL. Sir J. GRAHAM alluded to this Bill as of great impor tance, and as one which he must oppose at some length. Under these circumstances, he hoped it would not be pressed further this session. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said he believed that the alteration of the law the Bill was to introduce would be of great benefit, and he regretted that it was to be opposed by the Right Hon. Gentleman. As it was so, however, it Would be impossible to carry it forward at this period of the .t session, and he must reluctantly consent to withdraw 0 _ BUSI NESS THE HOUSE.—THE PROROGATI N. Mr. J. WILSON said he had been appealed to not to bring forward to-day his motion as to the state of the sugar colonies, in order to facilitate the conclusion of the business of the House. He was anxious to assent to the suggestion, and would only beg that, if possible, he might have some opportunity to bring the question before the House. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER.—Sir, I have bad representations from both sides of the House that its business should be terminated as soon as possible.—(Hear, bear.) These representations have come quite as often from ) dembers opposed to the Government as from our own sup- Porters—(Hear, bear,)—and it isnot for our own convenience alone that we are anxious to accede to the suggestion.— lllear.) Under these circumstances I have appealed to Members on both sides having notices on the paper not to Press them —( Hear.) I think that there is a prospect of c oncluding the business of the Howe by the end of this Week if we proceed in the course I ha ve chalked out. — (He ar, bear.) I cannot therefore enter into any arrangement with the li on . Member as to bringing forward this subject: and I. lloll gh I admit its great importance, I hope he will postpone " till next session. 11r. WILSON assented. The Militia Ballot Suspension Bill, as amended, was con sidered and agreed to ; as also was the Militia Pay Bill. THE PATENT LAW AMENDMENT BILL. This Bill went into Committee. On clause 26, ROUN DELL PALMER gave notice that, unless the ' Ae vernraent themselves proposed to alter this Bill in the 'T meantimeele should move on the third reading to confine the exemptions given to foreign shipping to thot e cases in which the su , eiect of the patent had been in the fir; it instance patented abroad. Mr. HENLEY said if the Hon. and Learned Gentlem e n could suggest any means by which protection might be given to 'Liglish patents without inconvenience o r hindrance to trade, he should he glad to consider them; but he did not think the proposition of which the Hon. a d Learned Gentleman had just given notice would acco n the object he contemplated. The clause was then agreed to, as was also th , l remaining clauses of the Bill. On the schedule in clause 44, Mr. CARTER proposed amendments of whi ell he had given notice. The fees to be paid under the Bill would amount to 1491. 11s., and for stamps 551. would :have to be paid—in all 1811. Ids., a large sum for thoso wht , sought to take out patents, and who were generally poor t nen. His amendment would have the effect of enabling a eel itent to be taken out for 101., instead of the present large sum. He proposed, therefore, in the first item of fees for " ft ve pounds" to insert " live shillings." Mr. HENLEY did not think that any well-ft .unded ob jection could be taken to the scale of fees mid,' r the Bill. Persons who were desirous of taking out patents would not object to paying 251. the first year for the • protection afforded to their inventions; and if the 'low sca4e proposed by the Hon. and Learned Gentleman were ad tpted, they would have all the most worthless projects paten ted.. Mr. SIUNTZ could not concur in the prom nety of re ducing the fees to so low a scale as that prop( ned by the Hon. and Learned Gentleman. The gallery was cleared for a division, but, none took place, the Hon. Member (Sir. Carter) not having found any Hon. Member to act as his teller. The amendment accordingly fell to the grou ad, and the schedule was agreed to. The House resumed, and the CHAIRMAI al' reported progress. CRIME AND OUTRAGE (IRELAND) 13 , ILL. The House then went into Committee on the Crime and Outrage (Ireland) Bill. The preamhe was postponed. Clause 1. Mr. V. SCULLY moved an amendment to the effect that the Bill should be in force only until the 31st of December next, and no longer. He hoped the Governor, ant- would agree to the amendment, as the Chancellor of to e Exche quer had stated that the next Parliament was assemble about October, which would afford abundance of t ime to re enee, the law, if it were deemed necessary. Ms sides this, the Bill was brought forward at the fag end of the session, a course which the . Chancellor of the L.'xchequer hi ad himself condemned in respect of the measure which passe d in 1846. Another reason for limiting the duration of the Bi ll was the circumstance that remedial measures had been pe omised by the Government, and that the House should haves an oppor tunity of knowing the character ,of these mess tires before conferring for such a long period the extraordin a ry powers contained in the Bill. Mr. COGAN said an attempt had been made to misre present the opposition to the Bill, which he en , eirely repu diated. He admitted that crime existed in sot tie parts of Ireland, but he could show that it had general! decreased from 30,000 to 20,003, and though he would aid the repres sion of crime as such, he would not aid in coercion as a re medy for the evil. Coercion had been tried fee: a century without effect : the Government should go to, the root of the evil, namely, the social condition of the , country, if they wished to cure agrarian outrage in Ireland. He gave the Government credit for a desire to suppress crime in that country, but not a single member on their side h std shown a justification for the Bill on the ground that it heel repressed crime. In that respect the Government had altogether failed; and as the measure was most unconstitutional in its character, he hoped they would not oppose title amend ment. Lord NAAS said that some Hon. Gentlemen 01' posite had stated that the Act had been inoperative for the . i uppression of crime; but a statement more unfounded had ;never been made in that House. He held in his hand a rate rn, which showed the effects of the Act in different d'i Aricts in which it had been put in force, and from that return it appeared that its operation kad been eminently successful. During the three months which had preceeded f he issuing of the proclamation in the year 1847 in Cble county of Cavan, the number of outrages had amounted to 43, and during the last three months they had only amounted to 20; in- the county of Limerick the outrages at, the same period had amounted to 262 and 39; in the county of Ros common they .had amounted to 93 and 23; and in the county of Tipperary they had amounted to 235 and 81. The Act had, in fact, been attended with great and most beneficial results. At the same time there wan nothing which could in ,the slightest degree inconvenience men who were determined to obey the law, and to perfierm their duties as good citizens. Honourable Gentlemen opposite hadefailed to show that a single instance of ()ppm scion had taken place under the Act, and under those circumstances he believed the House would readily consent to Re renewal. Mr. F. SCULLY supported the amendment. 'The Irish Members had not exhibited anything like factious opposition to the measure, and he hoped that would have sortie weight with the Government in adopting the amendment of his Hon. Friend; if not, their duty to their constituents might compel them to take another and a much more unpleasant course. Mr. M. J. O'CONNELL, although he supported the amendment, could not adopt the course which was shadowed out by his Hon. Eriend who preceded him; and if a course of delay was nttemoted he would be inclined to adopt the bent of the Right Hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and retire to his rest. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL for IRELAND said that any offence committed up to the 31st of December would go unpunished unless the Act was in existence in order to enforce the law at the next March assizes. That, he thought, was a complete answer to the amendment of %the Hon. Gentleman. Sir D. NORREYS supported the amendment, believing that such an arrangement would meet the views of the Go vernment. Mr. CARTER objected to coercion Bills—he considered that Irish grievances ought first to have a proper considers.- tion, and then such Bills would be needless. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER did not c template the Bill operating longer than to the end of Angus .t, 1853. He would cause such an alteration of words to 100 made to carry out that alteration, and this he hoped wou Id satisfy the Hon. Member opposite. After a few words from Mr. SCULLY and The O'Gortere MAHON, Mr. COGAN thought it might be advisable to let the Bill be in operation only so long after December, 1852, as those criminals in custody could have their trial. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER considered the concession of Government, in altering the time of th e Bill to August, 1853, ought to be satisfactory. Mr. F. SCULLY would consent to no concession. 11 a thought the Bill ought not to go beyond the next session. Mr. J. O'CONNELL adopted the suggestion of the GI )- vernment, though he stood alone on that side of the Hous e. It was cercainly an improvement on the.original terms of the Bill to alter the limit to the 31st of August, 1853. Ele should agree to that alteration, reserving to himself the right of still further linaiting the operation of the Bill a future stage if he thought fit. t a Mr. F. SCULLY again repeated that he could listen to no compromise. Mr. V. SCULLY said the Chancellor of the Exchequer was not in a condition to offer a compromise. Had the Bill not been closely looked into it would have been made to ex - tend—he would not say by a " dodge" --t. the year 1854. B e wished the Bill to be limited to that time, and that tim e only, when the question would be brought forward for full and final discussion. After some more discussion, and when The CHAIRMAN was about to pat the amendment, Mr. F. SCULLY objected to the amendment being put, on the ground that sufficient discussion had not been given to the question.—(Laughter.) Another discussion ensued. Mr. M. J. O'CONNELL would be sorry to have a division on reporting progress. He hoped Government would re consider the matter, and accept the offer of an earlier month —May, for instance—as suggested by the Hon. Member for Tavistock. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said it was impossible to alter the determination of having the date the 31st August, 1853. That question had been already well considered, and he trusted Hon. Gentlemen opposite would not delay its progress by further opposition. Mr. V. SCULLY would not be a party to inflict the Bill on Ireland until the 31st August.. Mr. F. SCULLY moved that the Chairman report pro gress. Another short discussion ensued. The gallery was cleared for a division, but none took place, Mr. Scully having withdrawn his motion for reporting progress. The Committee then divided on the question of filling up the blank, when there appeared— For the Government proposition Against Majority The remaining clauses having been agreed to, The CHAIRMAN reported the Bill, with amendments, to ;he House. ENCUMBERED ESTATES (IRELAND) BILL. This Bill passed through Committee. DISABILITIES REPEAL BILL. Oa the motion for the third reading of this Bill, Sir W. P. WOOD did not rise to oppose the passage of the Bill, but to complain of its extreme meagreness. It fell far short of the requirements of the case, and would merely be regarded by the public as an instalment. Mr. NEWDEGATE contended that the action of "Miller v. Salomons," was a collusive one. He should oppose the fare ther progress of the Bill until the law officers of the Crown had had an opportunity of duly considering the novel cir cumstances in which this action at law had placed thequet3- tion. He moved that the Bill be read a third time that day three months. Mr. CONOLLY seconded the amendment. Mr. R. PALMER defended the Bill, which had been ushered in under no less distinguished auspices than those of Lord Lyndhurt. The measure, which was confined to the object of sweeping out of the statute-book some of the most extravagant and absurd provisions which had ever defaced our legislation, had passed the scrutiny of the Law Lords of the other House of Parliament, and he was at a loss to conceive what reasonable objection could be started to the Bill. The measure was simply one of justice, and he e w th o e u s l e d be acting with ana little wisdom if c t h o n o u s e g n h t t e the d to Hoti it retain dis abilities. After a few words from Mr. ANSTEY, who was of opirdon that the measure was quite inadequate, Mr. WALPOLE said that he had always opposed the admission of Jews to Parliament, and would continue to do 60,—(Hear, hear.) The question before the House, how ever, was, whether certain penalties should be retained, and these he thought ought to be swept away. • Mr. HUDSON advised the Hon. Member for North. War wickshire to withdraw his opposition. Mr. NEWDEGATE said he was satisfied with the state ment of the Home Secretary that his hostility to the admis sion of Jews to Parliament continued unabated, and would A NSTEY moved an amendment for the purpose of extending * the Bill to pe rson s others than Members of not press hi s a mendment. zi t i Parliament. the House divided, when there For the amendn appAefatererda—b r i e f discuss::: Against it ••• _ • Majority against the amendmen., —46 • The 13111 was then read a third time, and passed. The Lo C rd O s A ' i a l‘ m ff en N dm L e A nWts t P o ß t O li C e E ß D i U ll ß w E ere ß i L sidered and agreed to. MASTER IN CHANCERY ABOLITION BILL. The iOrdTarnendments were considered and agreed to. The MASTER of the ROLLS brought up a clause giving compensation to the chief clerks in the same manner as to the Masters. Mr CARTER opposed the clause, which, after some dis cussion, was agreed to. The Holloway House of Correction Bill was read a third time and passed. The house then adjourned...at Ralf-past Two o'clQck, SUN, 'l,f)N DON) HOUSE OF LORDS, June 21. Tice LORD CHANCELLOR took his seat on the Wool sack at Five o'clock. Earl FORTESCUE presented a petition praying the Goverpment to adopt steps to secure the possession of the immense deposits of guar recently discovered in the islands of Lobos, and ger er elly to facilitate the itn , portation of that article into this country. The Earl of MAL lIESBURY said that her Majesty's cruisers had received instructions to obtain all the lame mation in their power relative to these deposits of guano, and as far as lay in their power to secure British in terests. Her Majesty's Government had great hopes of being able in some degree to break np the monopoly which was at present kept up by the Peruvian Govern. - meat in respect of this article. Lord BROITGLIAM presented a petition complaining of certain previsions introduced into the County Courts Bill, enabhog articled clerks to practise in those courts. Lord BROUGHAM presented a petition from 130 members; of the inner and outer bar against the clause in the County Courts Bill preventing barristers receiving instructions from any but solicitors. He hoped their Lordships would agree to an amendment to remove the , grievance of which the petitioners complained. Lord CAMPBELL considered that if the Noble Lord's suggestion were carried out it would be pro ductive of great mischief, and lower the character of the bar.. After a few words from Lord BIIOUGTIAM and Lord LYNDHURST the conversation dropped. MARRIAGE WITH DECEASED WIFE'S SISTER. The following petitions were presented on this sub-. ject: —By the Earl of Essex (19 petitions, signed by 6,892 persons), from Barnsley, Wolverhampton, North tillerton, Colchester, Newport, and other plucee; the Marquis of Lansdowne, from Bristol, Kingswood, Little ton-on-Severn, and other places, signed by 1,007 per sons; Lord Stanley of Alderley, from 'Liverpool, Chester, Coegleton, Macclesfield, and Stockport, containing 5,904 signatures; the Earl of Beasborough, from Devon port, Exeter, Brixhnm, Chudleigh, Tavistock, and other Parts of Devonshire, signed by 3,950 persons; Lord Gage, from Bath, Southampton, Salisbury, Gosport, Peters field, and other. places, signed by 4,646 persons; the Earl of Minto, from York, Leeds. Billericay, and various other towns in Yorkshire aed Essex, containing 5,002 signatures; Lord Woclehouse, from Norwich, Bury St. Edmunds, and Ipswich, with 3,860 signatures; the Earl of Chesterfield, from Canterbury, Ashford, Romney, Deal, Dover, Margate, Ramsgate, Woolwich, and other places in Kent. Earl ST. GERMANS said he was instructed by a very large, intelligent, and respectable body of persons to present a petition, praying their Lordships to concur with the other House in amending the law so far es it related to marriago with a deceased wife's sister. The cetitioii was signed by 98,000 persons, among whom were c'ergymen of the Established Church, ministers of different denominations, merchants, bankers, lawyers, and medical men, and as many as 16,000 or 17,000 mar ried women. Ali these individuals were com petent to form an opinion upon that important subject, and the fact of their signing such a petiti m ought . to have great weight with their Lordships. England was nearly the only country in which these marriages, were bold to be not binding, and none of the evils which it was anticipated would recult from an alteration of the law here were found . to exist in those countries where marriage with a deceased wife's sister was allowed. lf, then, the law and practiceof all other European States— and, he might add, of the United State s as we ll were con trary to the law and practice of this country, he thought it behoved them to well examine the ground upon which that law rested. The people of England were a moral and reli gious people, and if their Lordships satisfied them that these marriages were contrary to Scripture, he was sure they would cease to press for their legislation ; but even the bench of bishops were not agreed on the point, and that left them open to grave doubts as to the scriptaral character of the law. The Noble Lord then described at some length the state of the law on this subject. Previous to Lord Lynd hurst's Act these marriages were voidable, but not void at any time after the marriage; but by that Act a limit was fixed, by requiring proceedings to set aside the marriage; to be instituted in the lifetime of both parties, so .that on the death of either the husband or the wife the children could no longer be b as t ar di se d . T hat was the present state of the law. The opinion of Lord Denman was, that there was nothing in Script ure a g a i nst t h ese marriages. Many of these ' marriages were contracted under the belief that they are legal. In fact, they had either done too much or too little. If they were contrary to Scripture, the punishment should not fall upon the issue, but they ought to make it penal for parties to contract them. The- restrictions against these marriages he considered unjust, and he thought the peti tioners had a tight to ask for relief. He should next session bring forward a Bill upon the subject, which he hoped wou l d meet their Lord s hi ps ' a p proval. He should now move that the petition be laid on the table. Lord LYNDHURST S a id , as considerable misapprehen sion prevailed with regard to the Bill which he bad intros duced with regard t o th i s subject, he thought it right to offer some explan a ti on U pon the matter. That Bill made no alteration with r egar d to marriages within t h e pro hibi te d degrees. Whatever th e restrictions ware b e f ore th a t A c t was passed, they we re th e same now. Th e Bill was not introduced for the purpose of making any alteration of that , kind. Cases of hardship came before him where the offspring of such ma rr i ages, who cons id ere d th emse l ves legitimate and entitled to inherit prcperty of parties, insti tuted proceedings against them in the ecclesiastical courts, might be made bastards. What the Bill did was to make such marriages which were not voided within two or three years valid. Their LOrdships were in favour of that pro vision, but the bench of bishops, for whom he had the most profound respect, opposed it ; and it was argued that to make marriages voidable would l ea d to a ll th e in c onveniences it was intended to obviate, and it was d ec ided that such mar riages should be made invalid. What would be done with marriages of this kind contracted abroad? At Hambnrgh, there was a clergyman who, for a small sum of money, cele brated these marriages in the same manner as a celebrated personage formerly did at Gretna Green. Whether these marriages were lawful or not, he would not say, as he might have to give a judicial opinion upon the question. Lord CAMPBELL said, there was great misapprehension upon this subject, that these marriages were lawful. This induced parties to contract them, and then the number of these marriages was brought as an argument for their being allowed. In fact, these marriages were, before the liaising of Lord Lyndhurst's Act, and are now, illegal. These mar riages stood upon the same footing as marriages contracted within the ' prohibited degrees of consanguinity. With re gard to the fact referred to of parties going to foreign coun tries to contract these marriages, he should caution all men against doing so. He had hoped that, after the overwhelm ing majority with which the former Bill was passed, the agitation would cease, but it still went on. Allusion had been Made to the practice in foreign PrOtestant countries, which allowed these marritiges, but the marriage between an uncle and his niece was also allowed. He would ask them, would they follow that - example? They should act for themselves, and do what was right. - The Bishop of ST. ASAPH agreed with the Noble and Learned Lo r d, that they ought upon this subject, rather than imitate the conduct of tbreign countries , be an example to others. The was settled. Would any Englishman petition to marry the question with regard to the Bible on this point widow of his brother? These marriages were always vbid, but could only be tried in the ecclesiastical crnes; but in them there could be no punishment but for their souls' sake. What he meant was, that it would be for the good of society that punishment was given. Ile was quite satisfied that this country would be found oppose d t o th em . th ese marriages were repudiated, and that all the woman of The Bishopatement made by the Noble Earl that a great of SALISBURY expressecrhis great astonish ment at the statement majority of the bench of bishops were o f op i n i on th a t t h ere was no fo undation , in Scr i pture f or th e prohibition of these marriages. It would not become him to say what was the opinion of the m a j or ity of his Right Rev. Brethren—he Would leave th at to the N o bl e E ar l—but this he would say, that he never heard any statement with so much asto nishment. lie knew that the Most Rev. Prelate the Arch bishop of Canterburyfounded his opposition to the , measure for allowing these marriages on the ground of Scripture, and the position taken by his Right Rev. Brother the Bishop of Exeter in his able argument was also mainly- founded upon Scripture. Only one Right Rev. Prelate, did express a doubtful or perhaps a positive opinion that' the ground of f3cripture could not be maintained. ' He was therefore surprised at the statement of the Noble Earl, but he was still more astonished at the statement that a majority of the parcchial clergy were in favour of 'an alteration of the present law. Earl ST. GERMANS—The parochial' clergy of large towns. of that kind. He hoped, therefore, their Lordships would agree to the amendment by which the county courts would he placed on the same footing as other courts in this re spect. The amendment had received the recommendatien of the law officers of the Crown in the other House, both past and present. He thought also that it would be desirable to prevent attornies from acting as advocates. The LORD- CHANCELLOR said the subject was one of great importance; indeed it could scarcely be overrated. If he had been a Member of their Lordships' House when this question had been discussed he never would have agreed to the introduction of those words by which barristers were prevented from practising in the courts without the inter vention .of an attorney. He never would have agreed to words which must lead to consequences injurious to the pro feesion of barristers. But whether they stigmatised the members of the b ar by g that they should not do what sawing was disreputable or opposed to the general feeling of the profession was another.uestion. The bar was not amenable to the Judges, but the members of it were amenable to their own. societies, and if they misconducted themselves by act ing as attornies it would be animadverted on by the society, and if persevered in the party would be disbarred. Besides, if a man belonged to a profession, society he mixed wi t h , made him obedient to the rubs of and the professiou, I. a would be considered an outcast from that profession if h e persevered in the course which this pro vision struck at. Ile .would never have agreed to a law which cast a stigine on the profession of the bar; but the law having been. n 4SS ed, he would not have proposed the repeal of this clause, fearing that by so doing he might be thought to give his [sa nction to a measure which he repu dieted. But this c l ause having been rejected by the House of Commons, and th e B ill coming down with the recom mendation of the law offieere of the Crown, he was unwilling , to reject this amendment, the consequence of which would be that the bar would be in the same position in the hear.) If the bar was brought county courts that it stood in all other courts.—(Hear, duct of its members, 114 one would be more ready than he should be to atrike at that conduct, , and to restore the pro feesioa to that thought -which it ought to have in public esti mation. He thought neat in the county courts each grade of the profession should ht into disrepute by the con its own rank. The at torney should never seek to invade the profession of the grade himselt—he used the barrister, and the barrister Should never be allowed to de of grades—by practising as ATI attorney.--( Hear, hear.) It each maintained his own Position, without interfering with that of the other, tIiCY 1 w. .d find it the. est for maintaining their particular dignity and en interest.— (Hear' Lord LYNDHURST super Words because be was speaking ted the amendment, and said the only, means of defence which the barristers had consisted in their power of overstepping the usual etiquette in cases where it was necessary. Lord CAMPBELL said is, should withdraw his opposi tion to the amendment. te,_ encroaching on each other, in the county ce ,';','sal st L s or any other courts. He the two branches of the hoped that, i h i i ader tee op.n.Ons that bed been expressed, any p 5e r , ,, , 5 , , , 1n1 0 y o f b r j o e m ct was to prevent statutory prohibition would e c , unnecessary. It was oleo. ohat - where there were two r epresentatives of the parties, one ght to be' an attorney and th - -a other a barrister; and he should approve of an amendment re s t r icting one attorney from employing another as advocate. amen Lor dm end CRANWORTH said he should not oppose the t. The several amendments were bl then a THE CASE OP mart reed to. H. Lord BEAUMONT r ose , accoroing , reed aT ' attention of the House io the corre s ondence respecting the assault committed on Mr. Erskine blather The P at Florence. Noble Lord said it was some time sin ce ihe papers had been laid on the table,. and their Lordship had had lull oppor tunity of becoming acquainted with their contents. Though they professed to .refer to an incident of an unfortunate, hut in some aegree of a person a l character, other grave and far more important questions to. notice, to draw the 3 - "J'et. Moreover, it would have been observed that 'what at first seemed a ease of the negotiations on that simple in itself and easily arranged , had been so conducted in its subsequent stages that it now ap eared something like a Gordian knot.—(llear, hear. s I It fa i l attracted great attention both in and out of Parliaineot. I t h a d been the subject of a debate in the other II nh-, had arisen in the course °llse, and had been com mented on in many of the public charges had been brought, reg ardio _ g the conduct of this business, against, the Government; and it had beeadirectly irtiPlied that sufficient attention had not been made to what was due to the dignity of the countrY. These grounds not prints. Moreover severe only justified him in bringing the s ubject forward, but almost imposed an obligation on their Lordships to take some netice of the papers IMd before, them before the session closed. In proceeding to examine these pap era, he would avoid as much as' possible all that appeared merely verbal criticism,. or allusions to trivial points, and would dwell on those likely to affect our relations with these aiiittera alone in which a principle —est countries in future. Ile would divide the subject into t wo parts—that which referred merely to the incident itself --and that which re the state ferred to the questions arising out s os the negotiations to which the incident had led. As to the first question, it was involved, or were might be taken for granted that, seh en an Englishman was entitled to full Pro— tteraotvieolaledfroinm foreign countries, ov co e un rom tr e ie n s h 4. ritories he was travelling—that Government being in friendly relations with this country —so long , as he not only, obeyed the laws of, the country,. but complied with its usages and manners, so Mr as not wantonly to offend or insult even the prejudices of the people. When' a person so conducting himself received a wron g , if from another private individual, that was merely a . question between two in whose ter private persons, no way representing any authority; it be came almost the duty of the individual injured to seek re deess according to the laws of the country in the first place, and not there and then to call in the assistance of the repre sentative of his own country to interfere in his behalf. When, however, the party inflicting the wrong on an Eng lishman was in the Service of the Gov ern ment of that country as an 'Official, o r performin g any duty placed upon him by that Government, the question assumed a totally different appearance. Then, instead of applying to the law, in the'ordinary 'way, as between individuals, the in jured party certainly had a claitn upon his country to de mand shine kind of reparation for the wrong inflicted. Bearing in mind that distinction, and taking into consideration all that appeared in these papers, the examinations before what was called a judicial tribunal, and the opinions expressed in man y of the dispatches by Mr. Searlett, by Prince Lichtenstein, by Prince Schwarzen berg in Vienaa, by-Baron Castigliano, and even by Radetzky—h e had no difficulty in saying that the narration he was about to give, in a few words, was the simple plain ' fact and truth.—(Here the Noble Lord narrated the facts as they have already appeared.) It was as clear as possible, Mr. M a th er from the evid ence b efore their Lordships, that. had in no way, e i t h er by gesture, word, or motion , attempted to insult the officer or do anything which he ought to re sent. Whatev er th e officer might • ht afterwards say was the impression on his m i nd, it was clear the youth had no in itnion, whatever t o i nsult him or any ot h er person. For seemed that when the brother went to Prince Lichten stein, and was telling his story, the Prince, having heard 1 a different story fro m th e o ffi cer , said--• ' Oh, but' your brother , pat his arm thu s .. a No," said the , youth, " he did not do that, but 'merely turned round to ask the mean i n g of the blow Prinee.Lichten from, the officer." stein said afterwards distinctly that theTesult of this inquiry inetitated among. th e soldiers - was entirely in conformity with what. Mr. Mather's brother had tad him, confirming the fact that the youth had not in any waY put up his hand. Again, •one of the , The Englishman gendarme 'e stated, in no waY offended the Austrian."ri E ven Radetzky said— a The accident :WAS WithOUt iending any offence. on the part of the Englishnaa n , a Te idence was equa c l ear that the. offending officers had h n intention whatever to in sult or injure any Englishman. °ev Th e y certainly did not know the man Was ea Englishman and could have had no anti-English feeling in the i Nor had they any steps to en. individual or personal eeciine. against Mr. blather, being ignorant of why or what he feeling a fact was they teok him for his Italian ; and they Wa ß s e . . eme d to have been in the hebit of purning ,Itilieue• out---f. t h e way, as they did dogs.— (Hear, hear.) kindles o • an a little tons near, they had treated him as they this .man habit of treating the Tuacans when theyearlaosvere in way; and if there was any,feefing in the case, i t l e a t he anti-national feeling that existed between the aausr• a l n , s t and the Tuscans. As soon as the wounded m an Was conveyed to the hospital, the brother _went to Mr. s nark -- " subseauentiv, it ap ' ed that both the broth pear tt ; and, relied on Mr. s p ur and Mr. Mather Scerlett. They did not aPecif they wished,. further than. wing the word, redreas Y what his judgment- They neither asked for ; they left all to 4 jUdiei al inquiry nor for damages; in fact, Mr. Searlett had th e entirely in his own hands. At first, it seetaeci, 1i_ . 1 , 1 , r o at % tt had sent the youth with re letter .to Prince Lichten . ear 0 jug—. He is a verY good-natured man, and he viii hear as " o y ur story:" It would bays beep better had Mr. s r . -- ariett y examined into the matter, and decided whethe r h himself unofficially with the Austrians, or o e ought to proceed ffieially • the Tuscan Government. Th e yopth was well received b y Wit ' ,l r Lichtensteip, who gave full fath to his story, A .,__ n la -.44. • Sca i rle ee tt, at any rate, had it in his power to write . ~,„_ . 'a for instructions. Through out the whole of the proceedia ri gs, Mr. Mather had invariably sought to leave everythin g ~_ " th_ei judgment and discretion of the Government here, or n f fir. - Scarlett at Florence. Mr. Searlett first of all appli e d . '' 'Unofficially; and there cer tainty seemed to.have been 4 inclination on the part of the Austrian authert. considerable h early and subse to have arrang e d l ea, int e . queut stages, his mind the matter unofficially. The was th im P re3s-1.1 -on at th e whole question might have been thus sa t isfactorily. e a t aged; because, when once Prince Lichtenstein was coh-- vinced that no insult was intended by Mr. Mather, i t. Was not necessary that he should ,state anything Maha r. . O s officer on service, _r the Lieatenant Forsthaber, had b ee - Lieutenant Barb, who was not oi l d• . It under arrest, as well as t . ' dif a full expres sion of re,tFet had been made, thee: 37, a l have been little difficulty an corning ,to an arrap_ a would especially as the parties did not want any cepap eo l_r . n nt, -honour of the country was attael sed 4 ..an,. " but thought the persons. The Teparation ought to have been lin a in their P 1 of that general nature that it might have been tonaidered°gY lion to the Englishman. injured, but an a not only id a repara w e gment' of the right of. Englishmen to be protect ed , s ekno tinental coun tries. , Mr. Searlett might have arra na .„_, c 9 gad in s n matter cially. l'lsTot having done so, he hn_., unoffi ceed officially. The moment e W as , ~ `" 4 no choice bat to pro ' was rid of the whole . A tria ease.--rn• :left to do so US that assear, hear.) It had been said by a high authority ast r. a applying . officially to Tuscany, that ,„ ocarlett was wrong in fin' ought to have gone to the Austrian authorities. What Wo uld have been the case had he done so? This that would at once have been an official acknowledgment , Tusc an —5 was made over to Austria.----alear, hear.) . Austria . doubt, would have to been very ready and anxious to make • any for the.sake.of having it acknow edged th reparation, a t -she was the party to be applied to for injuries .done irk ..... i n effect, that Tuscany was part of Austria.--e a Tuscan y ßearheir.). After that we should never have All!aeen able to treat t Tuscany as power. our n ego an independent . c. . a . to commerce; -`or spy other to A subj 1 . gums with regard ec ‘ , Must thee: undoubt edly have been addressed to Austri a f ro _ which, we our eaves had placed her.--(1 1 us th lion in e posi • tained that itr. Scarlett and the a ear. Re therefore, main . ra , Government' com pletely ria . • slit in Saying that rusearty sh were t tied her had ould be responsible as lan g a t ab ir l 'ulam al t tak ependence--that while exr o i s i ng t—e , ghts shil e mlie .... e the that of an rode- pendent power,--(ti ar2) UP. to that mei* were, in power... One pa ssage in time the late Govern was at , - aloss to understand. It was conta* these .proceedings :he ~,h ' f Lord Granville to Lard Westmore rota IneddisPa'; . . los6 i—l3ut if this inquiry is not fairly c ''‘na, Situ was as foe flukice is used to suppress the truth, the nd and in tr o itis t il icted, will be' obliged to seek for reparation for this 0 . Government. ana - unoffending and unarmedßritish subject fro m ll'ragea up n ti " That seenaed ratherinconsistent ; for having once';lst declared that Tuscany was responsible, how could they ravel out of TO cauy and go . to a n y o th e r P ow er .of Europe ?revel ? n t Austria go refusing, they might as well h ave In the event of vne tGer man Diet, and so ro u n d,the continent.-.(Neer hear. ,They bound to fix on one power, and were bo , t Up to that point the case was pretty clear M ake it responsible.T theues. tion arose, what should be accepted as redress? hen This was not for Mr. Mather to say. It was a question b e t wee n the ' GOvernment of Great Britain and, that of Tuscany. It was their duty to fix that, and abide by their d emand. --(Hear' hear.) Mr: S ear l e tt, not at the desi re of Mr, blather, but as representing. England, claimed a full judicial inquiry- The answer - of the Duke de. Castigliano • merely went to concede a private inquiry to ascertain the facts, but not With. the slightest idea of any verdict, or gi v i ng any reps- The Bishop. of SALISBURY believed that some of the parochial clergy of large towns did express an 'opinion in favour of these marriages, but their opinions would be -of greater weight if they had not coupled them with arguments which were not maintainable. Nothing, however, was more clear than that the opinion of the parochial clergy was un favourable to'the permission of these marriages.-- (Hear.) The petition was then ordered to lie on the table. THE SMOKE NUISANCE. Lord REDESDALE presented a petition from the Lord. Mayor, Aldermen, and Common Council of London, praying for an extension to the whole of the metropolis of the pre visions contained in the London Sewer Act of 1851, for abolishing the nuisance of smoke from steam-engines and furnaces. The Noble Lord said that it was disgraceful to the metropolis that such a nuisance should be allowed to exist. The Earl of SHA.FTESBURY heartily concurred - in the prayer of the petition. The nuisance arising from smoke was injurious both to the health and to the pockets of the people. Ile had been assured by an extensive manufacturer who consumed his own smoke, that he had, saved thereby in fuel and coal no less than 3001. a year. The petition was ordered to lie on the table. COUNTY COURTS FURTHER EXTENSION BILL - Lord BROUGHAU, in moving the adoption of the.Com mons' amendments, explained the nature and character `s those amendments. One of them was to increase the sale= ries of the judges of the county. courts. By this amend. went these judges were to receive a minimum salary of 1,200/ a year, which might be increased to 1,500/, at the discretion of the high law authorities Of the country. Another amendment was that these judges should be pro hibited from practising as counsel, barristers, special pleaders, conveyancers, or attorneys, and that they should strictly con fine themselves to their judicial duties. The only alteration . which he would suggest in this amendment was this, that as conveyancers and others who might be appointed judges under the Bill might have unfinished business in hand, which it would be inconvenient to transfer to others; instead of being' restricted from practising " from and after the Passing of this Act," the words should be four, five, er six months fronl and after the passing of this Act. The 'only amendnient, to which he anticipated any objection was that which referred to the prohibition of barristers practising in the county courts without being instructed by an attorney or solicitor. In .those county courts Alone—, whether great or small, whether in the, metropolis or in the provinces —was there a statutory prohibition on an advocate, from receiving instructions directly from his client, without the intervention of _an attorney. The rule and etiquette of the profession prevented him from going into court unin structed by an attorney or solicitor, but there wit S-110 posi tive rule preventing him from seeing his client in chamber in matters of a delicate and private nature which he did not wish to, communicate even to his solicitor. Now; why' not leave ,the barristers practising in these courts, as those prac tising in all'other courts, to the usage and custom of the profession? It was said that they would be too far removed, from the supervision of the heads of the profession, and that there would not be a sufficient check upon them. But if persons were inclined to act unprofessionally, he thought they would be much more likely to do it, and to do it with impunity, in a crowded city ,like Loudon than in a country town, where they would be narrowly watched. He approved of the etiquette of requiring bar.. risters to be instructed by attornies; because in 99 cases out of 100 he did not see how it would otherwise be possible to get 011—to examine witnesses, for instanckand other things ration. The court of A u i learned d o ne t parties were adinittect i . aq o advocatew hi whichwas n one ofemployed,the Out he was of no use. After • taking down the derosiiians of the witnesses, the p the court ewers of ceased.These - depositions were sent to the Austrian officers, but not to - Mr. Scarlett at all, who only obtained them, on application, as a favour, the Duke de Casti I had a right to withhold them. g_ atm maintaining that he Mr. sear! It nets thus put oil in the most insulting manner. itse oltrse there was no verdict or sen'ence, and the whole might be called an ex parte proceeling. This mi g h t be said inquiries of this kind in Tuscany were in its favour; compered with those in some of the Rom Rarity Sat themselves, hear.) As far as the inquiry went , it aPPeared.—( Hear, been fairly managed; there had been no threate to ' h es aN e -e r tampering with the witnesses; and the result w a nin `n e en the Englishman gave no offence to the Austrian bes 3 ' se ;;;,,, — he was cut down.—(Hear, hear.) When the present G o vernment came into office, they had all these- particular_ before them ; and there was a dema n d f or redress ! He regretted that the first coarse taken by the Noble Earl opposite was not a becoming one, or one that ought to t have been adopted under any circumstances. The Noble Earl (Malmesbury) invited Mr. Mather to do what was the duty of the Government to asses the damages in the pend ing case, he being a party concerned. Anything more ex traordinary than that was almost impossible. Mr. Mather had seemed unwilling to give any opinion, and repeated almost twenty times that he wished to leave it to the Go vernment to decide—that it was for Lord Malmesbury to say what he thought was due to the honour of the country. —(Hear, hear.) If Lord Malmesbury had therefore stated what ought to have been done. Mr. Mather would not have had another word to say; but it was too herd to force him to assess the amount of redress, after he had so many times disclaimed the task. Even in the passage in which Mr. Mather mentioned the 5,0001., be refused to consider the question, without reference to British honour and interests. It had been said that that sum was too much ; but it was not long since a similar occurrence had taken place. A Mr. Churchill, who was at Constantinople, went out shooting, and was taken up as a poacher, and brought before the Cadi by the proprietor of the land. The Cadi had him bas tieadoed, and set hits at liberty. At this insult to a British subject great public feeling was aroused ; and first of all, the Gorernment insisted upon the dismissal of the Cadi. They very nearly likewise got the brother-in-law of the Suiten into a scrape for defending the functionary in question; and they made the Turkish Government pay 4,000/. to Mr. Churchill. But now, although this gentle man got 4,0001. for a slight bastinado —( Laughter)—here was an Englishman nearly killed—and h'e (the Noble Lord) regretted to hear that Mr. Mather had been again confined to his apartment—and it was said that 5,0001. was too much. (Hear, hear.) As soon as a money compensation had been agreed to, it became a question of bargain ; the English Government was to set to work, and, in the language of the Noble Earl, try to "get wbet they could." It certainly did not appear that the Noble Earl was able to play - the Jew nearly so well as the fuse= Government- The Noble Earl's instructions to our agent were that.s,ooo/. was exor bitant, but that he must get what he could; and here he (Lord Beaumont) must say that the Noble Earl had stated what was really not quite borne out by the facts, namely, that Mr. !Slather considered that the injury was 'one that might be atoned for by money. Mr. Mather had always said jest the contrery; and the statement of the Noble Earl had had a most damaging effect upon him in the opinion of foreigners, who had applauded his spirit in treating it, nos as a personal, but as a national injury. - ( Hear, hear.) But the Noble Earl went on to see what could be got. He ap plied to Austria, but that po eer very wisely declined to put the screw on Tuscany, and would have nothing more to do with the matter. es , hen the 5,0004 was mentioned to the Tuscan Government, it was horrified at the amount, and at once denied its responsibility. Indeed, he must say that its conduct throughout had been most disgraceful.—(Hear, hear.) The Noble Lord ought now to have taken steps to insist on his demand; and he must do him the justice to say that he had never given up the question of Tuscany's responsibility--(Hear, hear)—although Mr. Scarlett, in a paper which had been laid ppoe the table that day, appeared to have done so But the Noble Earl, instead of insisting on what he had demanded, said, " Well, try to get 5001." Then there seemed to have been some disposition at Vienna to help Tuscany, and to pay the money for it; but of course this could not be accepted on the prin ciple laid down by the Noble Earl. The Noble Lord, however, never lost sight of the bargain, and when he could not get 500/. he proposed au arbitration. Ile did not seem to care from whom he received the money, provided that it only appeared to come from Tuscany. At this point Mr. Scarlett sickened, and then Mr. Barron appeared on the scene. He sent home a great dispatch, an nouncing the glorious news that the question was settled, not by the payment of 5,0001, as Mr. slather had demanded, nor of 1:0001. which the Government could not get, nor 50.1. which they had consented to take, nor by arbitration which they had offered. An unfortunate thousand frances coni was all ghat could be got, but then there was some thing more. Two Stratfords, whom he (Lord Beaumont) really believed had been guilty of some great offence, were thrown in to make up for the loss. 'H e (Lordßeau mont) did not suppose that the Government here were consulted as to that arrangement, but it was one of the most extraordinary that could be conceived. Because A had done an injury to B, .B was to receive reparation by the exemption of C and D, who had done an injury to F. This was the monstrous principle of the arrangement; and by it the Tuscan Government escaped all responsibility whatever. Nay more, the Duo de Castigliano actually went so far as to say that the money was not paid as a reparation for the injury that had been done, but that it was given to Mr. Mather out of the singular liberality of the Grand Duke—that it was, in fact, given to him as they would give money to a beggar who bad no claim upon them. That was the manner in which Mr. Mather and this country had been insulted.—(Hear, hear.) A long correspondence of an extraordinary kind between Mr. Mather and the Noble Earl, and concluded by a pithy letter from Mr. John Blight, was likewise appended to the papers; but he (Lord Beau mont) owned that it appeared to him to have nothing to do with the question before him, which was far too important to be mixed up with matters of that kind. He (Lord Beaumont) maintained that so long as the present state of things con tinued in Italy, and so long as that country was occupied by Austrian forces, so long would occurrences of thi s kind be taking place. All their negotiations connected with central Italy were in an unnatural position. Unfor tunately it had been the policy of Austria to encourage every kind of misgovernment in the Roman and Tuscan states, in order that they might contrast unfavourably with Lombardy. They had urged on the wretched states of Parma, Modena, and Tuscany to adopt systems hostile to civil and religious liberty; and had even gone so far as to threaten what little good existed in the last, under the laws of Leopold 11. These attempts on the part of Austria had been assisted by what was called the clerical party, who, acting upon the feeble, p r i est - r i dden sovereigns, had brou g ht affairs into such a state as would almost justify a general rising of the people of central Italy, both against their sovereigns and their foreign allies, by whom those stat es were occu pi e d. P er h aps , indeed, before long such a rising would become inevitable. Under these circumstances it was the duty of Great Britain, as ono of the great powers of Europe, to urge upon the sovereigns of these countries such a social amelioration, and such im provements in their governments, as would render unnecessary the presence of the Austrian troops to assist in enforcing their police regulations. Austria would then be obliged, upon demand, to retreat, and our position in those countries would be placed upon a national and proper footing Lie trusted that the Government wo u ld en d eavour to do its . duty, as it did in 1834, when it urged upon the Papal States the necessity of social reforms; and believing that such events would be likely to be repeated, he thought_ that they would not meet the merits and justice o f th e case until some great steps were taken to remove the anomaly of the three duchies of Tuscany, Parma, and Modena being any longer held by the Austrians.—(llear, hear.) He should conclude with a motion, namely, that there should be an address praying that such papers should be laid before Parliament, containing the instructions to Sir Henry Bulwer, as would show, under present circumstances, what was the proper reparation to be now demanded, and what was the nature of that which had been demanded from the Government of Tuscany.— (Hear.) The Earl of MALMESBURY would not detain their Lordships in going into a detailed account of the transac tions, because the Noble Baron, who last addressed them, and to whom he was much obliged for doing so, had given an account of the accident or outrage which occurred, which was as nearly as possible correct. When first he. (Lord Malmesbury) felt it his duty to consider the case be believed it to have been a brutal assault, for which there was no ex cuse the act- of a violent man—without any self-control, and under the influence of an angry feeling, for which no cause was given him. He looked on it with the same indig nation that every Englishman felt when the outrage was described to their Lordships by the Noble Lord the late Se cretary for Foreign Affairs; he did not undervalue it, there fore, as some persons had chosen to say against him ; he saw the brutality of the outrage, but he could not say he was prepared to go, as many people had d one , an d ap parently the Noble Lord, the head of the late Govern ment—that Noble Lord considered it to be a national in sult, and an outrage on the honour of this country. lie begged their Lordships to consider What the consequence.s would be if it were laid down as a-rnle, that every English man assaulted abroad; or injured, should be identified with the national honour of Great Britain, and that the moment a British subject 'was struck, Great Britain should also strike. Suppose death -to have-ensued —suppose murder had been committed, he asked their Lordships what the conse quences would be, if this country supposed itself notoriously insulted by snch results, and were, therefore bound to avenge them with the whole strength of the empire. —(Hear, - hear.) Men may be insulted in a foreign country, just as foreigners were in this, and then they had a right to claim the pro t ec tion of the law under which they lived; but they had - no right to go to the Foreign-office, who could 'only see that justice was done them before those tribunals to which they appealed. He, for one, did not scruple at once to tell them, that although an ofe f en ce wa s committed in Tuscany of a very grave and serious nature, there were no grounds for claiming the pro tections of the Foreign-office, unless in the case to which he alluded, or until Mr. Mather had failed in his negotia tions- How did the case stand? On the 27th of February thelate Government made way for the present Administra tion, and when he came into office he found the case of Mr. Mather had been previously inquired into by the Noble Lord who preceded bins. If that gentleman felt himself insulted, it was necessary for him to adopt the course un happily usually taken in such matters 30 years ago. He did not blame him for doing so, and although the prac. tice of duelling was abolished, he should be sorry that another mode of settling disputes were done away with, and that was the acceptance of an apology for an injury— es hen that apology was sufficient. He thought, where in sults were not premeditatedly given, that an ample, full, frank, and gentlemanlike apology was sufficient. A man's honour must be always safe in his own hands. He did not say that Mr. Mather was wrong in refusing that which was tendered to him, but such an apology was offered by the commander-in-chief and at the hands of an officer who knew how to speak the English language. Five days after the accession of the Government he came into the office. He was not sent for, as bad been alleged, when he said he came to consult on what should be the basis of the negotiation. 11e (Lord Malmesbury) at once disclaimed the idea of making it ,a national insult. He told him the national honour was in his hands. and that it was no;business of his, except so far as every . Englishman was concerned for the honour of his country.—(Hear, hear.) It appeared to him that if he adopted any other course English subjects abroad would have to be protected by an- additional responsibility. He did, not think he departed from analogous cases, or that he was wrong in taking all responsibility from Tuscany, as had been said elsewhere. An eminent and distinguished par son, and another no less distinguished than the Noble Lord, charged him three times in his speech with ibeing guilty of great omission in starting first in the case. He said he (Lord Malmesbury) had not consulted the Queen's Advocate; bat the fact was there was no Queen's Advocate. The late Government resigned on the 20th, on the 27th the present came into office; but their predecessors remembered their old friends even on their deathbed, and appointed a Queen's Advocate on the day of their own funeral, and the day before that of Sir Herbert Jenner Fust. Lord CAMPBELL begged to remind the Noble Lord that the appointment of a Queen's Advocaterested with the Arch bishop of Canterbury, and not with the late Government. ; -- ------- ---_________— - - been much ant that means the who la n h e Lord MALMESBURY contended that that ma d e . no dif- interest in giving the redress ; y ferenee with e respect to the charge against him, th a t ha hal matter would have not consulted th Queen's Advocate. Then, again, the ' Without bl am i ng t h e N o bl e Earl fber easilY settled.-(Hear.) the course he had pure Noble Lord and the ot h er N o bl e L or d w h o was for socao thric I sued, he would as k h ow h e stood nowf it appeared that his colleague, blam e d hi m for appea d ng to T uscany at a l: : Mr. Scarlett was di savowe d , and the whole question was but that he should a t once h ave gone t o ' A ustr i a . The re-opened -not as to t h e amount, for thatovlve _ent. This all settled- but for er Government had only thei r j u d gment an d common sense to , as to the respo ns ibility of the Tuscan G gUide them, sod it seemed b e tt er to th em no t t o recogn i se i hal increased the difficulty o f the question,the Noble eParation. or in anyway the occupation of Tuscany by Austria. But he ; Lord must now either insist on an additional was astonished to hear the Noble Lord make such an asser- ' on Tuscany ac.knowledging its responsibility by admitting tion for he must have remembered that no longer ago than that stun to be due. He doubted whether the ar ' ents in 1849 the same regiment, and he b e li eve d th e name officer, the dispatches were sufficiently cogent to attain that were in Tuscany, where they committ e d very gross out- Allusiou h a d b een ma d e to t h e occupation ,of the IrtaeTilt• rages and inflicted great injury on British property. And States by foreign armies. No one regretted this more i yet what was his astonishment to find that Lord Palmerston, than himself, nor more desired to sea the time when on the Bth of August, 1849, in writing to Sir G. Hamilton, these forces might be withd rawn w i t h sa f ety. The Noble expressly declared that he considered the Tuscan Govern- Lord (Beaumont) had said that Austria encouraged meat responsible for the outrages so committed. He held misgovernmeet and tyranny in the other Italian States the sa m e d octr i nes on the 30th of April following, in writing that her own States .might appear well governed by corn toViscount Ponsonby atVienna. 'l hen he was accused by the parison. This he considered most jesuitical reasoning, and Noble Lord, in another place, of dishonouring Mr. blither; too absurd to obtain credence for ,a moment. He did not the expression used being that he had dishonoured and taken know the exact terms on which the French forces occup4d away the character and independence of an independent Rome, but he presumed they were independent of the Roman English gentleman. But that was not so; and he observed tribunals. th at in a case tried in the city , Lord BEAUMONT-The city is in a state 'of s i ege. where of Dublin, some tinie since, person was lost through the negligence of those The Earl of ABERDEEN said in that case the troops who bad person which the Chief a steamer, the company gave COOL, would be independent of the tribunals, and therefore their creditable iudeed. On situation , was not analogous to that of the Austrian troops. Saturday, the 2nd said was very by which he. In conclusion, he would repeat that he did not condemn thought the met , he received the dispatch, did not consider ter was finally settled, and although he the course of the Noble Earl, but hoped that great caution the arrangement satisfactory, and not would be used in the instructions that were to be given to thinking that Mr. sear lions as to the amount ' d with his dirie- "t it Henry Bulwer -(Hear ) lett had compile . Earl GB* • • Bulvver to that effect. t of money, he wrote to Sir Henry ANVILLE referred to various seises of armies Other - same occupying foreign countries, and expressed a hope that time, which he had no dispatches arrived at the opened.lii explanation of this he Government would demand explanations from Austria and bad to observe that he ad had to attend Foreign in other duties to perform. He France as to the conditions of their occupation of the Italian Cabinet Councils. and also 'isters, her Majesty's Council, States. He thought it possible that such terms might be true that from Saturdav t o es place in Parliament. It was arranged by the mediation of this country as would lead to these dispatches. The business n o d e ay lie had not opened the withdrawal of those troops. (Hear, hear.) With re in recent years greatly increased; the Foreign-office had Terence to the present case, he wished to vindicate the late thirt thousand Government from the charge of being too hasty and imps dispatches, in and out, came to that offle Y-three enclosures, in the course of a year. if be, without counting tient in demanding reparation. This was the first time such dispatch, he would not have given the one e had opened that a charge had been made. In Tuscany a great number of to Mr. Mather. • The most painful matteria vvr h 0 had done insults to British subjects had recently occurred wehout re he transactiond • and knowing that military officers had was, tat Mr. Scarlett had deviated &ma i hia - dress being obtained , which, . h notwithstanding what had been said inst ructions, generally been the aggressors in these cases, he thought this Prime Minister, were clear and precise. The v .. 4 .: the late a case i n which he was bound to demand prompt r e p ara ti on . _re three It had been said that ..... that demand ought to have been made in number. The first was, that the responsibility should eminent. He could not agree in this - thrown upon Tuscany of protecting British subjects with;r7 'to the Austrian Gov _ . its territories: Secondly, that he should obtain 5001 a s an (Hear, hear.) He thought it would have been a gratuitous indemnity to Mr. Mather; and that no less sum should be to insult to the Government of an independent state to pass it accepted, and if there was any doubt upon that matter WI. over in that way. The Noble Earl (Aberdeen) referred to a Scarlett's own words would show it, when he said, "he took reaty n ow i n ex i s tence, which did not exist in 1849; but it ; • of this case that the secret upon himself the responsibility of accepting the smaller a rt i cle Y since the occurrence . sum." The third was equally plainly stated. It was that, ex - min " the treaty had been referred to which was said to it he failed in these points, he was to wait until that able tribunals,the occupyi n g army from theurisdiction of the In where the attack was on and_ experienced diplomatist, Sir Henry Bulwer, arrived. a private ill -other similar cases, lie had never received any explanation why he had not amenable t ividual, it had been held that the army was done sit He regretted that Mr. Scarlett should have made thought, fun the tribunals of the country. This, he this error, but he could not blame himself, under such cir- redress from i Y h j9rilled the late Government in demanding cunastances, for writing to Sir Henry Bulwer to renew the referred in detalfastean Government. The Noble Earl then . . negot r ia 1 ns. stated the ' - 3 ._ some of his own dispatches, and view wito whic h Wr itte n . Lo d t CAMPBELL should not ' have risen to address their had • pointed out that ' f • i they had been H e Lordships on this subject had not Mr. Scarlett been his own by the Tuscan Govern- dal-1.-reifies were thrown in the way relative, and did he not feel bound to defend him from tbe to Austria; and he % ras a / 1 7T it niigbt be necessary to look harsh comment which had been made on his conduct. His and' Learned Lord Cider.' i i u l 3 . ? t o be borne out by the Noble relative well deserved everything that could be said in hie Government to apply to - tic e. Oat it was open to the either •T favour. He had served under Lord Aberdeen and Viscount was said he had neglected to a art.- H a ar hear.) It Palmerston, and earned the approbation of both. The Noble cute, but he had no facts to lay the Queen's Advo• Earl said the remedy to be sought in the case was the ordi- instructions to Mr. Scarlet werealhbefore that officer. His nary remedy to be obtained in an English court of law.' He described, he was to demand reparation if the facts were as Go differed from the Noble Earl on that point, and maintained vernment, and bad anticipated the threel of the Tuscan that the case was one for the immediate interference of the Government might take upon that demand- courses which the Government.-(Hear, hear.) If Mr. Mather would have experience which he had had in the 1/lend- After the accepted of an apology the whole matter might have been thought he had learnt what were the pro-. s o reign-offiee, he amicably settled, for Mr. Scarlett had made all the necessary which to submit cases to the Queen's Advocate. occasions on arrangements, and Mr. Mather replied in the most un- consulted a gentleman of long experience i n attiT He had qualified terms that he would not accept of an office, who had since been raised to a judicial eincee Foreign apology from the whole Austrian army-he insisted gentleman said the late Government had done quite , and that on an investigation. In judging of the final result the instructions they sent out to Mr. Searlett, in dena nght in their Lord s hip s mus t t a k e into account the large dis- reparation from Tuscany in the first instance. and in ending not re cretion left i n th e h an d s of air. Scarlett, who was told to ferring to the Queen's Advocate till the facts we re get an annuity, with ou t b e i ng told whether it was to amount tained.-(Hear, hear.) He would add that he though a t se t t .to 5/. or 100/ a y e a r , or w h a t Mr. M a th er would have got Austrian G •vernment had been actuated by a desire that the from a jury in England-a very doubtful matter. The in- matter should be arranged in a conciliatory manner ;in this straction on that subje c t was an exceedingly strange one. he included also the conduct of Prince Schwarzenberg, v e h - , Mr. Scarlett was instructed to tell the Teacart Government had displayed great abilities in the office be had held, - that the 5,000/. asked by Mr. Math er was exorbitant. The Earl of DERBY congratulated the House on the Now, he thought it would be just as prudent and as discreet calm and temperate tone in which the question had been not to instruct Mr. Scarlett to show the dispatch to the Go- discussed, tending, as he said, to disencumber it of the rub -vernment of Tuscany.-(Hear.) Besides, the Tuscan Go- bish which had been heaped on it in the public prints and vernment were themselves asked, in one dispatch, to fix the elsewhere. He rejoiced that all deviations from the main sum which they.would give. They were informed that such question bad been avoided, and all reference to particular a sum would be expected, not as Mr. Mather would have ob- and exceptional expressions in dispatches. There seemed tained from an English court, but what he would have been to be a general concurrence of opinion that in the first in awarded by a Tuscan court. - .Yet in another dispatch the stance the late Government was justified in appealing to the Tuscan Government were told that such compensation would Tuscan Government. The principle was, that so long as be expected as would have been awarded by an English Tuscany enjoyed the privileges of an independent state and court if Mr. Mather had been out down by hastliog one received diplomatic functionaries in that capacity, she of the Guards in Hyde-park. The Noble Earl round must be held responsible for any injuries to ' British fault with Mr. Scarlett for settling this matter till the subject in her territory.-(Hear, hear.) Every one arrival of Sir H. Buiwer; but in a dispatch of the 27th concurred in exempting young Mather from blame; admit of April be was instructed to bring matters to an imme- ting that he had involuntarily raised his arm, there was dials termination before Sir las - Bulwer arrived. And it nothing to justify the outrageous insult committed upon was under the pressure of that dispatch that the nego- him. It was necessary to draw a distinction between the tiations were brought to a conclusion. The three charges national point of view, and that regarding the individual. If against Mr. Scarlett were that he took less than SOOL, an Austrian officer had committed an offence or insult against that he surrendered the responsibility of the Tuscan Govern- a British subject as a national offence; if he had joined, for meet, and that he mixed up the case of the Stratfords instance, in pulling down the consular flag, or offering any 'with that of Mr. Mather. Now, with regard to the first insult which might be considered a national insult, he was charge, Mr. Scarlett was left with very vague instructions not prepared to say that we ought not to hold the nati on em at frst. He was then told that he must hasten the ploying that officer responsible for a national insult.-(Hear, conclusion of the negotiations before the arrival of Sir hear.) But in this case, from first to last, there was no H. Bulwer. Under these circumstances, it was not sur- question of national insult or indignity.-(Hear.) It was prising that he consented to accept less than 500 L Now, perfectly clear the officer did not know that the offending with regard to the surrender of the respo ns ibility of party was an Englishman, that he had no previous malice or the Tuscan Government, he admitted that if Mr. Scarlett grudge against him. It was perfectly clear, from the very first, had acquiesced In the terms of the Duke of C as ti g liano's that all the Austrian authorities, differing from us as to letter of the 10th of May, he- would have surrendered the responsibility of the officer, joined in disclaiming any the responsibility of th a t G overn ment. But he did no s uch thing lik e na ti ona l f ee li ng, an d i n expressing regret at thing, for, in the letter of the 11th of May, he p ro tested the unfortunate occurrence which had taken place. Prince against the Dake of Castigliano's interpretation, and reas- Lichtenstein, in his dispatch, regretted the sad occurrence Sated the principle, which he had already laid down in his which had given rise to the negotiati o n, an d h ope d t h e Eng letter of the 17th of March, to which he referred, as to the fish Government would not have occasion to write to him responsibility of the Grand Ducal Government.-(Hear.) again on such_a subject. It was impossible for an officer The Noble Lord, therefore, was 'quite mistaken in supposing placed in his position to offer a more handsome expression of that Mr. Scarlett had surrendered one iota of Tuscan respon- regret; and when, at a subsequent period, Prince Schwarz sibility. The third charge was that Mr. Scarlett had mixed enberg himself, on the part of the Austrian Government, up the case of the Stratfords with that of Mr. Mather. Now expressed their regret at the occurrence, all international he knew a good deal about the case of the Stratfords, because feeling, as between England and Austria, might be cowl he happened to be in Florence at the time. These two dered to be at an end ; and he joined in.the observation gentlemen, the sons of Lord Aldborough, were tried for an that any apology from the Austrian officer was unimportant, offence against the Tuscan Government, before an Austrian after receiving that signal and marked expression of regret court-martial, and were sentenced to be shot. That was a from his superior. Not only was there an expression of re.. violation of international law; and if redress had not been gret, but there was a distinct declaration on the part of the g • iven, he had no hesitation in saying that it would have commanding officer that if Mr. Mather would mak e th e de - justified a declaration of war. T h e shooting of these gentle- claration that he intended no insult, the officer would, i n any men was not carried into effect, it was true, but they terms he mi g ht desire, express his regret at the action were k e pt in rigorous imprisonment. Now w as it which had led to this unfortunate r esu lt It was said . not proper and right that this matter should be brought to a that they ought to have demand e d that the Austrian termination? It was brought to a termination, but the case officer should be subjected to a trial for the offence whi c h of the Stratfords was not mixed up with that of Mr. he had committed. That trial had taken place, and Mather, to the injury of the latter, for these gentl eme n w ere the Austrian officer had been found not guilty. God forbid liberated ' from prison on the 7 th of May, in cons eq ue n ce of that he (Lord Derby) should defend the extremes to w hi ch Mr. Scarlett's letter of the 6th. He believed that the more the Austrian military law went; but, by the rules of the those papers were considered the less the blame which would service, an Austrian officer was liable to degradation, and to attach to the conduct of' Mr. Scarlett, and the more it would b e d e p r i ve d o f th e power o f ever serving again if .he'did not appear that he had faithfully carried out the instructions cut down any one whom he supposed to have insulted hi m Which had been sent to him.-(Cheers.) while on duty. Consequently, if they had gone to Austria, to The Earl of ABERDEEN said it was satisfactory know how could they have demanded the punishment of en officer that no national differences were now at issue on this ques- for an offence of which he had already been acquitted ?-- tion ; for from the first Moment in which it was clearly as- (Hear, hear.) So far he (L or d Derby) distinguished he zertained that this violence and outrage which was corn. tween an offence committed against the nation and a . me per misted was unpremeditated and done in i gnorance, however sona l i n j ury t o an E ng li s h su bj ec t i n a f ore i gn country who the injury to tho individual might remain, the insult to the was violating no law. He thought the Noble Lord had country was done away with, for nations, like individuals, committed an error in appealing to Tuscany in the fi rst committed must net regard as an insult -what was decla re d not to b e I nstance . Wh e n a personal i njur y h a d been co • - ed intended as such.-(Hear, hear.) With regard to the in- against an English subject abroad, his first duty was se jury to the individual, and the redress due fo r th at i n j ury, appea l t o th e tribunals of the country; and if those tribua he was disposed to agree with the Noble and Learned Lord uals were unwilling or unable to grant him re s in thinking that that redress' might be demand e d f rom h a d th e n a legennate right .to app ea l. to his ow es ' he either party-from the Tuscan or the Au s t r i an G overn - moot t o ma ke it a question bet ween the two Gu n dr Govern ment-but he should say preferably from the Austrian. lie thought that this principle had been l os t 'vernments. Though it might be very well to say that you wished was unfortunate that in the first in s t ance Mr. ght of. It to insist on the independence of Tuscany, that did not alter accepted the trust which Mr. Mather had carlett had the nature of the existing facts, for with regard to the Am- hands; and had thus prematurely m a d e wha placed in his Irian army, Tuscany was not independent, and though `they matter a qUestion of international dis t Was a personal might receive all the money they demanded from the Tuscan that the Noble Earl was therefore in error Pilte. He thought Government, that would not make Tuscany independent of mand upon Tuscany, before reparation 11 in making a de tbe Austrian army, which was by treaty excluded from the the Tuscan courts.-(ileac, hear.) ad been sought for in jurisdiction of the Tuscan Goverement. The instance cited paration was to be given, what ou 1 t But supposing that re by. the . Noble Earl of compensation received from Tuscany in quality? Should it be an apolo g ? 1 Abe its character and 18 - 19 was a proof in confirmation of what he now said, for by Austria, and was rejected in a n apology was offered the treaty by which the Austrian force was exempted from by Mr. Mather, who demanded most contumelious manner Tuscan jurisdiction was signed in 1850, so that it was in a exemplary punishment of the an inquiry, and the full and very different position from that in which it was in 1849, which the Noble Earl thought offender. The only case in when it was only an - auxiliary force. But this was not a for the Government was in , it was a case for an apology new case, for they had seen other armies of occupation in ness of the tribunals. T he Ln a Case of the failure orun v r - . • ly the same position as that of the Austrian armynow Scarlett to demand an in • Noble Earl bad instructed precise rted that • 'r That was the case with respect to the French that inquiry had been a full and had been con - of Spain in 1822, under the Duc d'Angouleme. ducted with no desire and fair one, occupation one. Then came the deny that Spain was indepen- demand We did not then pretend to .. founded upon that screen any We of the d ring that time. We carried on transactions with offender. But the Tuscan inc Li uir Y' fa ,,, r e e it - ` 'd they had a dent a the Spanish Government, and sought redress from that Go. treaty with An ti s • brovena.z---- t impossible, for vernment; but where the French army was concerned the the Austrian oM rlassa Which , tendered that the cognizance Spanish Government was unable, and was lay treaty finable, of the courts. R e e re.. were withdrawn from it would have been to exercise any act of jurisdiction. The same was the case most unwis e if (Lord Derby) thoug ht total irresponsibilit when France was occupied by the allied army, and when of the Aust • they had accepted the. call d u on the Tus y the British forces remained in that country after the occupae Governmentthe at all. It was a matter o . le of Tuscan respon- BritPur the papers on the table that the illustrious Dake who corn- sibilit 0 affirm andmaintain the principle The article mended the British troops in Portugal proposed to make the treetn Y for injuries inflicted in Tuscany. by no means bound ish troops amenable to the Portuguese tribunals. Ile t --a Was one which this country was took that declaration as a statement of the facts of the case • 1 :' a ree3 g a lee, for it was not a patent, but a secret one, un f Europe. -( Hear, hear.) He - but at the same time, if such a transaction as this occurred ' knows to the other powers o in Lisbon-if an English officer had cut down a Porto thought he say, that in the parrallel case Might venture to . uese • had acted in precisely a similar with or without reason-he thought the Noble Duke would m 1819 the late Government the Queen's A dvocate, when have had him brought before a court-martial, and would ne the y to insist upon the sole responsibility deliver him over to the_Portuguese tribunals. The Aust • t had felt it their duty , army, therefore, in this instance, being independent _nen of Tuscany for injuries inflicted in that cauntry.-(year, to punish the offender, Tuscan Government, it seemed to him that the of the hear.) But i 'f Tasceny was unable natural and tion to the parties who were the sufferers. the reasonable course to pursue would have been to 1 it could afford reparation . . redress to that power which was independent of Tus ook for d nothing to say against Mr. Mather's .„,, fi e (Lord Derby) had compensation. Mr. Mather had by whose subject and officer the outrage was commit e t allY ' acceptance of a pecuniary ~„iwtinpOssible ; for he had Tufts the Austrian authorities seemed willing to give that ed. And dement& ,„,,” - h - a - t by " treaty it had ledgeditselfnot ired to do ; 'for the officer was tried before a military court of in redre s s,i canY tql ecan t ° inpensation was p th - • left. It exculpated the officer on 'the ground that he clue and P- 417 co . . . . e only thing * 0 been more judicious if the Noble Earl had their military code. Into the justice of that code violated ght have •if that could have been done, upon some not enter further than to say that, it appear: ehe would fixed at °n which he admitted 'cl ded; bat the and most barbarous that a man with un reasonable fixed sun' Jt• h • l 8 enute thi considered i n - chi e f us ice imse that no ng could should be allowed to resent what he his, h an d Lord in. re uncertain than the verdict of a jury in such a to be an be a l° suit on the spot, even to the destruction o f 4 , and, therefore, the Noble Earl having cut down heat.) In this country if a man fe.-(Hear, case;presented exorbitant claims, had fixed upon a sum which he officer, he presumed the officer would not his fi s t to an intendedthe to demand as an acknowledgment of the principle would merely hand him over to the poll touch him, but ° r re sponsibility-not as a matter ;of favour, but as a right of resenting on the spot what might be ce, and the notion insult,upon which he might insist by the law of nations. In the as was the code in the Austrian and all imaginary service, seemed to him quite incom even in the Prussian avowed that he was as fully and entirely responsib'e as they could not blame the officer vat p r ehensible. However , his Noble Friend, for not one of the steps which he had lations-(Hear, hear)-and it a 0 acted under such regu t ken was adopted without his full knowledge and consent • detzky a . , thought the officer was jastifiedPpeared Marshal Ea pursued. and he (Lord Derby) was therefore just as open to censure Bat even so, that did not di m i • in the course he inflictedon a if any were deserved, as the Noble Lord himself.-(Hear.; man admitted to have h !nett the injury en if The fact was, his Noble Friend had insisted throughout een in s the officer were justified in innoce n t Therefore , ration upon the point which was of the greatest importance, was due to the injury sun what h e h a d dose, ••-:- na l After namely, the liability of the Tuscan Government, and had the declaration of both Prince ined by the inclivid a nd Prince resolved to have a tangible acknowledgment of that prin- Lichtenstein, there was ,demandedScliwarzenberg on the ciple in the shape of a pecuniary compensation. Upon the ground of national hon nothing t o be dto the maintenance of that principle, he (Lord Derby) was lead individual remained to r, but the re paration rh notion of an to stake the reputation and existence of her Majesty's Go apology from the officer ha 'Settled. and therefore some vernment.-(Cheers.) He wished that he could stop here, other description of compensatewas rected, to be sought for. and that he was net compelled by a sense of duty to enter, It therefore became compensation "5 ount of compensa- .w hi c h h e did with very great regret, upon the observations tion. Into that a quests= of the aro but he should of the Lord Chief Justice. He (Lord Derb ) not enter; y was care that have thought that question he would _ ei It inesbury), instead of Mr. Scarlett had no cause to complain of the • • the Noble Lord ( . way in which calling on Mr, Mathersum himself, would have his N o ble Friend had spoken of the previous s - aof that allowed the Queen's to fix a do so; and then he would gentleman; and if the Noble Earl hadcharacterisedervice Advocate to Mr. have been prepared the niin named. Instead Scarlett's conduct as an error of judgment , it bad of this, he had)e ared to stand by - make reductions f rom th e b een do ne in any offensive manner. The Noble Lord had original demato d . been obliged probable Mr. Scarlett was brought three charges against Mr. Scarlett-first, that right in sa i II 3 and it wa s a v ery orts, if appealed to, would he had accepted a less sum than he . authorised; have grantY4g that the T As n° to the question of the indepen- secondly, that he had waived the responsibity of the deuce f as mach - no doubt compliance with our Tascan Government ; and thirdly , the manner in which he n Tuscany , there was but we could not extort from had acted with respect Messrs. Stratford. With dema n d s enforced, to the might be Tuscany o f her independence, so l ong as the Aus. respect to the last case, that Noble and Learned Lord knew trian arm an avowal virg „ her territory, that army being only that there was great difficulty with regard to the right of resp ons i i "? °CCu r - G o vernMent for milit ar y offences, in this country to interfere. The Noble Lord must likewise e to its own British army in Spain had been. Though know that, although been tried for a very serious the a ss ,. . . t h e --- w '''Y a- that army was still there for Tuscan offence by aco they had tnos have had proper juris- Virtually indepen den therefore t ' thought that while either power diction, yet theurt which might been reduced to what would purposes; and be lied to for redress, it would have have h • sentence had . . beau inflicted by thetribunal. The Grand Duke civil Might h ave been a pplied reasonable to look to Austria; had, not these gentlemen's been more ju st --: right• felt.. moreover, promised that only , _ a r or wrong, would have an lives should be spared , but that at the expiration of a very Which, wheth TLi E 1) V 22. 1852.