The Press.
London, England, 1857-02-14 00:00:00

REFORUATORY SCHOOLS.

Sir G. GREY then moved for leave to introduce a
bill to facilitate the establishment of reformatory
schools in England. It was not, he said, the design
of the bill to interfere with voluntary institutions,
but to enable counties and boroughs to establish
such schools out of the county and borough rates.
Leave was given to bring in the bill.

HOUSE OF LORDS.-T t'ESD tr.
AGRICULTI 12 U. STATISTICS.

Lord STANLEY of ALDERLEY, in reply to Lord
NVynford, said the Government were not prepared to
reintroduce last session's bill upon the subject of
agricultural statistics. The Government, however,
would be ready to carry any more modified
measure.
JURISDICTION OF THE ECCLESIASTICAL COURTS.

The LORD CHANCELLOR called the attention of the
house to the jurisdiction of the Ecclesiastical Courts,
and stated his intentions as to the testamentary
jurisdiction of the existing Prerogative Courts, the
law of .divorce, and the law for the correction of
clerks. •With regard to the Prerogative Courts, the
principal changes which he proposed to make were
to constitute a new court, to be called the Queen's
Court of Probate, which, except in certain cases, was
not to have jurisdiction over real ,state, and over
which a judge should preside, who would direct
issues on matters of fact to be tried by a jury. In
this court the proctors—of whom lie !declared that
he should have no objection to be rid after having
felt his way—Would at first have the common form
business, while the contentious business would be
thrown open to solicitors and barristers, who, toge
ther with the proctors and advocates, would have the
right of practising in the new court. With regard to
wills bequeathing property up to 1,5001., he proposed
that, if uncontested, they should be proved in a dis-
trict court, but if contested, they should be disposed
of in the Court of Probate in London, the office of
judge being dislltarged by one of the Vice-Chan-
cellors. Wills which disposed of property below
2001. he proposed should be decided on by the
county courts. With regard to divorce, he proposed,
in the bill which lie was about to introduce, to allow
a woman to obtain a decree of separation from her
husband if he should desert her for three years, and,
under certain circumstances, to give her the right of
a postnuptial as well as an antenuptial settlement
these were the new features of the bill, the whole
provisions of which, based on the measure rejected
last year, would be more clearly, seen when the mea-
sure was laid on the table. With regard to ecclesi-
astical discipline, the offences of clerks might be
divided into the two heads of moral and doctrinal
offences, and, the proceedings in each of those cases
being exceedingly cumbrous and expensive, he pro-
posed to simplify them. In the case of doctrinal
offences, it was not intended to allow a suit to be
promoted voluntarily by any one person, but that
proceedings should only be taken atter a certificate
had been obtained, signed by a certain number of
persons of station in the Church. The Lord Chan-
cellor then laid these bills on the table, with the
exiepifon of the Clergy Offences
Lord LYNDIIURST thought that the Testamentary
Jurisdiction Bill would not satisfy the public. In
the first place, it transferred the testamentary

151

jurisdiction to Chancery in sub stance, though not,
perhaps, in terms. Now, this was the main objec-
tion to the bill brought in last year by the present
Attorney-Geoeral, when it had been said that no
sane person would increase the jurisdiction of that
court. So far from being a bill to establish a Court
of Probate, it was, on the contrary, one to abolish
the Court of Probate, and to adjoin its jurisdiction
to the Court of Chancery. The chief feature of the
procedure of this new court was one which had
always been held to be a main objection against the
Court of Chancery itself, he meant its inability to
try matters of fact. These, he thought, were ade-
quate objections to the bill. The noble lord
concluded by regretting that the Lord Chancellor
had not incorporated in the Divorce Bill a clause to
abolish the action for criminal conversation, which
was a disgrace to the nation.

Lord CAMPBELL expressed his dismay at hearir g
that any married couple, after a temporary dis-
agreement or after improper collusion, might obtain
a divorce for all practical purposes except marry-
ig again. With regard to the testamentary juris-
diction, he hoped that the new court would not be
made an adjunct to Chancery, to be thrown into
which he knew many persons in the other House of
Parliament considered the greatest calamity that
could befall a man. With the best intention to
support these measures, he felt that the Lord
Chancellor " was not exactly in the right course at
present."
_

Lord BROUGHAM objected to the proposed Testa-
mentary Bill, bcc.tuse it constituted "a new court
under an Equity judge exercising a common-law
jurisdiction.' What possible pretext could there be
for depriving Sir John Dodson of his functions and
giving them to a Vice Chancellor?
The LORD CIIANCELLOR explained that he had
selected a Vice Chancellor to preside in the New
Court, instead of a common-law judge, because one
of the Vice-Chancellors was almost always in
London, and the common-law judges were absent on
circuit.

The bills were then read a first time.
IMPROVEMENT OF LEGISLATION.

The LORD CHANCELLOR moved that the second
report of the Statute-law Commission should be re-
ferred to a select committee, for the purpose of con•
sidering the propositions in that report as to the
best means of improving the manner and language
of current legislation. His lordship then explained
that, with a view to carry into effect the objects con-
templated, it was proposed to appoint an officer,
with a sufficient staff, to attend to all bills referred
to him, and report upon the existing state of the law.
He would also have to state what the effect of such
bills would be on the existing law.
Lord CAMPBELL gave the proposal his unqualified
approval.
The motion was agreed to.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.---TUESDAY.
MR. DISRAELI AND LORD PALMERSTON,

Mr. DlSRAELl—premising that when, eight years
ago, lie had occasion to refer to a guarantee in the
Treaty of Vienna by Great Britain to Prussia of her
Saxon provinces, Lord Palmerston, then and for se-
ventee❑ years Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs,
had, in a discussion upon the proceedings that had
then taken place at Cracow, contradicted him,
affirming that there was no such guarantee ; but
which, when the noble lord referred to the treaty,
he nevertheless found in that treaty—proceeded to
remind the house that on the first night of this
session he had referred to a guarantee by France to
Austria of her Italian possessions, stating that that
guarantee was mentioned in a treaty, and that Lord
Palmerston had in the same manner contradicted
him. The treaty in question was not in print, but he
(Mr. Disraeli) had a moral conviction that he was
correct, having had the information from a quarter
that could not be mistaken. Assuming the informa-
tion to be correct, or that he was convinced that it
was so, it was impossible, he observed, that in the
course which the debate took, touching upon Italian
affairs, he could have been silent upon the point. It
had not been his intention to impugn the policy
which dictated that treaty ; he believed it was con-
ceived in a wise, temperate, and conservative spirit,
which had gained for the Emperor of the French
the respect and confidence of Europe :

What I did complain of that night, and what I do coin-
plain of now—and it is most germane to the question
before us—is that if it be a fact that this treaty exists, if
the statement I made was a correct statement, then the
conduct of her Majesty's Ministers at the same time was
conveying to this house, to the country, and to Europe,
the impression that they were pursuing a policy quite con-
trary, and that the course of their general policy was ono
entirely adverse, to that which this alleged treaty was in-
tended to accomplish. (Hear, hear.) That I think is
ii?eak;ng to the question, and it concerns the honour of
tie house that on this subject there should be a clear
understanding. (Hear, hear.) If it be true that while
this alleged treaty was in existence we were negotiating
treaties with Sardinia, and making representations of a
contrary character—that is a question which ought to be

152

elucidated to the house. These are circumstances which
demand our attention, and are entirely involved in the
statement I made, and in the contradiction I received from
the noble lord. What I complained of was that Italian
policy was made a stalkiughorse by her Majesty's Govern-
ment. If the statement I made was a correct statement,
I wanted that the Liberal party, who extenuate their lack
of zeal in domestic affairs by their unlimited confidence in
the foreign policy of the noble lord at the bead of the
Government, should, not being yet sufficiently warned by
the cases of Poland and Hungary, clearly understand that
that Italy which they believed about to be regenerated, ac•
cording to their ideas, by the noble lord, was the subject of
very different policy and very different treatment. (Hear,
hear.)

The charges contained in Lord Palmerston's contra-
diction involved two allegations:—
The first allegation of the noble lord was this,—that my
statement that there was a treaty, and a secret treaty, in
existence, by which France guaranteed to Austria the
security of her Italian dominions, was altogether a fiction;
that there was no such treaty in existence ; that there was
not the slightest foundation for the statement, and that, to
use the noble lord's words, "it was a romance." (" Hear,"
and laughter.) That was the first alleg.ttion involved in
the contradiction I received from the noble lord. The
second allegation involved in that contradiction was a
derisive hypothesis. The noble lord said, "if there be
such a treaty" (though the noble lord before stated there
was none ), " and if the right hon. gentleman has seen it,
all I can say is that I have not seen it nor heard of it.
The Government have heard nothing of it, and, instead of
advising it, if we had known anything about it, our advice
would have been against making any arrangements of the
kind." 'Those are the two allegations—l think I have
fairly stated them—involved in the contradiction given by
the noble lord ; and the rest of the noble lord's speech
need not at this moment be touched upon.
I will now address myself to the first allegation—that
the whole thing is a romance; that there is no such treaty;
that it is pure invention ; and that I either had been
hoaxed or myself created the fiction in the heat of debate.
Now, let me come to what my statement is, and I wish the
house to do me the honour of attending at this moment to
what lam about to state. My statement is, that engage.
ments were negotiated between France and Austria with
the object—the main object of guarareeeing on the part
of France the security of the Italian dominions of Austria ;
that these negotiations were carried to a successful con-
clusion ; that they were expressed in writing; that that
form of written instrument assumed the shape of a treaty,
and of a secret treaty; and that that treaty was executed
on the 22nd of December, 1854. ( Hear, hear.) In answer
to the first allegation the noble lord said, that there was
no treaty whatever, and that it was a romance. lam here
to restate that which I uttered the other night, to give the
very date of the instrument, with the form, purport, and
oaject of that instrument. (Hear, hear.)
I now come to the second allegation contained in the
contradiction which I received from the noble lord—an
allegation which the house would perfectly remember was
uttered in a spirit of derision. I will, however, give the
advantage to the noble lord of taking it gravely. (Hear,
hear.) The second allegation contained in the noble lord's
denial was, that " if such treaty had been seen by the right
hon. gentleman, I have not seen it and the Government
have not heard of it, and instead of advising it, the Go-
vernment would have recommended, had they known of it,
that it should not be concluded." Now I have in my
possession evidence, irresistible evidence, which proves to
me that throughout the whole of the negotiations of this
treaty which I declare to have been executed on the 22nd
of December, 1551, by which the security of the Italian
dominions of Austria is guaranteed by France—l repeat
that throughout the whole of the negotiations to obtain this
secret treaty her Majesty's Government were priv-, to them
from the first—( Hear, hear)—that the negotiations re-
ceived their concurrence-1 will shy .their cordial concur•
rence; and that they finally advised the execution of the
treaty.
The house will at least agree in thinking that, as far as
I am concerned, I have not avoided the issue. ( Hear,
hear.) I have, as fairly as I could, placed before the
house the very pith and marrow of the contradiction I re-
ceived from the noble lord, and his two allegations I have
fairly met. (Hear, hear.) Hut I have some further state-
ment to make on this subject.. I state to the house now
that that treaty was not only executed on the 22nd of Der
cember, 1531, with the cognisance of her Majesty's Go-
vernment, but that it was largely and extensively acted on ;
that in consequence of that secret treaty Austria withdrew
a large portion of her troops from Italy, and the Italian
Governments throughout the peninsula became alarmed ;
and that Austria obtained from the French Government
permission to communicate confidentially to the Italian
Governments, in order to " tranquillise" them—and that, I
believe, was the very word used on the occasion—the
nature of the engagement entered into between the two
countries. Now, I would make upon that point it further
statement—namely, that the fact of Austria having ob-
tained that permission, and of her having communicated
that secret treatv to the Italian Governments, was known
to her Majesty's Government.
The noble lord has said that I have had access to
archives and have rental treaties of which he never hearth
I will refer now to archives of which the noble lord has
hearth I will refer to the archives of that Office over which
he has long presided, and I tell the noble lord that if he
will refer tag the correspondence with foreign Governments
now in the archives of Downing-street, during the month
of December, 18:14, and January, 1855, and if he will assist
me to obtain ( which I believe would not be necessary) any
evidence which might be requisite to elicit some of the
passages, I w ill undertake to prove every tittle of the asser-
tions that I have made.
Lord PALMERSTON replied by disclaiming all inten-
tion of throwing any imputation upon the personal

THE PRESS.

character or honour of Mr. Disraeli ; all he had im-
puted to him was credulity in believing implicity
what he had been told regarding this matter. His
charge against her Majesty's Government was that
while they professed great interest for the Italians,
and to encourage Italian nationality, they instigated
and encouraged the French Government to give a
guarantee to Austria of her Italian dominions. He
(Lord Palmerston) had said that, to the best of his
knowledge, there was no such treaty ; nor had Mr.
Disraeli, he said, given any proof of its existence.
He had only hearsay evidence from some authority
not named. The noble lord then continued :
I have already said that the only foundation I can
imagine for such a rumour is that, in the early part of the
war, when there was a hope that. Austria might have joined
the allies against Russia, a convention was drawn up be-
tween France and Austria containing an undertaking on
the part of Austria that she should enter into an alliance
against Russia, end that, if she did do so, France should
not take advantage of that state of things to molest her
Italian possessions. That, sir, I believe, is literally the
only foundation for the statement of the right hon. gen-
tleman.

Lord Palmerston having admitted the existence of a
" convention," proceeded to detail the circumstances
under which it originated:—

In the latter part of the year 18-14 it was hoped
that Austria would conclude a treaty, offensive and defen-
sive, with England and France, in order that her armies
might enter into hostile relations with Russia. Naturally,
then, it became the wish of Austria to know if Russia had
pursued a course which she might have done without any
great departure from the practice of belligerents in modern
warfare—if she had excited insurrections in Italy—what
would be the course which France would take? She
wished to be sure that France would not encourage such
risings and disturbances ; but, moreover, that if that
state of things arose, if the arms of Austria were to join
those of France and England, in case of disturbances
arising, the French forces in Italy would act in concert
with whatever forces Austria might have in those court-
tries, and protect, not Austria only, but her Italian terri-
tories. These intentions were undoubtedly known to her
Majesty's Government, and those arrangements were em-
bodied in the shape of a convention.
The right hon. gentleman says that the treaty of which
he speaks was signed on a certain day in Paris; but we—
the Government—have learned from the very best autho-
rity, and that no later than yesterday, that that convention
never was signed.
Bat the convention was as different from a treaty such
as the right hon. gentleman spoke of as was possible for
two things to be. Between that convention and a
guarantee there is an " abyss "—an impassable barrier.
What I deny is, that there exists, to our knowledge and
belief, any treaty in which the French guaranteed to main-
tain the integrity of the Austrian possessions in Italy. I
a:n inclined to believe that a temporary convention such as
I have described was entered into, bat that it was never
signed. And why ? Because it was intended to take effect
whenever Austria should join the forces of England and
France against Russia; but Austria never did join. It
was her policy to remain neutral in the conflict. There-
fore the case never arose; and, therefore, I am inclined to
believe that the information we have received is more accu-
rate than that received by the right hon. gentleman. The
convention was limited as to the parties, limited as to
space, limited in its effect, and limited as to its duration,
and it never was signed by the parties.

The subject then dropped.
SIR .1. 31‘11EILL AND coLosr.r.

Lord PALMERSTON, in reply to Mr. J. E wart as to
whether it was the intention of the Government to
make special recognition of the services of Sir John
APNeill and Colonel Tulloch, paid a high compli-
ment to those gentlemen for their report, but said
that it did not appear to the Government that their
services were of such a nature as to call for the ex-
traordinary course of conferring upon them honours
from the Crown. In further reply to Mr. Layard
whether it was true that advancement in the army
was offered to Colonel Tutloch before he went out,
and that since then many of his juniors had been
promoted over his head, Lord Palmerston said he
was not aware of any offer of the kind having been
made to Colonel Tutloch.