The Sun. — London, England, 1853-02-18 00:00:00

f; ;- ,) ":" (7. ame reason in Hungary. The truth appeared to be that of the House of Hapsburg had done nothing else since the Reformation but persecute the Protestants in every way. It was not so much the Pope who was to blame in all that, as it was that Jesuitism, which had always been main tained by Austria, and constantly under the pretext of religion, of which perhaps it felt but little. He (Lord D. Stuart) was glad to see that the Government was so much alive to this subject of persecution ; but he thought the best means of carrying into effect the object which his hon. friend (Mr. Kienaird) had in view, would be, not by an affiance with Prussia or any other State, but by pro curing an evacuation of Tuscany by Austrian troops. (Hear, hear.) He thought that this ought not to be made a question of party or of creed. He was glad to see so many members of various creeds in th e house, and he only wished there were in that assembly persons of more creeds. (Laughter.) He had heard w ith g reat pain and_ surprise that many Roman Catholics in -1; this country u di ke d not disapprove of the conduct pursued That was shown by the little response th y at had been made ' to the letter of Lord Carlisle, in which that nobleman called on his Roman Catholic countrymen to state whe ther they approved of persecution for conscience' sake. His learned friend Mr. Anstey, who recently held a seat in that house, himself aßoman Catholic, had stated that those among the Roman Catholics who were against such persecution were a very small minority ; and the hon. member for Meath (Mr. Lucas) had publicly stated, in a letter to Sir Culling Eardley Smith, that he considered it was the duty of every Roman Catholic State to put down heresy, even with violence, if that it should be necessary. (Hear.) He (Lord D. Stuart) was sure that those prin ciples were not common to all Roman Catholics ; and he would point to a declaration to be seen in the newspapers of that day, signed by five gentlemen who had the mis fortune to be Polish refugees, to the effect that they did not agree with those who thought it was a duty of Catholic States to persecute their sucjects for heresy. In conclusion, he trusted that whether the Government agreed to the motion or not, they would, at all events, pro ceed in the career which it pointecrout, and not permit this country to suffer the reproach of remaining supine when such atrocious attacks upon religious liberty were made in any country, as those which had just been brought under the notice of the house. Mr. LUCAS said, that while he could not withhold the expression of his thanks to the hon. member for bringing forward this subject, in order that it might be fully and fairly discussed, he could not agree to the resolution which had been submitted to the house. His reason for not agree ing to the resolution was, that he did not believe it stated the real facts of the case. The resolution set forth statements different from those contained in the papers submitted to the house. The words of the resolution were, that "her Majesty will be graciously pleased to take such steps as her Majesty may deem most fitting for bringing under the notice of his Imperial Highness the Grand Duke of Tuscany, the strong feelings prevailing among a large number of her Majesty's subjects in consequence of the pdrsecution now actively begun in Tuscany, of those who secretly or openly profess principles held by her Majesty, in common with the majo rity of her Majesty's subjects in this United Kingdom." The case, which was stated in the papers before the house, was altogether a different one. (No, no, and hear, hear.) From these papers it appeared certain that the case of the Madiai was not a persecution for openly or secretly pro fessing any religious opinions whatever, but a punishment inflicted upon those persons for engaging in a system of proselytising at the bidding and instigation of foreign emissaries and agents. (No, no.) He contended that such was the case set out in the papers before the horse. It was the actual technical form of the proceedings of the Court, and they were punished and condemned for " the crime of impiety, asmanifestedin their acts of proselytism." No person could deny that such was the case. The Medial, while denying that sectarian meetings were held in their house, admitted the fact of the meeting of a few friends there, for the performance of the rites of the religion which they had newly embraced. That was the case they endeavoured to make out for them selves. They admitted the apostacy of the young girl in their service, but they maintained that the act of apostacy was committed by her spontaneously, and not by their persua sion. The entire defence put forward by the Madiai was that they were not guilty of the crime of proselytising, and that they had only performed acts of private worship in their own houses. The sentence of the court, however, was, " That notwithstanding, neither by their witnesses nor by witnesses summoned to public audience, have they succeeded in overthrowing the facts alleged in the accusa tion." And these facts were acts of systematic prose lytism, at the instigation of foreign agents, and by the instrumentality of money supplied from this country. (Hear, hear.) The hon. member who proposed the resolu tion stated that those persecutions arose out of religious re action, and the noble l or d w h o secon d e d th e mo ti on be lieved that they arose entirely out of political reaction—one believed the Pope to be the prime mover of the business, and the other the House of Hapsburg. For his part, however, he believed the statement made in the letter of Mr. Scarlett, addressed to the Foreign Secretary on the 22d of August, 1851, contained the real cause. That gentleman stated that all persons professing a religion different from that of the Roman Catholic were always permitted in Tuscany perfect freedom ; but that the State would not allow foreigners to tamper with the religion of Tuscany, as it was believed that religions conversations were only used as a mask of dan gerous political views. That was the case which the Tus can Government made out for itself, and the resolution called upon the House of Commons, in fact, to constitute itself a court of appeal from the courts of Tuscany, and to declare that they had not pronounced correctly either upon the facts or upon the law of the case. He contended that it was impossible for the house to take any such ground as that. They were bound to assume in dis Cussing a question of this kind, that the finding of the Tuscan courts was true, and that the law had been accurately carried out. The facts were, that the Madiai had been prosecuted for the crime of proselytising, for acting under the direction of foreign agen cies, meeting in secret conventicles, dividing themselves into companies of ten, for the propagation under these foreign agencies of certain doctrines, and it was for these offences, and not for meeting together for private worship in their own house, that they had been condemned. He did not profess to have the least sympathy withlthe recent re-enact ment by the Tuscan Government of the punishment of death against the so-called " depravers of religion," and so far he agreed entirely with the sentiments expressed by the previous speakers. Indeed, for the sake of argument, he was ready to admitsthat the Tuscan Government was to be blamed for having punished the Madiai in the way it had done for the crime of proselytising. 'What, however, had been the conduct of the Government in cases of a different description, and in which Roman Catholics in different parts of the world had been concerned? The noble lord the mem ber for Marylebone had told the house with great power of the perseoution of the nuns of Minsk by the Emperor of Russia. That case excited a great deal of public feeling in this country, but he (Mr. Lucas) had never heard that the Secretary for Foreign Affairs everinstructed our ambassador at St. Petersburg to remonstrate on the subject to that mighty potentate ; on the contrary, he treated him with a great deal more consideration than had been shown to the humble and miserable Grand Duke in the north of Italy. Who had ever heard of the Secretary of Foreign Affairs re monstrating with the Emperor of Russia, or telling him that it was contrary to the law of nations and the enlighten ment . of his age, to persecute and inflict the extremity of punishment upon mere Roman Catholic nuns ? (Hear, hear.) The sufferings of these nuns were greater in atrocity than anything which the greatest license of extravagance had stated to have taken place in Tuscany ; but the prudence, discretion, and good taste of her Majesty's ministers at that time thought it would be better to allow the nuns to be tortured than to hazard a word of remonstrance with so great a potentate as the Emperor of Russia. (Hear, hear.) From the speeches of the mover and seconder of the reso lution he gathered that in their opinion it was the duty of that house to remonstrate whenever Protestants suffered persecution. The noble lord the Secretary for Foreign Affairs had stated in his dispatch of 27th October, included in the papers before the house, that foreign governments might intercede with another on behalf of those who professed the state religion of the interceding nation, and that more over it was their moral duty, as Protestant ministers of a Protestant sovereign, to employ their good offices in the cause of persons whose only crime was their adherence to those views of the doctrines of Christianity which were maintained with the Church of England, and which were shared, with greater or lesser shades of difference ' by the vast proportion of the human race. He did not know whether the house was prepared to adopt that limited theory on the subject. He for one certainly was not. The practice of the Foreign-office had been not merely negatively, but positively, in accordance with this theory. If he were looking for an advocate of the highest authority in that house to defend the conduct of the Grand Duke, he should be inclined to request the noble lord now the Secretary of State for the Home Department to undertake the case. (A laugh.) The house would recollect the transactions which took place in 1847 with respect to the expulsion of the Jesnites from Switzerland. The noble lord took an active part in those transactions, and the voice of the able advocate of toleration for the Church of England was then heard in favour of the expul sion of the Jesuits, guilty of no crime. (Hear.) In a dis patch from Lord Palmerston to the Marquis of Normanby, of November 16, 1847, the noble lord said:—" It appears to her Majesty's Government that the objections which the Diet makes to the continuance of Jesuits in Switzerland, are not destitute of good and reasonable foundation. The society of the Jesuits must be looked at both in a religious and in a political point of view." (Hear, hear.) In its re ligious character this society seeks to make war upon the Protestant religion. (A laugh.) What wonder, then, that in a small country like Switzerland, where two-thirds of the Population are Protestants, the introduction of such a society should give rise to distinctions between Catholics and Protestants, and should be viewed with aversion by the ma jority of the people. Upon that ground it was that the noble lord in effect advised the Diet to exter minate the Jesuits from Switzerland. But the Jesuits were to be established in the Catholic cantons, and in strict accordance with the policy and opinions of the ma jority of the inhabitants. The noble lord recommended, in fact, that the lay Catholics of the canton of Lucerne should Na ar waged upo n be shot, them because they advocated amo ng themselves the maintenance of a body of emissaries of their own faith, who wer e organised to make war upon protestantim. The Grand Duke of Tuscany said that the emissaries of Protestantism were really emissaries of revo lution, and, taking the same ground as the noble lord the then Secretary for Foreign Affairs, he de c id e d th a t th ese persons ought to be punish ed I'? Tuscany, just as the noble lord had decided that the Jesuits should be expelled from Switzerland. (Hear, hear.) There were some other opinions of the noble lord which also qualified him for the post of defender of the Duke of Tuscany, and those opinions would be found embodied in the corresp on d ence between himself and the Rev. Mr. Consul Pritchard, of Tahiti. The facts connected with this case were, that after labouring from 1797 down to the year 1835, the Independent missionaries found themselves at the head of a community more or less flourishing in the South Seas, the members of which have been converted by the labours of the mission aries from the worst form of Paganism to some description of Christianity. The Rev. Mr. Pritchard, whose name had ob tained a world-wide celebrity, was appointed consul of the island. In the year 1835 certain Roman Catholic mission aries went to the island, just in the same manner as foreign agents had gone to Tuscany, for the purpose of proselytis ing the people to the Catholic religion. The vessels in which the missionaries were had scarcely cast anchor, when the reverend consul went aboard, and, when told that there were Popish priests in the vessel, he departed abruptly, stating that the Queen would not allow them to land ; and they were compelled to return to South America. In the the following year several priests landed ; their dwellings were attacked, their lives placed in jeopardy, and ultimately they were compelled by main force to leave the island. The priests, however, found a vessel sailing in those seas, and they claimed the ion of the forces of their own country. Mr. Prit ace"aingly applied for advice to the Foreign and stated that Queen Pomare was anxious to pre - •fe) (:)raan Catholics from landing in the island. The noble • - • de.... Freud; otecti 7: ,r, „. -iontßc - 2 If 17—'1 lord at the Foreign-office did not exactly advise that a re ception should not be given to the priests ; of course he said every Government had the right to refuse to any foreigner permission to reside within its dominions if the presence of such foreigner was considered hurtful to society. The honourable member then proceeded to refer to a document from Mr. Pritchard, addressed to Lord Palmerston, containing a copy of the law then re cently passed in the island, forbiddi ng any person t o pro pagate any religion in the island other than that which had been. of 91d.propagated in Tahiti" by the missiona tines of Britain. Th e re pl y o f th e no bl e S ecre t ar y f o r Foreign Affairs, instead of being a scathing rebuke to the rev. consul of London-wall, simply stated that her Majesty expressed her deep conc ern f or t rou bl es o f Q uee n Pomare, and promised his good offices in the event of any interfe rence by other powe rs i n th e affairs of the Government of Tahiti. That law remained in force, as he understood, for two or three years ; and it was put an end to, by what and by whom ? It w as p u t an en d t o b y th e French admiral, coming from a Catholic country, with the Popish religion in his bottom—(laighter)—bringing that sort of a freight with him, he came with the Popish religion and with the French cannon, and the established—what ? A strange thing in the history of the Protestant religion in the South Seas, and he established that every one should be free to exercise his own form of worship and religion. (Hear, hear.) And the strange thing was that, notwithstanding the let ter which he had read, and two or three others of the same nature from Mr. Pritchard, that gentleman continued down to the present day to be consul in the South Seas and the Navigator's Islands ; and unless theseldocuments were im perfect, he had never received a rebuke nor a single word of censure for doing that which they censured the Grand Duke of Tuscany for doing ; he still remained there to preach those persecuting doctrines which had received no censure from the noble lord, and which excited no commis seration when they told upon their own side, but which excited emotions of holy horror and indignation when they told against them, and happened to promote the cause which they endeavoured to oppress and destroy. (Hear, hear.) If he could believe that this resolution which they were now considering expressed the real facts of the case with regard to the Madiai, there was only one conside iation which would prevent him from adopting it, and if there was a division from dividing in its favour ; and that was that he never would recognise the principle that the exercise of their humanity and philanthropy should be all on one side. The noble lord spoke excellent truth, sense, and wisdom when he referred to Russia, but he might have referred to other countries with which this country was more immediately connected, and much nearer home. He held in his hand two volumes which had been laid on the table by the noble lord the present Foreign Secretary as inducements for the house to consent to that new persecu- Lion against the Catholic Church which animated Rim two years ago, and which he lately told them animated him still. These documents contained an account of the public legis lation of Europe with respect to religion, and upon the grounds contained in them the noble lord pretended to base what he called his Ecclesiastical Titles Rill. He turned to the law of Sweden, and he found—what ? Mr. Gordon sent a series of documents for the information of the noble lord and the house, showing what was the legis lation of that eminently Protestant country. He bespoke the noble lord's favourable attention to these documents by telling him that the relation of the two countries—especially with regard to Rome—were so similar. He (Mr. Lucas) could hardly forbear commenting upon the terms in which this document was written. It came from a secretary of legation—an official who was bound to observe the ordi nary terms of decency in speaking of his Catholic fellow subjects ; and he must remind this Mr. Gordon and the noblci lord, who had insulted the Catholics by laying this document before the house, that the name by which the Catholics were designated in acts of Parliament and other public documents was not Romanists, but Roman Catholics. (Hear.) The word Romanist was a nickname—it was a piece of Billingsgate coming from an official, who derived his salary and his means of living from all classes of the com munity; but who sent this trash to be laid upon their table, to insult those from whose pockets he derived his bread, and for which ho was not reproved either by the noble lord who was now, or the noble lord who was then, in the Foreign-office. But he would pass from that the law which this Mr. Gordon explained ; and he hardly knew how to describe it, but there was a cheerfulness which came over him when he spoke of those laws which lent vigour and elasticity to his pen. He spoke of the tolera tion which had existed in the country; but what wore the facts of the case ? Every stranger who settled in the country and professed a foreign religion was not to be employed in any public situation ; he was not allowed to open schools — no missionaries were to be allowed in the country—no monasteries were allowed. One clause, he was sure, would excite the sympathy of the noble lord opposite, if nothing else did—the Jews were not allowed to have synagogues, except in Stockholm and one or two other large towns. The processions and ceremonies of foreign religions were for bidden ; the 'laws against apostacy were strictly carried into effect ; the liberty of the press did not extend to books inculcating the dogmas of a foreign religion • any member of a foreign religion speaking disrespectfully of the creed or services of the national Church was to be fined frem 10 to 50 dollars ; any person endeavouring to persuade others to embrace a foreign religion, 100 dollars; any person tempting others to attend the exercise of a foreign religion, 200 dollars ; and, if they persisted in these crimes, they were to lose their privilege of residing in the kingdom. But it might be said this was only the hitter and text of the law, and that they were in operative. It would be a sad mistake to make such an assertion. In the first document which came from Mr. Gordon they had a statement, given with the greatest anima tion and delight, of the manner in which these laws worked in practice. He did not, indeed, tell the whole truth ; but ho told them enough to prove that the laws were not inope rative. There was one instance in which the Swedish Government complained of the over-proselytising zeal of a Roman Catholic priest at Stockholm. Application was made to Rome, and the over-active ecclesiastic was recalled from his post. Was that all ? No ; if it were ho would not have inflicted upon the house this lip statement. He wished to show that there were at this moment going ou in Protes tant States acts of persecution against Catholics of which they were studiously and habitually uninformed, and which as much deserved and required the sympathy of this house and the Government as the case of the Madiai, unless they were about to adopt a course which would write them up throughout Europe as men who said one thing and meant another—men who had the words tbleration, religious liberty, and the spirit of this enlightened age, upon their lips, but who did not practise what they preached—who practised it only in defence of their own system of religion, but who looked on with unconcern and indifference when the sufferings of others happened to be in quesaion. He meant at an early period to submit to the house a motion with reference to other circumstances, other facts, other countries, and other acts of persecution, but which equally deserved the attention of the house with that which the honourable gentleman had brought before them. He would do this whether the present motion were carried or not, because the papers which were in all their hands showed that the English Government had interfered in the case of the Madiai, and he meant to test the sincerity of the Go vernment whether—having done so much for people who were persecuted bra Catholic Government—they would as much for people who were persecuted by a Protestant Government. He would bring them to the test on this subject, and Jib would tell them a part of the facts which he would lay before them.' With regard to Sweden he would be prepared to show that the laws ho had already , referred to were no dead letter ; that in 1848 it was pro posed by Count Stettin to repeal that part of the law which referred to confiscation and exile, leaving the other disabilities remaining, but the Legislature of the country rejected his proposal. Then, for instances of the way in which the law was applied, he could show, that, in 1848, a man was committed for having read a Ca tholic Bible, and said a Pater Nester to a few peo ple, for which he was fined 40 rix-dollars. In 1847, a Lutheran minister at Stockholm, sent a policeman to a woman to know if it was true that she had been re ceived within the pale of the Roman Catholic Church, and she was allowed time to reflect whether or not she would recant. There were also two brothers, of the name of Nel son, painters, and one of them turned Catholic. He was driven from Sweden and died in the public hospital at Copenhagen. For his part, he thought that if the Govern ment of this country was to interfere on the ground of hu manity—which was the basis of the present motion—the name of Nelson had as strong a claim to sympathy as that of Madiai. When he brought his motion touching these cases before the house, he would not ask any of his honourable friends near him to second it, he would ask the honourable gentleman opposite (Mr. Kinnaird) to do him the honour of seconding the resolution which was to strike out a new course for the foreign policy of this country—which would bring a new class of cases within its cognizance, and which would I throw the power and influence of the Foreign-office, and the faith and name of this great empire on the side of hu manity. The Catholic cases he had mentioned occurred in 1845 and 1847, but this very year a Catholic lady, residing in Stockolm, had been arrested for making proselytes, and put upon her trial. She was defended on a technical ground —he did not know the result, nor did he care, what he was concerned with was to show that in Sweden the system of law was as persecuting as in Tuscany. When he brought forward his motion, thereforehe counted upon its receiving the all but unanimous approbation of the house, or, at least an assurance that the same course would be pursued by the Foreign-office towards all cases of persecution. When he brought forward his motion he would take the noble lord to the system in Sweden, to Mecklenburgh next, and next to Saxony ; and when the noble lord had rebuked that evil spirit out of the Protestants—when he had accomplished that great work—when he had performed that herculean labour—when he had cleansed that augean stable, then he might begin with the Catholic States, and attempt to reform them. As he began by saying he would have supported this resolution if it had been in accordance with the facts of the case—as it was he could not support it ; but, when he brought forward the motion of which he had given notice, he looked to be seconded by the honourable gentle man. (Hear.) Lord JOHN RUSSELL : In following the able speech of the honourable gentleman, I own I should have been better pleased with that speech if that honourable gentle. man had indicated somewhat more decidedly than he has done, whether or not he approves of punishment and per secution for the sake of religious conversion —(loud cheers) —or for endeavouring, by peaceable means, to convert others to their religion. (Cheers.) In following that speech, in listening to all the statements of the honourable gentleman, I own I am totally at a loss to know whether he approves or not of religious persecution. (Renewed cheers.) I wish to refer as little as possible—though one cannot altogether avoid—reference to the questions between Protestants and Roman Catholics ; and I shall state at once that my conviction is, that if Protestant states, Pro testant laws, or Protestant judges condemn persons because they have become Roman Catholics, or because they teach others to become Roman Catholics, they do that which I consider to be morally wrong. (Loud cheers.) I care little what particular profession of faith they hold. Itrmay ' be that they hold exactly the doctrines and articles of the Church of England ; but if they, professing those doctrines, endeavour to inculcate them by penal means, by imprison ment and punishment—l say that with such persons I have no sympathy, and I would denounce them as readily as I would a Roma Catholic Sovereign. Well, sir. what is the case which my honourable friend the member for Perth has brought before us? The honourable gentleman oppo site stated that there had been misrepresentation and exag gerations as to the nature of the crime for which the two m a di a is were condemned —that it was not for the fact of their b e i n g Protestants, but because being Protestants they -endeavoured to convert others to Protestantism, and for having.done so under foreign agency. Now, with respect to this last p a rt of the charge, although that it is so st a ted in the general indictment, yet it seems to form no substan tive part of the charge, because the foreign agent—what ever might have bees} at first done—had left Tuscany some time before, and these two persons seemed to act entirely. from their own convictions in all that they subsequently did. But let the case be as the Tuscan tribunals and the honourable gentleman states it—though I must say with respect to those facts that they are contradicted by Captain Walker in the most explicit terms—but let it be that Francisco and Rosa Madiai did endeavour to induce several persons, being Roman Catholics, to read the Bible, and that they even endeavoured to induce them to believe that certain doctrines taught in the Roman Catholic Church were not authorised by the Bible—push their crime to the utmost, allow that they were caught, as the charge has it, flagrance delicto—that is, that they were caught reading the Bible in the Italian language—l still say it was a moral crime to punish persons for so doing. (Loud and prolonged cheering.) Well, then, the Government of this country— . _ in the first place my noble friend the member for Tiverton, next the Earl of Malmesbury when he was Secretary for Foreign Affairs, and in the last place since I have been at the Foreign-office I have taken the same line—we all stated to our ministers in Tuscany that they ought to use all the influence they could, or that the name of this country was capable of producing, to obtain a remission of the sentence of these persons. Now, with respect to the different Secretaries of State, I say we were fully justified in this proceeding, and I think we have shown such a disposition to press the case as far as it could be pressed according to the circumstances of the time, that I feel I am entitled to ask my honourable friend not to press this motion, but rather to leave it in the hands of the Government. (Loud cries of " Hear, hear.") The hon. gentleman, who has not given his opinion, as I maintain, on the general subject, says that we are not justified in considering ourselves the friends of religious liberty, because we concern ourselves only on behalf of Protestants, while, when oppressions and persecutions are exercised towards Roman Catholic subjects, we are utterly indifferent, and do not interfere. That such is our general conduct can hardly be maintained, because neither in the United Kingdom nor in any of the dominions of her Majesty with which I am acquainted can any person be punished for the offence of endeavouring to induce another to become a Roman Catholic. The hon. gentleman must be aware that accord ing to the general maxims of the laws of this country we would shrink with abhorence from anyproposition to punish persons because they had endeavoured to induce others to become Roman Catholics. The hon. gentleman does not deny this to be the case ; and so far our conduct as a State is in such contrast with that of Tuscany that we can go with clean hands and ask the Grand Duke not to exercise persecution. But then it appears that my noble friend near me, when he was Secretary. of State for Foreign Affairs, showed indifference to the question of religious persecution. I should certainly have been surprised if had been the case with regard to my noble friend ; because I know no man who has more frequently or more persever ingly shown his attachment to the cause of religious liberty —(cheers) ; and I well remember in that great struggle in which I was permitted to take part only by my vote, which ended in admitting Roman Catholics to seats in this house and in the Government, one of the most powerful specaes at the close of that struggle in favour .of the Roman Catholics, was the speech of my noble friend. (Cheers.) But my noble friend, it appears, took part in the disputes between the cantons of Switzerland, some of which said there would be no peace nor quiet in the land as long as the Jesuits wore allowed to remain. My noble friend said that might possibly be the case, because he had learned from history that the Jesuits had everywhere been the disturbers of the peace of States. (Ironical cheers from the Opposi tion.) But was my noble friend, when he said that, in dulging in a Protestant prejudice ? That could hardly be the case, because there were Roman Catholic princes who had declared the same thing with respect to the Jexuits, but in much stronger terms. (Cheers.) Among ether places from which they had been expelled was the kingdom of Spain, and by his most Catholic Majesty the King of Spain, in whose kingdom down to the present day no Pro testant was allowed, and in the next place, the Pope him self had declared that the order of the Jesuits was alto gether inconsistent with the cause of good order. (Cheers and laughter.) If my noble friend, therefore, was misled, if he had formed a wrong estimate of the order of the Jesuits— and there may be many estimable and admirable persons to be found in that order—if ho was misled, ho was misled not by Protestant but by Roman Catholic authori ties. Then the hon. gentleman, finding it difficult to find an example of intolerance either in the United Kingdcrm or in any of the possessions of her Majesty, he lights upon an island in the South Seas, and here he says is an instance of intolerance which passed without notice or rebuke. It is not for me—l shall certainly not undertake the task of de fending Mr. Pritchard and tho laws of Queen Pomare. For my part, I do not see that we were obliged to go farther in the matter than we did, because my noble friend, in his dispatch, informed Mr. Pritchard that it was impossible for the Queen of this country to remonstrate with France, or to take the island under her protection ; and then ;fore ho declined the proposition of Mr. Prichard.. The re is no doubt that there have been dissensions between the persons who have gone to establish missions in the South Seas, sometimes originating with the Protestant Ids ' sionaries, sometimes with the Roman Catholic missionaries;. and I must say that these dissensions are not at all credit able to the Christian profession. (Hear, hear.) The hon. gentleman complains of the laws of Sweden, and he refers to certain books, which, he says, I procured to supper t the Ecclesiastical Titles Bill. I must say I read very little of those books—my case did not require them ; and as t o the dispatch of Mr. Gordon, I do not know even to what, it is he refers. The question of the ecclesiastical titles was a question of fact. I held that it was a question of temporal power. Others maintained, against me, that it was a spi ritual question, and that it referred to the exercise of reli- , gion. The question undoubtedly touched on the confines I of both. _ I am not going to resume that dispute now ; but that was really the question—whether we were right who maintained that it was a temporal question, or whether those were right who said it was a spiritual question. But with respect to Sweden, or any other country, if the hon. gentleman, when ho brings his motion before the house, or makes his representation to the Secretary of State for Fo reign Affairs, will show that religious persecution exists, I am sure that the Foreign Secretary will have no objection to state to our minister residing in that particular country, that it is not consistent with tho spirit of the ago and with the maxims of the most civilised countries to adopt perse cution on account of religion. That her Majesty at the head of this State—one of the most eminent, one of the most powerful States in Europe—that her Majesty should instruct her ministers to take a secular interest in the per secutions of Protestants, is surely no unnatural circum stance. It arises from the Protestant character of this country—it has descended to us from the times of the Vaudois from the Revocation of the Edict of Nantes, and from other acts when we were called upon to succour Protestants who were persecuted and ill-treated by Roman Catholic States. I am not ashamed of being one of those who inherit those principles—(cheers)— and I think the Government have done nothing unbecom ing themselves. if they represent to a Roman Catholic Sovereign that Protestants are ill-treated, either in Tus cany or elsewhere. But the hon. gentleman said—Go to the sovereigns who hold your own persuasion. But is it not natural that we should rather go on behalf of those who are of the same religion with ourselves, and who are suffering, than that we should go to sovereigns who are of the same religion ? With respect to the case of the nuns at Minsk, the facts were obscure, and they were denied on the part of Russia. The only sovereign, I believe, who made a remonstrance on that occasion was the Pope. (Cheers.) Well, that was natural—he naturally felt an interest in those Roman Catholic nuns who were perse cuted, and he showed the interest which I think it was natural for him to do. And on the same ground, If Pro testants are persecuted by the Grand Duke of Tuscany, it is natural that the Queen of England should take as much interest as the Pope did in the case of nuns, and interfere in their behalf. (Loud and prolonged cheering.) But while I admit this—while I admit that it is natural that we should feel most interest on behalf of persecuted Pro testants—l assert again, what I maintained at an earlier part of my speech, that the principle is one and universal —that there ought to be no exception--that persecution for religion is always odious and detestable, and that the its ice againstcountryrnmentofthispersecutio. n will w al e w s a h y o s ui d d o b w e e a ll ss t is a te li c f i t a r d h ap a p s l j a u u s d t e sp d o b k y en th , e I vo s i h c all e of h t e he gl h a e d no to ur fit e t g h e a n t tle w am e a n re wh all o agreed on the subject. I cannot say, for my part, that the Catholic cagsanibnjsetcttshoefmhaedriaMi.aj e l st h y a a v p e pr s o e v en e te of st t ira hes: f speeches made by actsoe e borne, committed r n C e a , participate in the general feeling, though the first to complain, I have seen reports o Ro manis'h ow tCatholics,hat they which are extremely gratifying,. as they naturally they were not al Catholic religjothu se in p r ig opinions.e n n c e i r p l e sadisapprovelo fe(Hear.) religiousrln m o f law gt ow becomehh ieexcth would justify . • trf • • sure it is most desirable that persecution a o t n th a e cc ß ou om nt aj e l 6 to those States in which they ofFnce revolution of 1789, the Protestants France have since the liberty should spread andflouiciisohn,oatnndowshporulevdeibie. extended religion. I have often have not been visited by paersdeocfutpiornoteosntaanctcoculenrtgyinof entheiinr rernrdottelisetiranfltso,ckasn,dalnddotonmotduhcee " any person in iißFerovamenactenheecnraedtieheaovenliocurinys to France, or any ore civilised parts of Europe, their opinions. authority in France, in in e enng with ciples ; and I trust we are not these opinions, and will be disputed. Holding ) man co C m a i t n h g o l t i o c ,a time hose h en p t t i eny whether ProtestanTh:Choeree having taken the course which .h. mathai, I certainly do think to this particular ease of 1 House f Commons may leave lrs I have taken with respect it in the hands of the Government —( stra.nces, not to be con tinuallyit may be wise, having made remonstrances, remonstrances. Our opinions are that my hon. friend and the repeating those cheers)—and I think that the general opinion the Ma:diai and others may suffer it throughout the world. will at length secure relig ious libe y throu g known our voice has been heard, and Ido trust, although (Loud cheers.) country, it was therefore that as this was a Protestant anh ehalf of Protes reasonable it should interfere ra Catholics. He admitted tants, than on behalf of Rom ulation were Protestant, and Mr. BOWYER could not admit, to an unlimited.extent, that as the majority of the pop try might be called a Protestantsed which admitted Roman when the Emancipation Act pas other bodies, that the dis as Catholics to the same privilegesd Protestant would have been as the Established Church was P rocotunestantryt; bsoutfahrethdiisde,ohounpe- Unction between Catholic an Ire kingdom was a Catholic country red 6,000,000, whilst the land the Roman Catholics numbs(pressi of dissent.) Protestants did not reach ono ; l . ht as to the propor tbe precise y right forgotten. He could not forge H t ethbaetheovneed p th ai a t t i o n f I t r h e e . He perhaps might no accurately; but there could meat to ascertain. the numbers . majority of the lanPula overwhelming . that to be be no doubt that an Catholic. Knowing tion of Ireland was Roman . ht to call on the noble mo tion, because it was extremely difficult at the present mo the case, he thought he had a. n Roman Catholic subjects the e there was no class of to Protestants. He was quite and attached to the Crown not lord to say that the CrownofsaEmgnealanp her Majesty's subject more truly Catholics. He could t Constitution than the Roman extend to its subjecttfelt satisfaction to pardonhear to rodtewcaulonlas it afforded y had extended a tthe the Grand Duke approach this painful of Tuscan- He did not believe the these unfortunate persons. aired the secular arm to sup o - Roman Catholic religion req would give him the mof itself by its own truth ; and h . without declaring that it between the two hat religion. to the advantage of t th churches must redound enjoyed in this country ey What the Roman Ca.tholiocts_ other he ; but whilst ex wished to see enjoyed in h t sincerely, he must endeavour to port it. It could support . case umler discussion. pressing this of character the was convincefdeeltihnagtmaosfr3 discussion show the true legal c laced OIL the footing It had been pla ad soken it ought to have been. • and one hon. member h . , of religious persecution, regal rarchy to regain its power,. of the efforts of the Ronal. which had taken place in the proceed. and attributed . to the ifluence of the Holy See. He did not think the case had been put before the house as to show that this was not the He though which the prosecu tion was i n eti. Jan- The cede under d Duke Leopold, a Jan case. that of the Gran of the Emperor tilted was d'sciple and follower lesiastical the case of t t h h e e nist Sovereign, a 1 seof the, Joseph a code which the hierarchy and clergy , should be able In civil and temporal power. . Church of Rome of all their ower except that belonging Tuscany, the bishops had no 1:. Court, and deprived. abolished the Ecc to their sacred offices. According to the highest authority on the criminal law in Tuscany, the offence visited on these persons was n)t an ecclesiastical offence, but a civil offence —not an offence against religion, but against the outward system of the community. The hon. member then pro ceeded to real the act of accusation, which stated that these persons had afforded accommodation in their habita tions for meetings held for religious exercise and for in struction in their religion, and that they belonggd to a so ciety which carried on the distribution of books and tracts for that purpose ; and then it stated the errors which they had attempted to propagate. The whole gist of the case now made cm was that they had been punished for read ing the Bible; but the fact was, they were accused of im piety committed in the course of the last year, and of be coming memlers of a propagandist society. This was an offence against the religion of the State, considered as such. —not an ecclesiastical offence, but a civil offence, in dis turbing the community. Then came the sentence ; and he thought the house ought to assume that what the court had found to be proved was proved. The finding showed the facts set out in the accusation, and went on to show that the offence was a public offence. The proceeding was insti tuted by the Attorney-General, and was in the nature of a public proceeding. The subject was dealt with as a ques tion of the internal law of Tuscany, operating through its tribunals upon the subjects of that State. He could not help deprecating the manner in which the question had been agi tated in this country. In tracts, pamphlets, newspapers; speeches at public meetings, the Duke of Tuscany had been held up as a tyrant who ought to be exterminated. And for what? For an act of the tribunals of his country—for the in ternal administration of justice to his subjects. One of the dispatches sent out by Lord Malmesbury was so violent that Sir Henry Bulver declined to act upon it. It imputed the most malicious objects to the advocates of the Church of Rome ; and the tone it assumed in lecturing an indepen dent sovereign with regard to the administration of justice in his own country was extremely inconvenient, and cal culated to embarrass our foreign relations. In this case we were not not in possession of the whole of the facts—we ware ignorant of the peculiar circumstances of the country, and of habits and customs of the people ; and what ap peared in the opinion of the house to be wrong, might, under the peculiar circumstances of Tuscany, be extremely just and expedient. He considered one of the dispatches of the noble lord the member for the city of London still more objectionable than that of Lord Malmesbury.. The expressions used by the noble lord imputed a desire to avoid the spectacle of a public execution on the scaffold, and an intention to place persons in an unhealthy dungeon, in order that they might die. A dispatch from Mr. Erskine showed that many of the notions of a the noble lord had been conjured up by his imagination, and a statement by an English gentleman showed that the prison was situated on the top of a high hill. He strongly deprecated the use of such language towards foreign States on matters on which we were imperfectly informed, and believed that the mode in which the interference had. been carried on had frustrated the benevolent intentions of those who had used such un due means. He would not trouble the house any longer on this painful subject, but he should rejoice if he had suc ceeded in throwing any light upon it by placing the matter on its true footing. (Hear, hear.) Mr. H. DRITMMOND said that the hon. and learned gentleman who had just sat down had endeavoured to mak e the house believe that this treatment of the Madiai, whether it was to be considered as a punishment or as a religious judgment, was not a religious proceeding at all, but was to be accounted as a punishment for an offence against the State. Why, there was not an instance of per secution by the Inquisition that the same thing was not alleged. (Hear, hear.) It was notorious that the massacre of St. Bartholomew was justified to this day on this very ground. It used to be a common trick in Spain with the priests to pretend to intercede for the wicked man, while the cruel Statetook hold of the unhappy creature and burnt him; but, unfortunately, here the observation of Macchia yell occurred .to one's mind, where he said, " I have known many instances of priests interfering to aggravate a man's punishment, but never once to mitigate it." He (Mr. Drum mond) perfectly admitted that we were not very wise in pressing our notions of toleration on foreign States. He was sure, if what we called toleration were exercised to the full extent in France, that, under pretence of holding religious meetings, other meetings would be hold, and the safety of the State might be compromised. Therefore, he believed that the interfe rence i n this case had been judicious, and he thought that the Grand Duke, finding himself pressed upon at once, both from without and from within, might not have acted in the same way as if a private remon strance had been addressed to him, when his own bene volence would. have spoken more forcibly in behalf of those unhappy people. But the honourable and learned gentle man who had previously spoken said that the gravamen of the interference lay in its foreign interference. That sounded rather strange in his (Mr. Drummond's) ears, be cause, when allusion was made to the Ecclesiastical Titles Bill, the whole ground pretended on any side was that the act against which that measure was directed had been by foreign instigation. (Hear, hear.) The truth was, that a foreign prince, an Englishman by birth, but still a foreign prince, was sent into this country to effect a material change, that this prince wrote with his own hand to the Roman Ca tholic princes of Europe, and that they replied to him unknown to the Queen of England. He (Mr. Drummond) was told that that was quite a common thing, but this was only an additional reason why it should not 'have been per mitted. When Edward 111., who was a good Popish king, was engaged in a Scotch war, a Romish cardinal arrived at Dover, but he was stoppedthere by the Queen, who told him not to dare to advance one step further until he had re ceived the King's permission. He (Mr. Drummond) wished that the same course had been pursued with regard to Car dinal Wiseman. (Hear, hear.) Was it said by anybody that the rich men who went from London had taught the Madioi to pay a superior allegiance to anybody than to tho Grand Duke of Tuscany ? These things were questions of fact, and you had to deal with them, not quite in the sen timental way in which some gentlemen were fond of treat ing them. He wholly acquitted the Roman Catholic laity of any intention or liking for persecution more than the Protestant laity, but there existed what the French called a pantie pr4tre, and the success of that party depended on the moral, t,rairitual, and temporal degradation of the people. (Hoar, hear.) It was no wonder that the Grand Duke looked with jealousy on this interference, and before they con demned too strongly the conduct of the Roman Catholics, he (Mr. Drummond) would advise them to look a little into what their own conduct was. They said that these priests had usurped an authority over the Scriptures, and so they had ; but had not they (the Protestants) taken the Bible, and by it destroyed the Church ? If they had not gone the lengths of persecution which the upholders of the Ro man Church had proceeded to, it was simply because they wanted the power; for the language which had been used towards the Bishop of Exeter and others who had main tained the authority of the Church showed what they would do if they could. Mr. J. D. FITZGERALD never could consent to the doc trine that the free use of the Scriptures, or the holding of peculiar religious opinions, should be regarded as a crime. (Hear.) Such a sentiment would come badly from him, as a member of the Roman Catholic Church, which had a so ciety for the propagation of the faith, a society of which he was proud—which sent out its missionaries into every country with the object of proselytising. (Hear, hear.) He adopted the sentiments expressed by the noble lord the Secretary of State for the Home Department, but he must say that he could not understand why the hon. member for Perth, in introducing the motion, had referred to the conduct of the Roman Catholic clergy. From what he (Mr. Fitzgerald) had heard of this Leopoldine law he was con vinced that, so far from its being derived from the Roman Catholic Church, it was derived from a system which had destroyed the power of ecclesiastical courts, and through the ecclesiastical courts the power of the church. He ap proved to a certain extent of the interference of England in this question. It was not a question of Protestant and Roman Catholic, but one in which the great interests of civil and religious liberty were involved, and he said as a Roman Catholic—as a member of a religion which had been persecuted up to a recent period, and was not yet free from disabilities—that he should ever raise his voice against persecution of every kind. (Cheers.) He demanded civil and religious liberty for himself, and he would not be a party to withholding it from others. But the system still continued of endeavouring to impose religious-r_maions upon others by force, whereas we might at the present day at least recal to mind with advantage the saying of Charles V., who, after he had retired from the throne, employed his leisure in making watches—" Fool th,at I am ; I have expended all my time and labour and all 'the resources of my state in endeavouring, by force and violence, to make men think alike on religious subjects, when, by all my force, I cannot make these watches go together." He (Mr. Fitzgerald) hoped that the mover of the resolution would adopt the suggestion of the noble lord the Secretary for Foreign Affairs. Dealing with this question as one of strict right, perhaps we had already interfered too far in the matter, though he trusted that England, which was now the only country in Europe that possessed true liberty, would neither now,lnor at any future time, be backward in endeavouring to relieve those who suffered in the cause of freedom. (Cheers.) Lord STANLEY agreed decidedly and cordially with the language of the hon. member who had introduced this debate with respect to the general policy of the Tuscan Government, and, in particular, with regard to the case of the Madiai. There never could be entertained; on the part of any government, a doubt or hesitation as to the pro priety of England interposing in such a case. The only , question had been, what the form of that interposition r should be, whether it should take a formal and official shape, or be made to assume a non-official character. If an official remonstrance had been sent in, and no attention had been paid to it, or a peremptory refusal had been given, the Government would either have had to submit to the refusal, and have borne the consequent loss to the national dignity, or would have had to withdraw our Mi nister from Tuscany. But if there was one state in Italy which stood in danger from its neighbours, that state was Tuscany, and, therefore, the withdrawal of the British Minister from the Tuscan Court would be a misfortune not only to Tuscany herself, but possibly to Europe. It had, therefore, been determined that the interference of the British Government should take place only in a non official character. But the remonstrance, though it had not been official, had been extremely strong, and the Grand Duke had been urged at once to exercise his prero gative of mercy in behalf of the Madiai, and for the com mon good of all its subjects. There had been every reason to expect that the remonstrance would have been attended with success. Under the circumstances, he believed it was the duty of the Government to do all in their power on be half of those unhappy persons. (Hear.) Sir R. H. INGLIS said that the hon. and learned mem ber for Meath had claimed the.sympathy of the house and of England for all cases of persecution in which persons suf fered for their religion. He (Sir R. H. Inglis) would not consent to that proposition. His noble friend the Secretary for Foreign Affairs, acting more consistently with his high positiOn and high principles, and with his duty to the Queen of this Protestant country, had claimed for Pro testants that sympathy which this country feels for them. He (Sir H. Inglis) would not say that wherever any human being suffered for his religion, the people of this country were to offer their Aid, but when those co-religionists sympathised with us in the highest and most important of all interests, and when they were condemned to persecu tion for fidelity to their principles, then he said it was the duty of the Government, expressing the sentiments of this Protestant people, peacefully but firmly to endeavour, if necessary by the sacrifice of our blood and treasure, and at all events by the weight of our moral influence, to re dress the wrong-. Mr. KENNEDY could not understand this interference. He could understand the Grand Duke of Tuscany asking whether we liv e d i n per f ec t re li g i ou s harmony here, and thought that the Grand Duke of Tuscany would be just as much warranted in calling for the repeal of the Ecclesias tical Titles Bill as we'in interfering in Tuscany. I 1 Lord PALMERSTON—I do not wish that the debate should terminate before I have the opportunity of making one or two observations on the pointed allusions which the honourable member for Meath (Mr. Lucas) has made to me in the course of his speech. The honourable member is desirous that I should stand forth as the defender of the Grand Duke of Tuscany ; and I must own that it appeared to me that if the hon. member was the only defender the Grand Duke had, the Grand Duke was still very much in need of some ally. (Hear, hoar.) However, I defend myself, not the Grand Duke. The honourable member for Meath, unable to say one single word in defence of the Grand Duke, proceeded to impute to me conduct similar to that which my honourable friend and the house have so justly condemned ; and he proceeded to:allud.e to certain transactions in regard to Switzerland and to events which occurred in the island of Tahiti. With regard to the Swiss question, the honourable member read such parts of the papers as suited his purpose ; but I think he could not have seen enough to inform him of the entire nature of the transaction he alluded to, for, if he had, he suppressed the most important part. What was that transaction ? The hon. member appeared to assert that I had stood forward as the persecutor of the Jesuits—that I had urged the Swiss cantons to exterminate the Jesuits. That " extermination" it remains for him to explain ; I suppose he meant to expel them. The facts were these. A civil war had broken out—cantons armed against can tons—Protestants against Catholics—a majority against a minority. We were invited by the French Government to mediate between the parties, and endeavour to settle the matter on such terms as we best could, with the speediest chance of putting an end to that disastrous conflict. The cause of that conflict was the Jesuits ; it was their pre sence, their aggressive proceedings on the Protestant can tons, which produced the war with regard to which our mediation was asked for. The only and the natural mode of putting an end to that contest was to remove its object and cause ; in that spirit we proposed that the Jesuits should be withdrawn ; and I did state the reasons which induced that conclusion—reasons to which I still adhere — that the presence of the Jesuits in any country, Catholic or Protestant, is likely to breed social disturbance. Being called on to mediate for the purpose of putting an end to a civil war, I took the only natural course, the removal of the Jesuits, who were the cause, in the knowledge that so I should remove the effect. With regard to Tahiti, that re mote land to which the hon. member took his extended flight, in order to draw an argument in favour of a cause which he has endeavoured to support, but is afraid to avow —(cheers)— what had happened in Tahiti ? In Tahiti there was a barbarous and profligate, an ignorant and a heathen population. The Protestant missionaries, with a courage and a zeal that did honour to themselves, to their religion, and to the nation from which they sprung, facing all the dangers and perils which naturally surrounded men who planted themselves amid horrid savages, went to Tahiti ; and, by perseverance and zeal, by good counsel, by Chris tian example, and by Christian precept, they converted those barbarous savages into, what I am not afraid of call ing, comparatively civilised Christians. They had then re stored peace, and virtue, and order, and morality, to a land that had been before the scene of profligacy and vice, when in came the Catholic missionaries. And did they fol low the example of the Protestants ? Did they go to a land where danger and difficulty were to be encountered before they could triumph in the holy object of converting the heathen ? No, sir, they went to disturb the tranquillity of those whom others hal already pacified, instead of going to places where they might have been exposed to dangers, and where a religious triumph, worthy of Christ, might have been accomplished. They proceeded to disturb those peaceful people of Tahiti--for the purpose of turning Pro testants into Catholics, instead of for that of turning hea thens into Christians. (Cheers.) They endeavoured to disturb the social tranquillity of those lands. I admit, with the honourable member, that the proceedings of the Government, stimulated by our missionaries, exceeded, probably—exceeded, certainly—the bounds of propriety and justice. But did they put those Catholic mission aries into " comfortable prisons"—did they treat them as the Grand Duke had treated the Madiai, and other persons who have professed Protestantism ? ? Why, no. What they did was to say—" We are already Christians—we do not want your instruction—pray go away." There was a law of the island to compel them to go away. All that was done was this—they were ex pelled, not exterminated. Why, sir, the Madiais would be only too glad if the Grand Duke would follow the example set him by the barbarian Queen of Tahiti. If the honour able member could only persuade the Grand Duke to follow that example, I will 'venture to say they will tender him their most grateful thanks. The honourable member talked of continued persecution—a Roman Catholic sitting in this house makes these reproaches, he himself being our exam ple. I turn with pleasure to the speech of the honourable member for Ennis—to sentiments which do honour to that religion which he professes, and which I designate Chris tian, casting aside for the moment all differences between Catholic and Protestant. The honourable member for Meath wants us to apply to Governments of the same reli gion as ourselves—our advice to him is to take example by those gentlemen of the same religion as himself. (Cheers.) Mr. KINNAIRD then withdrew his motion. Sir J. SHELLEY then moved for the appointment of he following SELECT COMMITTEE ON COAL DUTIES. Sir John Shelley, Mr. Masterman, Sir Benjamin - Hall, Mr. Miles, Mr. Lowe, Mr. Kor Seymer, Lord Robert Gros venor, Sir William Joliffe, Mr. Headlam, Mr. D ee d e s, M r . Blackett, Sir James Duke, Mr. Vernon, Mr. -Ewart, and Sir Henry'lleux. Mr. ALCOCK wished the appointment postponed, in order to examine the names, and, if necessary, to alter them. Sir B. HALL did not see how a committee could be better struck for entering upon this question. Mr. STUART WORTLEY said he could undertake that the corporation of London and their officers would be ready to afford the committee every facility in their power in the prosecution of their investigation. He hoped that the committee would be allowed to proceed with their in quiry with the least possible delay. The motion was then agreed to. SELECT COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION. Mr. MILNER GIBSON moved that a select committee be appointed to inquire into the state of education in the municipal boroughs of Manchester and Salford, and in the contiguous townships of Broughton, Pendleton, and Pen dlebury, and whether it was advisable to make any further provision, and in what manner, for the education of the inhabitants within such boroughs and townships. Mr. PETO hoped that the advocates of the voluntary principle in education would be adequately represented on the committee. Mr. M. GIBSON was quite willing that the wish of the honourable gentleman should be acceded to. When the honourable gentleman saw the committee, he would find, that it was constituted with the view to represent all opi nions fairly. The motion was then agreed to. DESIGNS ACT EXTBNSION BILL. This bill went through committee. GRAND JURY CESS (IRELAND) BILL. This bill also went through committee. ARMY ESTIMATES. Mr. SIDNEY HERBERT laid the army estimates on the table. The house then adjourned at half-past eleven o'clock. PARLIAMENTARY DIVISION. FOUSE OF COMMONS.-FEB. 17. HOPS. Motion made and question put, " That the Excise Duty on Hops is impolitic and unjust, and ought to be repealed." The House divided—Ayes, 91; Noes, 175. AYES. Adderley, C. B. Freslifteld, J. W. Oakes, J. H. P. Alcock, Thomas Fuller, A. E. Oliveira, Benjamin Bailey, C. Gibson, M. Parker, R. T. Ball, Edward Greene, John Pellet Apsley Barnes, T. °revile, Colonel F. Percy, J. William Barrington, Viscount Gwyn, Bowel Potter, R. Barrow, Wm. H. Hadfield, George Pugh, D. Bateson, Thomas Raiford, Sir Henry Robertson, P. F. Bell, James Ilenchy, D. O'Connor Rolt, P. Bentinck, Geo. P. Hume, Joseph Sanders, G. Brady, John Hutchins, E. Shee, William Bright, John Joliffe, Sir W. G. H. Shelley, rir J. V. Brisco, Musgrave Jones, Darid Smith, John BenJ. Brown, H. Kendall, N. Stafford, A. Bruce, C. L. C. Kennedy, Tristram Stanhope, James B Butt, Isaac Kershaw, James Stanley, Lord Carter, Samuel Knightley, Heinell Sullivan, M. Cholmondeley, Ld. H. Knox, Col. Thompson, Mr. Ald Clinton, Ld. C.Pelham Laslett, William Turner, C. Clive, Robert Loraine, Lord Tyler, Sir G. Cobbett, J M. Lowther, Colonel Vance, J. Cobbold, J. C. Lucas, F. Vansittart, G. H. Cobden, Richard Nacartney. G. Walmsley, Sir J. Compton, H. Combs Mackinnon, W. A. Waiter J. Craufurd, E. Macgregor, James Whitmore, H. Crook, Joseph M'Mahon, Patrick Wilkinson, W. Disraeli, Benjamin Martin, John Williams, W. Drummond, Henry Miall, Edward Duffy, C. G. Mitchell, W. Fox, W. J. Miller, T. J. Fraser. Sir W. A. Mailings J. Randolph Frewen, Charles Hay French, Fitzstephen Muntz, G. Frederick Bass, M. T. TLLL7‘I3. NOES. Aclan Gladstone, William Mure, Col. A'Court, C. H. W. Glyn, George Carr Norreys, Lord Anderson, Sir James Goderich, Viscount Osborne, Ralph Armstrong, R. b. Goodman, Sir George Otway, A. J. Baines, M. T. Gower, F. L. Paget, Lord George Baring, Sir F. Graham, Sir James Palmerston, Viscoun Baring, T. Gregson, Samuel Patten, J. Beaumont, W. B. Grenfell, C. Peacocks, G. M. W. Bellew, Captain Grey, Sir G. Peel Frederick Berkeley, Admiral Grosvenor, Lord Ti. Phillips, John Henry Blackett, J. F. Hanbury, Spencer B Phinn, T. Booker, T. W. Harmer, Sir John Pilkington. James Bowyer, George Harcourt, Colonel Pinney, William Boyle, Colonel Hardinge, C. S. Powlett, Lord W. Brand, H. B. W. Hastie, Archibald Price, Sir R. Er otherton, Joseph Headlam, T. E. Price, W. P. Browne, Valentine Heathcoat John Itichardo, 0. Bruce, Lord Ernest Heathcoto, Sir G. J. Rice, E. Bruce, H. A. Heathcote, Gilbert H. Robartes, T. J. A. Burke, Sir T. Herbert, Sidney Russell, Lord J. Russell. F. C. H. Bus , ell, F. W. B Bu yn tl ,r er , , G C . h H ar . les S. Cardwell, IL E. Horsfall, Thomas B. Sawle, C. B. G. Charles Hervey, Alfred Chambers, Thomas Howard, W. G. Scobell, Capt. Charteris, F. Hutt, William Scrope, G. P. Chelsea, Viscount Ingham, R. Seymour, Lord Christy, Samuel Inglis Sir It. H. Shelburne Earl of Clay, James Jermyn, Earl Smith, John Abel Clay, Sir William Keating, Robert Smith, M. Tucker Clifford, Henry M. King, P. J. Smith, Rt. lin. R. Clinton, Lord Robert Kinnaird, Arthur F. Smith, oal, e taling Ih W, M, I C Mcs. Coffin, Walter Kirk, William Stanley, Tin. W. 0. Collier, Robert P. Knight, F. W. Stansfield, W. R. Tc . Cowper, W. F. Labouchero, H. Stapleton, Joh n Crossley, F. Langton, 11. G. Strutt, E dward Cubitt, Alderman Lawley, F. C. Swift, R. Deedes, W. Layard, A. H. Taylor, H. Denison, J. E. Legh, G. C. Thornely, T. Divett, Ed. Locke, J. wn l Drumlanrig, Viscount Lowe, Robert Townsh en d , J . Duncan, G. Luce, T. erakntmaamn,,HJaemnryes w Tufnell, H. Dundas, G. M'Taggart, Sir J. Vernon, G. E. H. Dundas, Hon. F. Maddock, Sir T. H. Villiers, C. Pelham Eccles, W. Malin% R i chard Vivian, J. Henry Elliot, John Mangles, R. D. W Evelyn, W. J. Marshall, William W ells, W. Ewart William Massey, W. N. W est h ead, J. Fagan, W. Masto. man, John Wh a ll ey, G. 11, Fergus, John Matheson, Sir J. Ferguson, Sir Robert Meagher, ThomaslNlVrii Filmer, Sir Edmund Mills, A. Wilson, James Fitzgerald, J. D. Mills, T. Wise, J. A. Fitzgerald, W. R. S. Milner, W.M. E. Wortley, J. S. Fitzroy, Henry Milnes, R. M. Wyvill, M. Fitzwilllam, G. W. Molesworth, Sir W. Young, Sir j o b, Forster, M. Moncreiff, James Franklyn, G. W. Monsell, W. Freestun, Colonel Montgomery, Sir G. Geach, Charles Morris, D. George, John Mulgrave, Earl TELLERS. Ilayter, W. G. Aerkeley, Granville THEATRE ROYAL, HAYMARKET. Farewell Season of Mr. Benjamin Webster as Lessee and Manager. THIS EVENING, FEB. 18, Will he performed the new and original Comedy, in five acts, called NOT SO BAD AS WE SEEM; or, Many Sides to a Charac ter. Supported by Messrs. B. Webster, Barry Sullivan, Keeley, Buckstone, Leigh Murray, Stuart. Rogers, Miss Rosa Bennett, Miss t. Vining, Mrs. Leigh Murray, &c. After which, the new and original Farce, called TO PARIS AND BACK FOR FIVE POUNDS. To conclude with the Farce of BOX and COX MARRIED and SETTLED. ROYAL LYCEUM TREATRE. Under the Management of Madame Vestrie. THIS EVENING, FEB. 18, Will be performed the Comic Drama called A PHENOMENON IN A SMOCK-FROCK. Characters by Messrs. C. Mathews, F. Matthews, and Horncastle; Miss F. Baker and Miss C. Mitchell. After which, the new and popular original Fairy Extravaganza, ntitied THE GOOD WOMAN IN THE WOOL), in which Messrs. F. Matthews, Suter, Horncastle, and Templeton ; Madame Vestris, Miss Julia St. George, Miss Robertson, Miss Martindale, Miss Ellis, Miss Wyndham, Miss Eglinton, and Miss Rosina Wright will appear. To conclude with LITTLE TODDLEKINS. Sole Agent for the Private Bozos, Mr. W. Allcroft, 15, New B ,nd-street. THEATRE ROYAL ADELPHI. Proprietor, Mr. B. Webster.—Directress, Madame Celeste. THIS EVENING, FEB. 18, Will be presented the powerful new Drama of SLAVE LIFE ; or, Uncle Tom's Cabin—by Messrs. Alfred Wigan, S. Emery, 0. Smith, and 'Cullenford ; Madame Celeste. Miss Woolgar, Miss Collins, Miss Harding, Miss Keeley, and Mrs. Keeley. To conclude with the successful new Comic Pantomime, called NELL GWYNNE; or, Harlequin Merrie Monarch. Principal Danseuse, Mdlle. Auriol ; Clown, Mr. Fie/more. ROYAL PRINCESS'S THEATRE, OXFORD-STREET. Under' the Management of Mr. C. Kean. THIS EVENING, FEB. 18, Will be produced Shakspere's Tragedy of MACBETH (as acted at Windsor Castle, by Royal command). Principal characters by Mr. and Mrs. C. Kean. To conclude with the new and original Grand Comic Christ mas Pantomime, entitled HARLEQUIN CHERRY AND FAIR STAR; or, The Green Bird, the Dancing Waters, and the singing Tree. ROYAL OLYMPIC; THE/TEE. Lessee and Manager, Mr. Farrea. THIS EVENING, FEL 18, Will be presented (by desire) LILIAN GERVAIS. Supported by IM essrs. Compton, W. Farren, jun., Hoskins. Cooke, Edgar, Bonder, and Clifton; Misses Anderto n ad H. Gordon. After which, the new and successful: Farce of A DEED WITH OUT A NAME, in which Mr. Compton will appear. To conclude with THE, WATERMAN. Box-office open from Eleven till Five, under the superintendence of Mr. E. Chatterton. ASTLEY'S ROYAL AMPHITHEATRE. Proprietor nd Manager, Mr. W. Ratty. LAST WEEK BUT THREE of Mr. BATTY'S MANAGEMENT. Extraordinary Attraction. The Two most powerftil Equestrian Dramas ever produced—Mazeppa, and Uncle Tom's Cabin. THIS EVENING, FEB. 18, And during the Week, the Entertainments will commence with the superb Spectacle of MAZEPPA AND THE WILD HORSE, reproduced with all its original splendid and magnificent effects. After which, Ratty's brilliant Scenes in the Arena, supported by the first Equestrian talent in Europe. • To conclude with UNCLE TOM'S CABIN. Doors open at Half-past Six o'clock. To commence at Seven. Box-Wilco open daily from Eleven to Four. Stage Manager. Mr, W. West. HIGH WATER AT LONDON BRIDGE. THIS DAT —Morning 47 min. after 8 Evening 27 min.aft. 9 To-MORROW—Morning 7 min. after 10 1 Evening 47 min.aft. 10 THE WEATHER.—SUN Orna, FEB. 18. THERMOMETER, IN THE SHADE. 31—highest since noon yesterday. 22—lowest this morning and during the night. 29—this day at noon. BAROMETER, 29'56. WIND, N.NW.—Smart breeze, and sunshine. A heavy fall of snow in the night. ~1 c rf r -z - r- fl, LONDON, FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 18, 1853. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER appears to be thoroughly versed in the official cant for which his predecessors, during many ages, have, with scarcely a single exception, been distinguished. The Right Hon. Gentleman has, at his fingers' ends, the usual evasions and excuses. His argu ments are certainly more plausible than those of Sir CHARLES WooD, who had a stereotyped answer in every case. No matter how unjust or oppressive might . be the impost under considera tion for the time being—no matter how potent might be the arguments adduced for its repeal or reduction—the invariable response of the Finan cial Minister was, that it produced so many pounds sterling to the Exchequer, " which he certainly was not prepared to relin quish." Such was the reasoning to which a person occupying a prominent position in the Government of the country deemed it respectful to offer to the Parliament of the United Ringdom ; and for a time it was successful. The Whig whippers-in discharged their duties effici ently, and a host of "waiters on PROVIDENCE" were prepared to sustain the opinions of one of the dispensers of official patronage—of a man who had the distribution of a considerable amount of the anxiously " looked-for loaves and fishes"— and to laugh to scorn the folly of those who believed that old-fashioned notions of equity and expediency could, in any degree, influence the determination, or rather the votes, of the British Legislature. The total and unmitigated contempt for public opinion, however, ultimately produced its natural result. Dissatisfaction rapidly ripened into disgust. Sir CHARLES WOOD was hurled from office. His colleagues shared his fall ; and a pure Whig Administration was rendered among the " has beens" which could never again, by any pos sibility, be tolerated or recognised by the com munity. Mr: GLADSTONE, as we have already Mated, has more tact and ability than the Whig Minister. He can clothe his ideas in more gfaceful language, and is more competent " to make' the worse appear the better reason." But a slight examination will show that his arguments are based on no better foundation. If Sir CHARLES WOOD could bluntly declare that "he certainly was not prepared to relin quish 300,0001. per annum," Mr. GLADSTONE can, with an air of most provoking candour, assure any. Hon. Member who exposes a fiscal grievance, that "a very considerable value was attached to 300,0001. and more in addition to the other sources of re venue." If, according to Sir CHART:PIA WOOD, there never was a fitting time for redressing such grievances, the moment selected being always in opportune—too early or too late for the purpose-- Mr. GLADSTONE can urge the impolicy of repealing any tax until the House had considered "'what was to be the expenditure of the year, for which it was necessary to provide." Thus objecting to early relief, he is equally adverse to a mere ab stract resolution condemnatory of any tai-- a practice which he denounced as being "still more dangerous to the honour and character of the House and the interests of the country." If, - on the other hand, the matter was allowed to stand over until after the Budget had been submitted to the House and the country, then the Hon. Member had lapsed his time ; it would be a very incon venient—almost a factious —course to disturb the Ministerial arrangements. A toping casuist of the olden time showed that every day should be consumed in imbibing liquids—that " each was the properest day to drink." Mr. GLADSTONE, by a similar train of reasoning, discovers that there is no possible time in which the evils of an impolitic or inequitable tax can be exposed, and in good round terms lectures an independent Member for venturing to bring forward a mat ter which is peculiarly onerous and unfair to the constituency of which he is the chosen re presentative, and ventures to assert that the Hon. Gentleman who gives expression to the com plaints of those by whom he is sent into the House, is setting a very indifferent example on the ground of public policy. This may be very clever —may occasion a cheer or a laugh for the time being, but it will not deter Honourable Gentlemen from bringing forward subjects, which although unpalatable to the Champion of existing abuses, are yet eminently deserving of calm and attentive consideration. It will not prevent Mr. MILNER GIBSON from propos ing the total repeal of the duty on Advertisements, a matter which appeared so very absurd to Honour able Gentlemen, and excited such extraordinary risibility. Nay more, we should not wonder even if the Right Hon. Member for Manchester had the audacity even to complain of the others on knowledge, and to demand their abolition. It will not induce Mr. OLIVEIRA to refrain from showing the evil results of the Wine Duties as now levied, and demanding their reduction. Nor will it convince the Iri4. distillers that they should cheerfully pay duties on spirits that had eva porated or been otherwise wasted, while their foreign competitors are exempted from the un fair exaction. Mr. GLADSTONE may lash him- self into a high state of virtuous indignation, but he will still find men who neither deprecate his frowns nor seek his favour. We have so often exposed the gross and palpa ble injustice of the Hop Duties, that it is unne cessary to recapitulate the numerous unanswerable arguments that have been addubed against their continuance. Suffice it to say, that the practical' operation of the impost amounts to neither more nor less than confiscation—a confiscation of three- fourths, or possibly nine -tenths, of the value of the land on which the crop will grow.. What reason can there be for seizing on so large a proportion of the value of the produce"as nearly one-third, and that, too, of a description requiring extraordinary care and attention, and necessarily a great outlay on labour ? The simple fact, that the tax on 26 acres on which hops were grown, amounted to more than the rent of an entire farm of 503 acres, of which these very 2 6 acres constituted a portion, exhibits the grievance *' in the very strongest point of view. As well map nine-tenths of the lands in arty particular district, or of any particular landowner, be seized for State purposes without compensation, and the appropri ation defended, as may the imposition of the flop Duties be be justified. The Hon. Member for East Sussex has emi. nently entitled himself to the thanks of his con stituents and of the community in general, for the temperate statements in which he so clearly and unanswe]rably exposed the injustice and impolici of the in iquitous impost ; and the support which he recei'v edfrom Mr. Him and Mr. BRIGHT, 811010 hat the Joint-Stock Administration are reckon- ing with out their host if they suppose that the admission of Sir WILLIAM MOLESWORTH to a scab in the Cabinet will ensure the support of the Liberal party, under any and every circumstance• Although people talk less nowadays about the establish ment of an entente cordials between the French .and English Governments, it is gratifying to observe continually increasing illustrations of the truth mentioned the other evening in the . House .of Conlmons by Lord JOHN RUSSELL- -- * namely, that a better understanding has not for a long time subsisted between the Cabinet of St , James's and the Cabinet of the Tuileries. Some where about a dozen years since the rulers of Great Britain, afforded the great nation on the opposite shores .a the Channel a very brilliant and even touching evidence of the diminution of that lament, ble animosity which had been productive, from 1.193 to 1815, of so much bloodshed, an d which had moreover burthened our peril** tion with an additional debt of just 500,000,00 01 . sterling ! Everybody surely remembers th e beautiful and noble incident here alluded te- Everyht)dy surely remembers how France, faith'• ful to - ft. - ; he souvenirs of the glory of her Rev:AP tion, d.omanded upon that occasion from her 1 3 ri" tish ally the ashes of that illustrious chieftain, who has been called by the European annalist the Child o f that Revolution. It was at that period when the councils of the ORLEANS dynasty 'wer e presided over by M. THIERS, and when, amongs t , ourselv es, Viscount PAL MERSTON was happily stalx presiding over the Foreign Department. 1 1 ° W the request of the neighbouring Administration was acceded to, history has already recorded, an d recorded too in language that cannot very spendi l Y be forgotten. The response of Lord PALREnsro° was worthy in every respect of himself, of the, people over whom h e was a d m i n i s t ra t or , and of the Sovereign of whom, in regard to conten t p2rary Powers, he was at once th e recogni sed adviser and the Ministerial renre; sentatir ve. It was intimated by that distinguish statesman that England not only hastened grant the request of the French Monarchy, but the; she entertained a hope that thenceforth the enmity which had unfortunately raged between the tw o countries would be buried in the tomb 0t NAPOLEON. Since then, in fact, the relations mau l : tained between the two foremost races of Chris tendom have been (we may venture t° _ fla Y uninterruptedly) o f th e mos t am i cable Character. Notwithstanding all the changes that have taker' place in Paris, notwithstanding the dethrone ment and expatriation of one dynasty and the recal and re-establishment of another notwith' standing the political convulsions which followed • each other with such astounding rapidity innr diately after the first outbreak in 1848—th e • English Government has continued all along t ‘' regard her neighbour with friendly eyes) 11° matters whether it was a poet like Lem.AnTuos et. a soldlier like CAVAIGNAC, or an imperial chieftsi a . like NAPoLsoN 111., who pfesided in undisputT authority over the deliberations of the Franc . ' Government. The truth is, that a disastrous ° perien ce has taught our rulers to be tolerant te' wards the opinions deliberately entertained 13/ ' 35,00 0,000 of Frenchmen. May we not hope, ' then, with some show of reason, that PALMERSTON was correct in his anticipation, th e : from the period of the delivery of the remains " j the heroic ca pti ve o f S t. Helena, the anc i e nt animosity reciprocated by France and Engle° would. be buried in the tomb of NAroLsol l _ u Yes---bearing in m i n d the political throes - *chic' have agitated the adjacent Empire since the o ut ". burst of its last revolution, and beholding t he ration.al course that has been adopted towar°: France throughout by our G overnment, w ith th unanimous ac cor d o f th e most eminent of B r itish Statesmen, we may, without extravagance, ijr dulge in the belief (madmen like M. BILLOT to „, tb e ; contrary, neverth e l ess, notwithstanding), that al those by-gon e f eu d s have been abandoned- -- LIL grant that it m ay prove for ever !—now tha t ashes of th e wonderful Conqueror are repo " f " upon the banks of the Seine, in the mids t ° the people whom he loved so un der the dome in the midst of the temple consecrated /3) :, Religion to the GOD of Armies." S o that ' te gorgeous t om b of the Invalides may constitute at once i n th e eyes of France the 11°1) trophy of her v i c t or i es, an d the surest guaran tee ' of a lasting and honourable tranquillity. Yesterday, there, was afforded to the Cabine t °I the Tuileries a crowning evidence of the an" — _,,o feelings entertained towards it by her BRIO o MAJESTY'S Government. We refer to an ine r t which then t oo k p l ace i n th e Prerogative C 0 tA 6 before Sir JOHN DODSON, "In the matter of 8 will and codicils of the late EMPEROR NA-r°•, BONAPARTE, deceased." That will and those cv— oils, it w ill b e remem b ere d , have cont i nue d up ea this this time among the testamentary treasures ho up in D oc t ors ' C ommons, having been origir io deposited there immediately after their arriv":4 l , d this country from the Island o f St. H e lena. •' 1 , 66 were duly proved, in fact, thi s will and those 8e codicils were duly proved in the month of x .. 1824, by CHARLES TRISTAN, Count Pi r e. THOLON, one of the executors, power bei n g t io served of making the like grant to the otheL ov , executors, HENRY GRATIAN, Count BEEn o t and Lours, Count MARCHAND. A p plicatio n ha s these important and i n t eres ti ng documen t s co t, recently been made by the French Govero l eor and the first and third of th ose execu t o rs, beingeo vivors, have, in supp or t o f th a t a pplicatiet! 0 cuted a proxy conse n ti ng t o th e will bein g delivered up by the British Governmen' tt ol consequence of this re ques t—surely a verY ys het and reasonable one under all circumstance or aS MAJESTY'S advisers have taken every step te 31 1 01 • complying with the d es i re th ere b y exPre.ted ea the utmost po ss ibl e exped i t i on. Aft e r m fo re the explanatory affidavit of Lord Jo° t here' SELL, the Prerogative Court andcide aen fore, yesterday, that the will codicils of the Emperor NAPOLEON the Gr io the shall be d e li vere d over f or th w ith r the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs) purpose of b e i ng transmitted b y hi m to :08.ferly stituted legal authorities of the French f aso jtf ment. An o th er and a b r i ll i an t pledge j3r itisb . has c onsequently been afforde d by the o f tha t Cabinet—a, new and touching testimony 1)&0 1 friendship which we hope has at length s permanently established between the two powerful, most enlightened, and 111°5b.c3 r aceB of Christendom. THE STJN, LONDON, FRIDAY EVENING, FEBRUARY 18, 1853.