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

E C),

TEJ 8 1)A Y

an able and intelligent British resident to protect their in-
terests in that part of Italy.—(Hear, hear.) As for any
redress that may be gained to British subjects by all these
transactions, I cannot imagine that what has been done will
be at all effectual. I have received a letter from a gentle.
man to-day, saying that he had been much wronged ;
that he had been detained at Berlin, and put in prison
for four-and-twenty hours; that the Noble Lord the
Member for Tiverton, and after him Lord Granville,
had taken up his case, and remonstrated with the
Prussian Government, but that the present Govern-
ment had taken no notice of his request for redress.
The only advice I can give this gentleman—and I take the
P°
giving it him thus publicly—is not to ask
athPe present Government of
to interfere in his case at all.—
(A laugh.) If he has a grievance to complain of I recom-
mend him to follow the example of the great Captain
Gonzales de Cordova in a similar position, who, when his
Sovereign wanted to pacify him by a gift of the city of Lugo,
told his Majesty that he liked his grievance better than the
city.—(Laughter.) As far as Mr. Mather is concerned, the
result to him is the offer of a thousand francisconi, which he
rejected with disdain ; in addition to which his character as
a man of independence and disinterestedness, has been
blasted by the interference of our Government.—(Hear. )
All I can say on the subject is, that I will not take
the coarse which Lord Derby did when he saw reason to
censure the conduct of the late Government in regard to
the affairs of Greece, but I will content myself with protest-
ing against what has been done in Mr. Mather's case in
terms similar to those which his Lordship then employed.
Lord Derby said on that occasion :
" Surely it becomes the British Legislature to step for-
ward and say that the Foreign-office of England is not
England—that the high-minded, generous feeling, of this
people is opposed to measures such as have been
takengreat by the Government of the country—that we sepe-
rate our actions from theirs—our feelings from theirs—our
views of justice and good faith from theirs."
I also take leave to separate my feelings—my notions of jus-
tice and good faith—from the course which the Governmer,t
has pursued in this case.—(Hear, hear.) I beg leave, to
enter my protest against conduct which seems to nee to
degrade this Government in the eyes of Europe—against
conduct which does not degrade this country, because
the country takes far better and higher views then its Go-
vernment of what is due to its character. I truot, however,
it will be recollected that in the present state of the conti-
nent of Europe this is almost the only country in which a
free expression of opinion can take place. It is almost the
y
only country in which a free press and free discussions in the
,trrLegislaturebta c
of constitutional :government exist in se-
veral those forms are in some cases so countriesper-
in which they are not perverted,
d where
exists, are so small and so dependent
per-
verted,
and
States
while
re eaao of nit forms
hEf aeui
fairly
libertyp be said to make themselves felt, because
r
b the i
on their more powerful neighboiers, that no bold and loud ex-
pression of public opinion can take place in them. No such
addresses as are delivered in our Legislature, and no such
publications as that which, to his immortal honour, the
Right Hon- Member for the University of Oxford issued
from the press last year—(Cheers)--can be made or put forth,
at present, in any other country of Europe. Under these
circumstances, it more especially behoves us to keep oar
character unhurt and our honour untarnished. It becomes
us, if we have occasion to ask for redress from a foreign Go-
vernment, to proceed mildly and with temper; but, at the
same time, to insist on that which we really think duo to
us.—(Elear, hear.) It would be an inestimable loss, not to
this country
alone, but to all the world, if our character as
a great and independent nation should be in any degree im-
paired. I trust, therefore, that before the Noble Lord at the
head of the Foreign-office again writes such dispatches as
these, ho will consider how great is the charge that has been
intrusted to him, and that he will not lightly commit the
great interests and the high character of this nation by
. heedless expressions.—(Cheers.) I gave notice that when I
should, make some observations on Mr. Mather's case I would
also call the attention of the House to the present state of
public business, and I will now proceed to do so as shortly as
I can. The House will recollect that immediately after the
accession to office of the present Government those who sit on
this sideof the House—having heard the declaration of the
in
som
Ministers that they could not bring forward in the present
Parliament
e respects, these
mreesepeeurse, the evils
measures
whichthey
whichthought
the
essential to
remedy,of
measure 1846, and the commercial policy subsequently adopted, had
created—were-of opinion that Ministers were bound, first to
make the session as short as they possibly could, consistently
with the dispatch of urgent public business; and, secondly,
to declare the nature of their policy. With respect to the
first of these point'., something like a satisfactory under-
standing 'wee eventually come to. The reluctance which at
first seemed to eie entertained of protracting the session to
the usual persod, and not assembling the new Parliament
until the beginning of next year was abandoned. With
respect to the second point, however, I must say I have
been totally disappointed. We asked Ministers to do only
what has been done—gladly done—by other Ministers.
When Earl Grey dissolved the Parliament, in 1832, the issue
distinctly raised was the adoption or rejection of the Reform
Bill. When Sir R. Peel dissolved, in 1831, he issued a clear
and explicit declaration of the course he intended to pursue;
and, the principles which he laid down being inconsistent
with the opinions of the majority of the House, an adverse
vote compelled him to resign. When Lord Melbourne
dissolved, in 1841, the measures of commercial policy which
he intended to propose to the ensuing Parliament were
clearly subMitted to the public; but, the appeal to the
country having produced a larger majority against him
than the preceding election had furnished against Sir R.
Peel, his Lordship was soon obliged to resign. The present
Government, however, from the very moment cf their taking
office down to the present day, so far from proclaiming their
opinions to the world, seem to me to be bent on studiously
concealing what their opinions are with respect to that
question on which for six years they have agitated the
country—(Cheers)—the great question of the abolition of the
corn laws. At the beginning of February we were told by
the Noble Lord now at the bead of the Government, then iu
opposition, that in his opinion it was desirable to impose a
duty on imported corn. When the Right Hon. Gentleman
opposite, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, came into office
he also said it was a most desirable thing to impose a duty
on imported corn. It soon began to be understood that
this favourite measure was to be abandoned; but, at the
same time, we were left as much in the dark as before
as to the precise course which was to be taken. "What we
and the country, generally, desire to know is not so much
the particular measure to be proposed as the spirit in
. which they are to be framed. We want Ministers to answer
ay or no to this question—." Are you prepared to uphold the
financial and commercial policy which has prevailed since
18.12?—(Hear, hear.) 18 it your opinion that the policy of
the List ten years, il,
e
wh-c prevailed during the Administra-
tion of Sir R. Peel and the existence of the late Govern-
ment, has been beneficial to the country, and ought to be
adhered to, or that it had been mischievous, and that it is
necessary to avert further injury by altering it ?" To this
question the House and the country have never had anything
like an answer.—(llearn
I At various times circumstances
have occurred which seemed to indicate the course about to
be taken. When the Chancellor of the Exchequer made his
most able speech on Opening the budget, we on this side of
the House looked upon it as conclusive in favour of a free-
trade policy, and we believed that thenceforward that policy
would be the rule of our proceedings. Everybody here was
delighted with the Chancellor of the Exchequer's speech, and
no one thought of taunting the Right Hon. Gentleman or
any of his colleagues with inconsistency. The Right Hon.
Gentleman, however, found a critic, a commentator,_ and an
adversary; and who was he? He appeared at the Mansion-
house in the person of L the First Lord of the Treasury.— 1
(Laughter.) That was the scene which Lord Derby chose for
criticising his Chancellor of the Exchequer. The Noble
Lord pointed out a great omission in his colleague's address,
and supplied it by 'ometbing, not as lucid and con-
clusive as the Chancellor of the Exchequer's statement, but
by something that was eminently obscure and ambiguous.—
(Hear ) This was Certainly a novel proceeding. As a
Member for London, I have often had occasion to dine in
the City, but it never occurred to me to avail myself of any 1
of those opportunities to answer my own Chancellor of the
Exchequer.- (Hear, hear, and langlater.) Though we have
not obtained from the no' ble Lord at the head of the Go-
vernment any clear declaration of the policy to be pursued,
we have been favoured with expositions of it from other
Members of the Government and its supporters. The Chan-
cellor of the Duchy of
Lancaster and the Solicitor-General
declare themselves anxious to reverse our existing commer-
cial policy. We have also seen professed supporters of
Lord Derby's Government going into the country
and declaring that above all things they wish not to
have the corn-laws reimposed ; and lam told that
one of these Gentlemen, who is canvassing Maidstone,
has issued an address in which he says, "I rejoice to say,
we have at length an
honest Government, and there is no
longer any chance of re-imposing a tax upon bread."—
(Laughter.) . an, 1
aiso told by a friend near me that the
Tory or Derbyite candidate for Greenwich parades the town
with a big loaf carried before him.—(Much laughter.)
All these circunista
-.sees combine to shroud the intentions
of the Governmennt in ambiguity. At length, it seemed as
if a light had broken upon the Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer, when he stated in his recent address to his consti-
tuents that,—
The time has gone
by when the injuries which the great b
producing interests endure can be alleviated or removed y
themurrence to the
laws which, previously to 1846, protected
from such calamities?,
The only °ken .._
beteni-neic to be surprised at is, that this light
should have n
the Right Hon. Geie.
es; long in reacing
tleman. The clhestion Yeas raised at the election of 1847.
since then it h
-aa under one rsated discussions in Parlia-
ment, and it has been 8
to 19 persons out of 20, for
the last three or f"'"e u obvious
n t the time for the re-imposie
time of the core laws ears, t a
that
"-was gone. It seems, however,- t
the Chancellor f
0 the Exchequer did not make this discovery
until the other ea Wh t the Chancellor of the Exche-
quer says beeid 7. a is reassuring. He
ea in his address not very
tells his constitu of land has dimhaished no
less than s,ooabents that the rent
to inquire whe-
ther that cilia, 004 a year. I will not stop
attributable to the cause to which
the Chancellor ne!itance is
refers it, but if the Right
of the Exchequer Hon. mane
equerrd as a ground for giving the
landowners co puts that forward as a groundfor giving the
°iflpensation, by im
posing general burdens on
the rest
of
the Inpensation, by
I can only say the idea is prepos-
terous.......o Community,
ID Lord Derby himself possessed of
5,°001. a ereaear whichp" oaelaimed by the parish as belong-
ing to ultra.,
,r are c
is heard by the Lord Chancellor
and pee w
to the Housecam of Lords, and the final decision is
that the koeos, belnto the inhabitants of the parish, and
must be surrendered ° to them. Imagine what would be the
surprise of
the Lord Chancellor and the House of Lords if
they should be called upon to make up the 5,0001. which
Lord Derby hadwrongfully held from the poor by a general
tax on the e.
d laughter.) The co-laws
parish.—(Olie.era an
were man of sense on the ground
never d f d by any
een ed . that theyto the income of the land-
gave an addition
owners.. The ground taken by the ad-
.i. (Har beat )
v"ea of those laws was that of general national ad-
vantage 1
aragn ••
from independence of foreign supply.
The nation beingopinion that this was a fallacy, and
that it was n
nne of r
t() continue the- laws, there was no
pretence for sayingceesth t compensation ought to be given to
the land a
that I am speaking in the interest
, owneee I believe .
of the Ind • Nothing could be so injurious
a oWners themselves.
to their ifl n uence—which was very great—as the notion
that instead of defendingthe corn-laws n-laws as a national
• own benefit, and
advantage, they had done so for their
by their
now required=
compensation for loss sustained.
repeal,_ (gear, e Hear, hear.) The. revisio
• - n of taxation, and re-
adjustment of burden which the Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer says "looms in the future," will Duke
afraid, give much satisfaction to the farmers, whom the
as soon
they
of Richmond has been telling year after year that,
as Lord Derbcame into oifice, there
would be a dissolution,
and then would have protection back again.—(Hear,
hear.) That was the language of the Duke of Richmond,
endoreed,lL
The Dukesamast
by the Noble Lord at the head of the
Governmenalways told the farmers not to lay
expensive manures, and
out their money in draining and
the late
that the way Y rich was to drive out Ministers.
. to get
The only consolation the farmer now has is to be told that a
in the future
chanceof lightening his burdens looms --(A
, ,
laugh') The - uea since 1842 was an excellent
policy pursued
the people. The mode of lightening the burdens of .
Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer
had given a striking proof of this
when he stated that sugar duties to the amount of eeo,ooo/.
had been reduced, with a loss to the revenue of only 3001.
to pursue ? All I hope i;
Can there be a better policy -,that
the farmers, having been deceived for the last six years by
being told that hey yf Qtad got beck protection, will not

J UNT&

'allow themselves to be again deceived by being • told that
they can be restored to prosperity by any other m tans than
the,exertion of their own skill and industry.—(H a ar, hear.)
Passing from this topic, the Chancellor of the Lxchequer,
in his address, claims credit for what Ministers , have done
and what they propose to do. With the excel )tion of the
Militia Bill—the credit of which I willingly resign to them
—(A laugh)—all their measures had their orig 1n with the
late Government. Of these, Chancery reform we ts one of the
most important. That was no party question. lam far
from asking credit for it as a party m assure, but
a Commission having been instituted by the late
Government, made their report upon ti ie subject,
and it was announced in the Queen's spee ch that on
that subject a measure would be introduced.. The Go-
vernment introduced a Bill, but even at the 1 ast moment
there were clauses in it so objectionable that my Right Hon.
Friend the Member for Ripon, who belonged to lthe com-
mission, had to insist upon the report of the Comulissioners
being carried into effect in order to make it a good and
useful measure.—(Hear, hear.) But there are other cir-
cumstances with respect to wtiieh the Government have, as I
think, raised very grave questions, and made most dangerous
admissions. In the first instance, I will advert 'so the
system of education ira Ireland.—(Hear, hears) A plan
of mixed education ',lad been settled for y ears in that
country, and people in general were satisfied with it, but
the present Goverament were no sooner ka office than
they said they would make a change v eith respect to
that system, and that they would do some favour to
the Establishod Church, by which the EP 'sablished Church
should obtain. a portion of the grant. T.,sew, I cannot con-
ceive anything more dangerous for Joeisnd. because it is
admitted-4 believe it was stated by Lord Derby, and also
by the Bishop of Ossory at a meeti:ag of the Church Educa-
tion `society—that ifyou grant a separate system in order to
have the children educated in the Scriptures according to
th.e authorized version, or according to the wishes of the
church of England, you must at the. same time give the
same advantage to the Roman Catholics.—( Hear, hear.)
And I observe that those who belong to the Roman Catholic
commmunity, who are most opposed to the mixed education.
are quite ready to meet you on that subject.—(Hear, hear.)
I have seen to-day, in an address published by the Catholic
Defence Association, these words, "Catholics of Ireland, do
you especially trust no man who is not distinctly and ex-
plicitly in favour of Catholic education for Catholics, Pro-
testant education for Protestants."— (Hear, hear.) If you
give way to the Protestant, you must give way to that de-
mand, instead of having the mixed education established by
Lord Derby himself, and so highly creditable and honour-
able to him, but which he is now ready to forego.—( Hear,
hear.) Supposing, however, you adopt this principle, are
there no other questions raised thereby? You now give
150,0001.4°r education in Ireland; and it will be impossible
to give more than 30,0001., or. perhaps 50,000/., to the Esta-
blished Church for dint object. You will then be giving
100,0001. for exclusively Catholic schools. But that will
come to be another Maynooth question.—( Hear, hear.) If
you give 100,0001. for educating children in the Roman Ca-
tholic faith, will there not be as much objection to that as
there now is to the 26,000/. which you pay to Maynooth?
—(Hear, hear.) See the danger,of raising a questionithat was
settled.—(Hoar, hear.) For twenty years you have gone on
without disturbance, and you might have so gone on still,
but for what has been said by the present Government,
which has unsettled the question, and once more tossed it
up into the air.—(Hear, hear.) Then it appears they are
not satisfied with disturbing education in Ireland—they are
disturbing also the plan of education adopted in England.—
( Hear, hear.) I have seen what I wish I had seen six weeks
ago—for the' vote for education was only taken a week
ago.—(Hear, hear.) I have seen it stated that the Govern-
ment have made up their minds to do that which they say
they have always been anxious and earnestly desirous to
do—to do justice to the Church of England in the matter of
education, as they thought there was undue restriction upon
the Church in that matter. Then why should not the
minute containing this announcement have been introduced
before the vote for eclucatiotrwas agreed to ?—(Hear, hear.)
They must know that this question produces, and will pro-
duce, the greatest excitement. They must know that the
condition of the National Society is now such that many per-
sons wish there should be an alteration in the charter of that
society.—(Hear, hear.) Surely that was a question to be
kept, at least, in abeyance. Or, if they were determined
to make an alteration, they should have made it some time
ago, though the better course, I think, would have been, not
to take it up at all till they had found time to look into the
whole question.—( Hear, hear.) • Then I must say that the
Government have suffered from the mode in which they had
themselves prepared to accept office. We all know that
in the course of last year, when called upon to form a Go-
vernment, they declared themselves incapable of doing so,
because they were unable to fill the several offices of the
Government. Soon after that it was publicly announced
that they had made their dispositions, that they had the
means of forming a Government, when called upon to do so,
and the event showed this rumour to be nerfectly true. A
very eminent person accepted the office of Lord Chancellor;
and several gentlemen pursuing the agreeable pursuits and
easy business that belong to an English country gentleman,
and which makes life so easy and agreeable, were ready to
accept the troubles, the responsibilities, and the obloquy of
office. But there was one thing they seem to have entirely
forgotten, and that was, what were the principles and opinions
upon which as a Government they were to act.—(Hear,
hear.) They entirely lost sight of that which appears
to me to be an essential preliminary, but which I sup-
pose they thought trivial.—(Hear, hear.) They seem to
have had no fixed opinions on any one subject.—(A laugh.)
No sooner does any gentlemen start a subject than they
avow themselves quite ready to agree to his proposal.—
(Hear.) An Hon. Gentleman opposite proposes to raise the
question of Maynooth. That is another dangerous subject
to meddle with; but no sooner is it brought forward than
the Government exclaim—" We are quite ready to go into
that question; we have, to be sure, not made up our minds
what to do; we have no present intention of abolishing May-
nootb, but we will leave Ireland to be disquieted till we
make up our minds on the subject."—( Hear, hear.) Then
Mr. George Denison says he wants an alteration of the ma-
nagement clauses in the system of educat ion in England, and
they exclaim, " With all my heart, let us have an alteration
in that scheme."—(A laugh.) A party in the Irish Church
come forward and say they wish a change in the mixed sys-
tem of education in that country. "By all means, we are
quite willing," is the answer of the Government.—(Alaugh.)
Indeed all that seems necessary is that some gentleman
should start a crude notion upon any subject, in order to
have the Government saying, "We have nut made, tip our
minds upon it, but we are quite ready, nevertheless, to go
into the consideration of it."—(Hear, hear.) Why here
is a direct premium upon agitation.—(Cries of " Hear, hear,")
I have said that it was our object, after obtaining an assur-
ance that Parliament would be dissolved as soon as possible,
to get some explanations from the Government as to their
policy. That explanation we certainly have not obtained;
but we have obtained that which is quite sufficient—we have
obtained enough to enable my Right Hen. Friend the Mem-
ber for Ripon to say that the question before you is, whether
you have confidence in Lord Derby's Government, or whe-
ther you have not.—(Hear, hear.) I know that some people
say my Right Hon. 1 riend is very unreasonable—that he is
in the situation of Sir Lucius O'Trigger when he said to
Captain Absolute, " I think we did differ in opinion,"
to which Captain Absolute replied, " That is a very odd
ffiesrs a in
veroypinoidodn
thing, for I gave no opinion whatever."—(Laughter.)
My Right Honourable Friend s
with the Government, and they saar"hTehadti
thing, for we havens) opinions whatever."—(Great laughter.)
But, with great deference to them, in this country of
England that is a goo and sufficient reason for my Right
Hon. Friend's distrust.—(Hear, hear.) This country will
never be satisfied unless they have men ruling the country
who have some principles and some opinions.—(Hear, hear.)
It may seem to be a popular thing to say that the country
has only by a majority to express an favour of a
corn-law, and that the corn-laws will be re-imposed ;or
that, if there is a majority against such a policy, then we
shall have free trade. That may seem to be a popular de-
claration, and one likely to attract popular favour; but, de-
pend upon it, it is not so.—(Hear, hear.) The people of this
country would be bet ter pleased to see men who had some
opinions, and who were read to bring questions clearly
before theme-(Hear. hear.) ready
the country_ likely to place
its confidence in a Government that has no opinions, no
principles,- and which is ready to be guided by any wind that
may rise into any port that is open for them?—(Cheers.)
Lord STANLEY would not enter upon the serious but un-
founded assertions with which the Noble Lord, at the con-
elmsion of his speech, had thought fit to attack the Govern-
ment generally; but he must be allowed to
upon one department say that when
the Noble Lord made a directassault -
of the Government, and went on to accuse a member of the
Administration of incapacity, he thought it came with little
grace from the leader of a Government which fell from
power through its own internal weakness, and from sheer
incapacity to carry on the business of the country.—(Hear,
hear.) dealing with the more confined question upon
which alone he was entitled to touch, he felt that he must
threw himself upon the indulgence of the House,not merely
because this was the that time he had come forward upon a
question of such magnitude and importance—not merely
because of the great mass of detail which was contained in
the volume that comprised the facts of the case; but be-
cause from the very first moment when this question was
submitted to Parliament till now there had been an amount
of prejudice and misrepresentation, and misstatement of the
facts, such as he believed had hardly ever been paralleled.—
(Ilear, hear.) The Noble Lord began his address by station
that the different storiela resting upon different circum-
stances, had gone forth with regard to the outrage com-
mitted upon Mr. Mather, and _ he observed that his Noble

Friend the Foreign Secretary had not adopted either one or
the other of these statements, but that he mixed them up

together, contradictory and opposite as ho said they were.
Now, he thought that if gentlemen would look into the
volume from which the Noble Lord quoted, they would see
that the discrepancy to which he alluded entirely vanished.
Lord Mahnesbury, it was true, stated in one place, that the
outrage was accidental, and that in another he spoke of it
as " brutal and unprovoked ;" but this apparent discre-
pancy disappeared on looking more closely at the connexion
of these statements. There were two ways of looking at
the question; one was with , reference to the Goverment,
and the other was with reference to the individual

: -
outrage. He could quite understand that his Noble
Friend used the word "accidental" as applied to this coun-
try and the Government. He said—and his opinion was
justified by the evidence before them—that the outrage bad
nothing to do with any intended insult to the national cha-
racter, that it was no premeditated insult to England, and
that it was so far accidental that no one could have antici-

pated that it would arise; that, in short, it sprang out of an
occurrence that no one did or could foresee.—(Hear, hear.)

But that did not in the slightest degree prevent it being
equally true that, so far as regarded the individual who te-
ceived the injury, looking at it not in a personal, but in a
national point of view, the, outrage was as " brutal and

unprovoked as any that ever aline under public notice.
—( Lear, hear.) The Noble Lord complained of the case
having been submitted to a Tuscan tribunal.--("Xo," from
Lord J. Russell.) The Noble Lord at least spoke of the
Tuscan tribunal as one in which he thought there was little.
likelihood of eliciting the troth. Now, he did not contend
that a tribunal acting in secret was as good a mode of eli-
citing facts as one conducted according to out English
system; but, looking at the tribunal by the results of the
inquiry that took place, he was bound to admit that they
had gone into that inquiry as impartially as it was possible
for /Lama to do. It was impossible for any one to read the
mass of testimony there given—for it had since received the
most unreserved publicity--without seeing that it" proved,
in the moat conclusive manner, Mr. Mathees statement to
be correct.

Lord JOHN RUSSELL had said nothing against the Tu-
scan tribunal.
Lord STANLEY must say the Noble Lord alluded to it
briefly, but he understood hiin to do so in such a manner as
to imply that it was a tribw,al from which justice was not
to be expected. lieu the Noble Lord came to the material
points of the case. The tribunal having completed the in-
quiry, and substantiated the statement of Mr. Mather, the
'Tuscan Government declared that their power was limited—
that they had elicited the facts, but that it was not in their
Power to do more. Two questions then arose for the consi-
deration ~.r
_,
of the Austrian and British Governments--the
being, from what Government the reparation for the outrage
ote the
committed was to come; and the second, what shouldeusmt s
nature and extent of that reparation? Now? _
the Noble
oreay
that he looked upon the first questio;
important than it seemed to be regarded