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

S UN,

EVENING, JUNE l5, 1852,

an able and intelligent British resident to protect their in-
terests in that part of Italy.—(Hear, hear.) As for any
redress that may be gained to British subjects by ell these
transactions, I cannot imagine that what has been done will
be at all effectual. I have received a letter from a gentle-
man to-day, saying that he had been much wronged;
that he had been detained at Berlin, and put in prison
for four-and-twenty hours; that the Noble Lord the
Member for Tiverton, and after him Lord Granville,
had taken up his case, and remonstrated with the
Prussian Government, bat that the present Govern-
ment had taken no notice of his request for redress.
The only advice I can give this gentleman—and I take the
apportunity of giving it him thus publicly—is not to ask
the present Government to interfere in his case at all.—
(A laugh.) If he has a grievance to complain of I recom-
mend him to follow the example of the great Captain
Gonzales de CordoYa in a similar position, who, when his
Sovereign wanted to pacify him by a gift of the city of Lugo,
told his Majesty that he liked his grievance better than the
city.—(Laughter.) As far as Mr. Mather is concerned, the
result to him is the offer of a thousand francisconi, which he
rejected with disdain ; in addition to which his character as
a man of independence and disinterestedness has been
blasted by the interference of our Government.—(Hear. )
All I can say on the subject is, that I will not take
the course which Lord Derby did when ho saw reason to
censure the conduct of the late Government in regard to
the affairs of Greece, but I will content myself with protest-
ing against what has been done in Mr. Mather's case in
terms similar to those which his Lordship then employed.
Lord Derby said on that occasion :
" Surely it becomes the British Legislature to step for-
ward and say that the Foreign-office of England is not
England—that nd—that the high-minded, generous feeling, of this
g
people is opposed to measures such as have been
taken by the Government of the country—that we sepe-
rate our actions from theirs—our feelings from theirs—our
r
views of justice and good faith from theirs."
I also take leave to separate my feelings—my notions ofjus-
tice and good faith—from the course which the Government
case.—(Year, hear.) I beg leave to
against conduct which seems to me to
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 than its ehnasterpmurysupedrotionatthis
Go-
vernment of what is due to its character. I trust, however,
it will be recollected that in the present state of the conti-
nent of Europe this is almost the only country in which a
free expression of opinion can take place. It is almost the
only country in Which a free press and free discussions in the
Legislature can fairly be said to make themselves felt, because
although the forms of constitutional ;government exist in se-
veral States of Europe, those forms are in some cases so per-
verted, while other countries in which they are not perverted,
and where real liberty exists, are so small and so dependent
on their more powerfal neighbours, that no bold and loud ex-
pression of public opinion can take place in them. No such
addresses as are delivered in our Legislature, and no such
publications as that which, to his immortal honour, the
Right Hon. Member for the University of Oxford issued
from the press last year—(Cheers)—can be made or put forth,
at present, in any other country of Europe. Under these
circumstances, it more especially behoves us to keep our
character unhurt and our honour untarnished. It becomes
us, if we have occasion to ask for redress from a foreign Go-
vernmeat, to proceed mildly and with temper ; but, at the
same time, to insist on that which we really think due to
us.—(Hear, hear.) It would be an inestimable loss, not to
this country alone, but to all the world, if our character as
a great and independent nation should be in any degree im-
paired. I trust, therefore, that before the Noble Lord at the
head of the Foreign-office again writes such dispatches as
these, he will censidei# 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
Ministers that they could not bring forward in the present
Parliament those measures which they thought essential to
remedy, in some respects, the evils which the measure of
1846, and the commercial policy subsequently adopted, had
created—were of opinion that Ministers were bound, first to
make the session as short as they possibly could, consistently
with the, dispatch of urgent public business ; and, secondly,
to declare the naeure of their policy. With respect to the
first of these points, something like a satisfactory under-
standing was eventually come to. The reluctance which at
first seemed to be entertained of protracting the session to
the usual period, and not assembling the new Parliament
until the beginning of next year was abandoned. With
respect to the second point, however, I must say I have
been totally disappointed. We asked Ministers to do only
what has been done—gladly done—by other Ministers.
When Earl Grey dissolved the Parliament, in 1832, the issue
distinctly raised was the adoption or rejection of the Reform
Bill. When Sir R. Peel dissolved, in 1834, he issued a clear
and explicit declaration of the course he intended to pursue;
and, the principles which he laid down being inconsistent
with the opinions of the majority of the House, an adverse
vote compelled him to resign. When Lord Melbourne
dissolved, in 1841, the measures of commercial policy which
be intended to propose to the ensuing Parliament were
clearly submitted to the public; but, the appeal to the
country having produced a larger majority against him
than the preceding election had furnished against Sir R.
Peel, his Lordship was soon obliged to resign. The present
Government, however, from the very moment of their taking
office down to the present day, so far from proclaiming their
opinions to the world, seem to me to be bent on studiously
concealing what their opinions are with respect to that
question on 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 head of the Government, then in
opposition, that in his opinion it was desirable to impose a
duty on imported corn. When the Right Hon. Gentleman
opposite, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, came into office
he also said it was a most desirable thing to impose a duty
on imported corn. It coon began to be understood that
this favourite measure was to be abandoned ; but, at the
same time, we were left as much in the dark as before
as to the precise course which was to be taken. What we
and the country, generally, desire to know is not so much
the particular measure to be proposed as the spirit in
which they are to be framed. We want Ministers to answer
ay or no to this question...4c Are you prepared to uphold the
financial and commercial policy which has prevailed since
1842 ?—(Hear, hear.) Is it your opinion that the policy of
the last ten years, ;1,
wile-, prevailed during the Administra-
tion of Sir R. Peel and the existence of the late Govern-
ment, has been beneficial to the country, and ought to be
adhered to, or that it had been mischievous, and that it is
necessary to avert further injury by altering it ?" To this
question the House and the country have never had anything
like an answer.—( e \
-11-ar•e At various times circumstances
have occurred which seemed to indicate the course about to
be taken. When the Chancellor of the Exchequer made his
most able speech on opening
the budget, we on this side of
the House looked upon it as conclusive in favour of a free-
trade policy, and we believed that thenceforward that policy
would be the rule of our proceedings. Everybody here was
delighted with the Chancellor of the Exchequer's speech, and
no one thought of taunting the Right Hon. Gentleman or
any of his colleagues with inconsistency. The Right llon.
Gentleman, however, found a critic, a commentator, and an
and who
adversary; was he? He appeared at the Mansion-
house in the person of the First Lord of the Treasury.—
(Laughter.) That was the scene which Lord Derby chose for
criticising his Chancellor of the Exchequer. The Noble
Lord pointed out a great omission in his colleague's address,
and supplied it by something. not as lucid and con-
clusive as the Chancellor of the Exchequer's statement, but
by something that was eminently obscure and ambiguous.—
(Hear ) This was certainly a novel proceeding. As a
Member for London, I have often had occasion to dine in
the City, but it never occurred to me to avail myself of any
of those opportunities to answer my own Chancellor of the
Exchequer. - (Hear, hear and laughter.) Though we have
not obtained from the Noble Lord at the head of the Go-
vernment any clear declaration of the policy to be pursued,
we have been favoured with expositions of it from other
Members of the 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 hays seen rofes
ee sed supporters of
Lord Derby's n
e -vernmalsent going into the country
and declaring that above all: things they wish not to
have the corn-laws re-imposed ; and lam told that
one of these Gentlemen, who is canvassing Maidstone,
has
have issued
at lan
eng address in which he says, " I rejoice to say,
we th an „ honest Government, and there is no
longer any
chance of re-imposing a tax upon bread."—
(Laughter.) lam at,
to 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 circumstances combine to shroud the intentions
of the Government in ambiguity. At length, it seemed as
if a light had
broken upon the Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer, when he h Stated in his recent address to his consti-
tuents that,—
"The time has goneby when the injuries •• . which the great
interests " dor removed by
producing te endure can be alleviate
a recurrence to the laws which, previously to 1846, protected
them from such
, calamities."
The only circumstance to be surprised at is, that this light
should have been so long in reaching the Right Hon. Gen-
tleman. The question was raised at the election of 1847.
Since then it a
-le undergone repeated discussions in Perlis-
Inent, and it has been obvious to 19 persons out of 20, for
the last three or fou tone the time for the re-imp
r years,
tion of the corn.] lt seems, however, that
the Chancellor aWS was g.
of the Exchequer did not make this discovery.
Until the other day W e Chancellor of the Exche-
quer says besides *- * hisaddress is not very reassuring. He
tells his constituentsn
rent of land has diminished no
less than 5,000,. that the
I will not stop to inquire whe-
ther that e; u
--retlmsta aeY'eaaritribntable to the cause to which
the Chancellor of thneeExischequer refers it, but if the Right
Hon. Gentlemen t h forward as a groundfor giving the
landowners c pu stat 0
by imposing general burdens on
the rest _
._ompensation, P
of the community, I can only say the idea is prepos-
terous.—..(Ree_.,
(Hem '•) Suppose Lord Derby himself possessed of
5,®01' a 3rear, which are claimed by the parish as belong-
and to them The case is heard by the Lord Chancellor
and goes to the House of Lords, and the final decision is
that the A
-,°oo/. belong to the inhabitants of the parish, and
must be surrendered t.o them. Imagine what would be the
surprise of the Lord Chancellor and the House of Lords if
Lard should be called upon to make up the 5,000/. which
Lord Derby hadwrongfully held from the poor by a general
tax th • _ _
0 parnh.—(Cheers and aug . 1 hter ) The corn-laws
were Lever defended by any man of sense on the gronnd
that they gave an addition to the income of the land-
°wllerse—(Hear, hear.) The ground taken by the ad-
vocates of those laws was that of general national ad-
antage arising from independence of foreign supply.
The n •.
ply being of opinion that this was a fallacy, and
that itunnecessary continue the laws, there was no
pretee_ _ to .
ratan tor saying believep ought to be given to
the landowners. I that I are speaking in the interest
of the landowners themselves. Nothing could be so injurious
to their influence—which was very great—as the notion
that instead of defending the corn-laws as a national
advantage, they had done so for their own benefit, and
now required compensation for loss sustained by their
repeat-- (gear, hear.) The revision of taxation, and re-
adjustment of burden which the Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer
"will not, I am
says "looms in the future,
afraid, : the Duke
give much ' •
satisfaction to the farmers, whom
of Richmond has telling year after year that, as soon
been
as Lord Derby office, there would be a dissolution,
and then the came into
protection back again.—(Hear,
hear.) That was
would have
at was the language of the Duke of Richmond,
endorsed,
The I must sa :1D by the Noble Lord at the head of the
Government.'uke always told the farmers not to lay
out their m in expensive manures, and
money drown •' g and . .
that the way to get rich Was to drive out the late Ministers.
The only a• farmer now has is to be told that a
consolation the
chance of light • his burdens looms
laugh.) The lightening
pursued in the future.—(te
y since 1842 was an excellent
mode of lightening the burdens of the people. The Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer had given a striking proof of this
when he stated that sugar duties to the amount of 700,0001,
had been reduced, with a loss to the revenue of only 3001. ,
Can there be better policy to pursue? All I hope is, that
a .
the farmers, having been deceived for the last six years by
being Old that they would got back protection, will not

allow themselves to be again deceived by being told that
they can be restored to prosperity by any other means than
the exertion of their own skill and industry.—(Hear, hear.)
Passing from this topic, the Chancellor of the Exchequer,
in his address, claims credit for what Ministers have done
and what they propose to do. With the exception of the
Militia Bill—the credit of which I willingly resign to them
—(A laugh)—all their measures had their origin with the
late Government. Of these, Chancery reform was one of the
most important. That was no party question. I am far
from asking credit for it as a party measure, but
a Commission having been instituted by the late
Government, made their report upon the subject,
and it was announced in the Queen's speech that on
that subject a measure would be introduced. The Go-
vernment introduced a Bill, but even at the last moment
there were clauses in it so objectionable that my Right Hon.
Friend the Member for Ripon, who belonged to the com-
mission,- had to insist upon the report of the Commissioners
being carried into effect in order to make it a good and
useful measure.—(Hear, hear.) But there are other cir-
cumstances with respect to which the Government have, as I
think, raised very grave questions, and made most dangerous
admissions. In the first instance, I will advert to the
system of education in Ireland.—(Hear, hear.) A plan
of mixed education had been settled for years in that
country, and people in general were satisfied with it, but
the present Government were no sooner in office than
they said they would make a change with respect to
that system, and that they would do some favour to
the Established Church, by which the Established Church
should obtain a portion of the grant. Now, I cannot con-
ceive anything more dangerous for Ireland. because it is
admitted—l believe it was stated by Lord Derby, and also
by the Bishop of Ossory at a meeting of the Church Educa-
tion Society—that if you grant a separate system in order to
have the children educated in the Scriptures according to
the authorized version, or according to the wishes of the
Church of England, you must at the Caine tine give the
same advantage to the Roman Catholics.—(Hear, hear.)
And I observe that those who belong to the Roman Catholic
commmunity, who are most opposed to the mixed education,
are quite ready to meet you on that subject.—(Hear, hear.)
I have seen to-day, in an address published by the Catholic
Defence Association, these words, "Catholics of Ireland, do
you especially trust no man who is not distinctly and ex-
plicitly in favour of Catholic education for Catholics, Pro-
testant education for Protestants."---(Hear, hear.) If you
give way to the Protestant, you must give way to that de-
mand, instead of having the mixed education established by
Lord Derby himself, and so highly creditable and honour-
able to him, but which he is now ready to forego.—( Hear,
hear.) Supposing, however, you adopt this principle, are
there no other questions raised thereby? You now give
150,0001. for education in Ireland; and it will be impossible
to give more than 30,0001., or perhaps 50,0001., to the Esta-
blished Church for that object. You will then be giving
100,000/. for exclusively Catholic schools. But that will
come to be another Maynooth question.—(Hear' hear.) If
you give 100,0001. for educating children in the Roman Ca-
tholic faith, will there not be as much objection to that as
there now is to the 26,0001. which you pay to Maynooth?
—( Hear, hear.) See the dangenof raising a question,that was
settled.—(Hear, hear.) For twenty years you have gone on
without disturbance, and you might have so gone on still,
but for what has been said by the present Government,
which has unsettled the question, and once more tossed it
up into the air.—(Hear, hear.) Then it appears they are
not sdtisfied with disturbing education in Ireland—they are
disturbing also the plan of education adopted in England.—
( Hear, hear.) I have seen what I wish I had seen six weeks
ago—for the vote for education was only taken a week
ago.—(Hear, hear.) I have seen it stated that the Govern-
ment have made up their minds to do that which they say
they have always been anxious and earnestly desirous to
do—to do justice to the Church of England in the matter of
education, as they thought there was undue restriction upon
the Church in that matter. Then why should not the
minute containing this announcement have been introduced
before the vote for education was agreed to ?—(Hear, hear.)
They must know that this question produces, and will pro-
duce, the greatest excitement. They must know that the
condition of the National Society is now such that many per-
sons wish there should be an alteration in the charter of that
society.—(Hear, hear.) Surely that was a question to be
kept, at least, in abeyance. Or, if they were determined
to make an alteration, they should have made it some time
ago, though the better course, I think, would have been, not
to take it up at all till they had found time to look into the
whole question.—(Hear, hear.) Then I must say that the
Government have suffered from the mode in which they had
themselves prepared to accept office. We all knew that
in the course of last year, when called upon to form a Go-
vernment, they declared themselves incapable of doing so,
because they were unable to fill the several offices of the
Government. Soon after that it was publicly announced
that they bad made their dispositions, that they bad the
means of forming a Government, when called upon to do so,
and the event showed this rumour to be perfectly true. A
very eminent person accepted the office of Lord Chancellor,
and several gentlemen pursuing the agreeable pursuits and
easy business that belong to an English country gentleman,
and which makes life so easy and agreeable, were ready to
accept the troubles, the responsibilities, and the obloquy of
office. But there was one thing they seem to have entirely
forgotten, and that was, what were the principles and opinions
upon which as a Government they were to act.—(Hear,
hear.) They entirely lost sight of that which appears
to me to be an essential preliminary, but which I sup-
pose they thought trivial.—(Hear, hear.) They seem to
have had no fixed opinions on any one subject.—( A laugh.)
No sooner does any gentlemen start a subject than they
avow themselves quite ready to agree to his proposal.—
( Hear.) An Hon. Gentleman opposite proposes to raise the
question of Maynooth. That is another dangerous subject
to meddle with; but no sooner is it brought forward than
the Government exclaim--" We aro quite ready to go into
that question ; we have, to be sure, not made up our minds
what to do ; we have no present intention of abolishing May-
nooth, but we will leave Ireland to be disquieted till we
make up our minds on the subject."—( Hear, hear.) Then
Mr. George Denison says he wants an .alteration of the ma-
nagement clauses in the system of education in England, and
they exclaim, " With all my heart, let us have an alteration
in that scheme."—(A laugh.) A party in the Irish Church
come forward and say they wish a change in the mixed sys-
tem of education in that country. "By all means, we are
quite willing," is the answer of the Government.—(Alaugb.)
ludeed all that seems necessary is that some gentleman
should start a crude notion upon any subject, in order to
have the Government saying, "We have not made up our
minds upon it, but we are quite ready, nevertheless, to go
into the consideration of it."—(Hear, hear.) Why here
is a direct premium upon agitation.— (Cries of " Hear, hear.")
I have said that it was our object, atter obtaining an assur-
ance that Parliament would be dissolved as soon as possible,
to get some explanations from the Government as to their
policy. That explanation we certainly have not obtained;
but we have obtained that which is quite sufficient—we have
obtained enough to enable my Right Hen. Friend the Mem-
ber for Ripon to say that the question before you is, whether
you have confidence in Lord Derby's Government, or whe-
ther you have not.—(hear, hear.) I know that some people
say my Right Hon. Friend is very unreasonable—that he is
in the situation of Sir Lucius O'Trigger when he said to
Captain Absolute, " I think we did differ in opinion,"
to which Captain Absolute replied, " That, is a. very odd
thing, for I gave no opinion whatever. '—(Laughter. )
My Right Honourable Friend
sssays,,hTehadtiffies a rsivneroypinoidodn
with the Government, and they y
thing, for we have no opinions whatever. —(Great laughter.)
But, with great deference to them, in this country of
England that is a good and sufficient reason for my Right
Hon. Friend's distrusts—(Hear, hear.) This country will
never be satisfied unless they have men ruling 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 opinion in favour of a
corn-law, and that the corn-laws will be re-imposed; or
that, if there is a majority against such a policy, then we
shall have free trade. That may seem to be a popular de-
claration, and one likely to attract popular favour; but, de-
pend upon it, it is not so.—(Hear,
see men
atr, hear.) Thwehpoeolpialedosfstmhies
country would be better pleased
opinions, and who were ready to bring questions clearly
before them.—(Hear. hear.) Is the country likely to place
its confidence in a Government that has no opinions, no
principles, and which is ready to be guided by any wind that
may
port that is open for them ?—(Cheers.)
m rise into any
Lord STANLEY would not enter upon the serious but un-
founded assertions with which the Noble Lord, at the con-
clusion of his speech, had thought fit to attack the Govern-
ment generally; but he must be allowed to say that when
the Noble Lord made a direct assault upon one department
of the Government, and went on to accuse a member of the
Administration of incapacity, he thought it. came with little
grace from the leader of a Government which fell from
power through its own internal weakness, and from sheer
incapacity to carry on the business of the country.—(Hear,
p
hear.) In dealing with the more confined question upon
which alone he was entitled to touch, he felt that he must
threw himself upon the indulgence of the House,not merely
because this was the first time he had come forward upon a
question of such magnitude and importance—not merely
because of the great mass of detail which was contained in
the volume that comprised the facts of the ease; but be-
cause from the very first moment when this question was
submitted to Parliament till now there had been an amount
of prejudice and misrepresentation, and misstatement of the
facts, such as he believed had hardly ever been paralleled.—
(Hear, hear.) The Noble Lord began his address by stating
that the different stories, resting upon different circum-
stances, had gone forth with regard to the outrage com-
mitted upon Mr. Mather, and he observed that his Noble
Friend the Foreign Secretary had not adopted either one or
the other of these statements, but that he mixed them up
together, contradictory and opposite as he said they were.
Now, he thought that if gentlemen would. look into the
volume from which the Noble Lord quoted, they would see
that the discrepancy to which he alluded entirely vanished.
Lord Malmesbury, it was true, stated in one place, that the
outrage was accidental, and that in another he spoke of it
as "brutal and unprovoked ;" but this apparent discre-
pancy disappeared on looking more closely at the connexion
of these statements. There were two ways of looking at
the question ; one was with reference to the Goverment,
and the other was with reference to the individual
outrage. He could quite understand that his Noble
Friend used the word "accidental" as applied to this coun-
try and the Government. He said—and his opinion was
justified by the evidence before them—that the outrage had
nothing to do with any intended insult to the national
cha-
racter, that it was no premeditated insult to England, and
that it was so far accidental that no one could have antici-
pated that it would arise; that, in short, it sprang out of an
occurrence that no one did or could foresee.—(Hear, hear.)
prevent. it being
But that did not in the slightest degree
"brutal
equally true that, so far as regarded the individual who re-
ceived--
the injury, looking at it not in a personal, but in a
national point of view, the outrage
ked " as any that ever came under public notice.
was
sas
unprovoked
—( HZ. hear.) The Noble Lord complained of the case
having been submitted to a Tuscan tribunal.—("No," from
Lord J. Russell.) The Noble Lord at least spoke of the
Tuscan tribunal as one in which he thought there was little
likelihood of eliciting the truth. Now, he did not contend
that a tribunal acting in secret was as good a mode of eli-
citing facts as one conducted according to our English
system ; but, looking at the tribunal by the results of the
inquiry that took place, he was bound to admit that they
had gone into that inquiry as impartially as it was possible
for a court to do. It was impossible for any one to read the
mass of testimony there given—for it had
since received the
most unreserved publicity without seeing that it proved,
in the most conclusive manner, Mr.
Mather's statement to
be correct.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL had said nothing against the Tus-
can tribunal.
Lord STANLEY must say the Noble Lord alluded to it
briefly, but he understood him to do so in such a manner as
to imply that it was a tribunal from which justice was not
to be expected. Then the Noble Lord came to the material
points of the case. The tribunal having completed the in-
quiry, and substantiated the statement of Mr. Mather, the
Tuscan Government declared that their power was limited—
that they had elicited the facts, but that it was not in their
power to do more. Two questions then arose for the consi-
deration of the Austrian and British Governments--the first
e
being, from what Government the rep should the
aration f
committed was to come; and the second, what k rust sae
nature and extent of that reparation ? Now, ti as more
that he looked upon the first questioo u
e h outrage
ml be the
important than it seemed to be regarded by the Noble

' Lord; he looked upon it as important, because the in-
fluence such a precedent would possess would lead to
the establishment of a rule of proceeding in all similar
cases, and because it would be the means of establishing
the best mode of bringing to justice an offender who
might commit an injury upon a British subject.—(Hear,
hear.) References had been made to several instances
which it was said were analogous to the present ; such, for
example, as an outrage committed during the occupation
of France by the allied army ; also in Spain, when that
country was invaded in 1823 by the French army. Neither
of these instances could be cited as precedents, for both
the countries referred to were occupied by hostile armies.
Another argument employed was that in the Nizam's terri-
tories of India, where there was a large force commanded
by British officers, if one of those British officers insulted a
foreigner, reparation, it was said, would be sought, not from
the native princes, but from the British Government. He
might remark that that case entirely failed to bear upon
the question in the most important point, because that
native State referred to had by treaty no external relations
whatever. It was independent it its internal affairs, but
with respect to its foreign relations was absolutely depen-
dent. Therefore those cases offered no precedent to prove
the irresponsibility of the Tuscan Government in this matter.
Bat there was a precedent which he considered had a consi-
derable bearing on the question, and that was the case of our
troops in the Peninsula; for it had been stated by the Duke
of 's ellington that those troops, even at a time of war, when
the country was greatly disturbed, were subject to the Por-
tuguese tribunals, and remained so during the war ; so
strongly impressed was the British Government with the
danger of not admitting the responsibility of foreign officers
to native tribunals.—(Hear, hear.) Now, supposing the
present Government had thought fit to take an opposite
course with respect to Tuscany. Suppose the Government
had said, " We admit your excuse, your irresponsibility ; we
know you have no power to compel those cfficers to appear
before your tribunals, and that being the case, we shall apply
to the Austrian Government." That was the course which
the Noble Lord recommended.
Lord J. RUSSELL—I said both Governments.
Lord STANLEY—Undoubtedly the Noble Lord spoke in
reference to both Governments, but the Noble Lord said that
his own colleague, Lord Granville, intended to apply to the
Tuscan Government in the first instance, and, if he failed
in obtaining reparation from that Government, he was then
prepared to go to the Austrian Government. Thus the
Noble Lord, professing to dread the influence of Austria and
despotic Courts, and to be the warm advocate of all the
liberal Governments in Europe, was prepared to take a
course which would have amounted to a distinct and formal
recognition of the absolute military occupation of Tuscany
by the Austrian troops.—(Hear, hear.) It was stated by
the Noble Lord that it could not be said that the Austrian
officer in question had not been brought to trial, whatever
might be thought of the nature of the trial and the justice
and impartiality of the tribunal. Still, it was perfectly
obvious that he had been brought before a legal tribune'
and by that tribunal tried and acquitted.—(An Honourable
Member—Not a legal tribunal.) He had always ima-
gined that that court-martial was a regular court; and
admitting that the Austrian Government took on itself the
responsibility, trial by court-martial was the only trial pos-
sible. Now he thought there could be hardly a more diffi-
cult question for diplomatists or cabinets to settle than to say
what was the course which a Government should take
when one of its subjects had been injured or insulted in a
foreign country, and when the person committing the wrong
bad been brought to trial according to the legal forms of the
country in which the offence took place, and after such trial
acquitted, manifestly in defiance of all law and evidence. It
was difficult to say how far a Government was justified in in-
terfering in such a case. An instance had occurred in which
gross insult and violence had been offered in this country to
a distinguished subject of Austria. He (Lord Stanley)
would suppose that that person, having been so insulted
at a time when there existed among a certain class of the
population strong political feelings, had taken the case before
a jury, and that in consequence of political excitement a
verdict of not guilty should have been given in refer-
ence to the perpetrators of the outrage, in defiance of law
and evidence; he did not think that in such a case
it would have been in the power of the British Government
to do anything except what the Austrian Government had
done in the case of Mr. blather—viz., express regret.—
(Hear, hear.) He was quite sure that no civilized Govern-
ment, whether liberal or despotic, could take the matter
into their own hands after the person had been once tried
and acquitted according to the forms of law.—(Hear, hear.)
He mentioned that merely as a difficinty which might have
occurred had it been determined to make Austria responsi-
ble. But the main difficulty of making Austria responsible
Wail the violation which it involved of a great international
principle, and the admission that in the Tuscan dominions
an Austrian officer serving the Tuscan Government was to
be subject to no Government but the Austrian.—(Hear,
hear.) The Noble Lord had referred at considerable length
to the nature of . the reparation awarded to Mr. Mather,
and had argued that the transactions of the British Govern-
ment had a tendency to damage that gentleman's character.
The Government certainly had no intention to inflict such da-
mage, and if that were the case, he must say the Govern-
ment ought to take, and would take, the earliest opportunity
of bearing testimony to the character of Mr. Mather.—
(Hear, hear.) Mr. Mather, in the whole transaction, had
suffered much pain, anxiety, and annoyance, and if under
feelings naturally excited he had not at all times done justice
to the conduct of the Government, that was no reason why
the Government should not do justice to hire.—(Hear,
hear.) He admitted the difficult position in which that
gentleman was put by the demand made on him. to state his
own compensation for the insult; but he thought there was
some misapprehension on Mr. blather's part. Mr. Mather's
view appeared to be that an Englishman having received a
premeditated insult on the part of a foreign Government,
upon that Government a fine should be inflicted, he would
not say proportionate, for it was difficult to measure an In-
jury by money, but sufficient to express the sense of the En-
glish Government on the subject. Ile was willing to believe
that that was Mr. Mather's view, and therefore he did not in
that case think the demand of 5,0001. exorbitant or unreasona-
ble. But if the question was treated as a personal, and not an
international one, and that compensation equal to the
jury- suffered was to be asked, then he thought the demand
of 5,0004 would be. in that light, utterly unreasonable, and
beyond what could he expected.—( Hear, hear.) He
thought the Noble Lord had commented a little unfairly on
the various sums named in the papers, and stated that Mr.
Scarlett had been ill-treated, because, after a wide discre-
tion had been left him, he had been disavowed for going
below the sum of 5001, Now Mr. Scarlett had himself stated,
in one of the papers before the House, that if he treated the
Mather question by itself, his instructions absolutely pre-
vented him from consenting to any minimuni except (001.
He did not wish to say one word that could be consi-
dered harsh or unjust to Mr. Scarlett, and would repeat
what was stated in the papers, that Mr. Scarlett was
suffering at the time under a state of health which almost
terminated his life. If, under those circumstances,
Mr. Scarlett committed an error of judgment, that was an
error which ought to be dealt with as leniently as possible.
But the real question—and that was the point which the
Noble Lord seemed to avoid—with reference to which Mr.
Scarlett was disavowed, was, not that he had taken 2221.
instead of 5001.—not that he had consented to accept, as
part of the bargain, the release of two political prisoners,
whose release had been, indeed, previously promised—not for
one or other of these deviations from his instructions, but he
was disavowed because he had expressly and in contraven-
tion of his instructions disclaimed that principle which it
was the great object of the Noble Lord at the head of the
Foreign-office and the Government to assert—the responsibi-
lity of the Tuscan Government in such a case as the one un-
der consideration:—(Hear, hear.)
Lord J. RUSSELL—Where is that?
Lord STANLEY—It was stated in one of the dispatches.
" Although her Majesty's Government were willing to
consider that Mr. Scarlett, under a combination of difficul-
ties, acted to the best of his judgment when he agreed to re-
ceive a sum so much smaller than the minimum which his in-
structons permitted him to accept, and under that impression
informed yon, on the 21st inst., that they recognised his
act, it is impossible for her Majesty's Government to sanction
the renunciation of so important a principle as that to which
Mr. Scarlett now appears to have surrendered, and still less
to admit that a British subject cruelly injured on Tuscan
territory is indebted to the charity of the Grand Duke for
that protection and compensation which he has a right to
claim from justice and international law."
Lord J. RUSSELL—bIr. Scarlett does not say so.
Lord STANLEY—That dispatch was addressed by Lord
Malmesbury to Sir H. Bulwer. He was endeavouring to
show that Mr. Scarlett was not disavowed for taking 222/.
instead of 5001., or for accepting in a most unusual way the
release of two political prisoners, but for expressly surren-
dering that important principle which it was the main ob-
ject of the negotiation to establish.—(Hear.) He thought
he had now gone through the principal points which the
Noble Lord had selected for comment, and he would not
further detain the House by entering upon the wider and
generalHe
could.questions
ho
awthr
ai culla
atchtieo
nNfioabdl e
anythingLotd had awdh
irceh-
fme rorreed .
inodbicleatLedordonhtand chepaarrgt ofed the G
N
against
them —an insensibility to
the rights of British subjects, and he was content to let the
case rest on the evidence contained in the papers before the
House.—( Hear, hear. )
Mr. OSBORNE said, he was one of those who lamented
the course taken by the Noble Lord the Member for London ;
because if ever there was a question which ought to be con-
sidered separately on its merits, without the general
oble
imbe-
cility of the present Government being mixed up with it, it
was the case of Mr. Mather and the conduct of the Noble
Lord whom the country had the misfortune to see installed
in the Foreign-office.—(Hear and laughter.) He asked
the House whether it ever heard a statement so lame and
impotent as that made by the Under-Secretary for
Foreign Affairs? The Noble Under-Secretary had said,
that that House was not easily convinced; but would the
country be easily convinced that the department over which
the Under-Secretary did not preside, and he (Mr. Osborne)
lamented that, because he thought the Noble Lord's here-
ditary spirit would at least impel him to conduct the affairs
of the country better than the Earl of Malmesbury, had
treated this case, with common decency or propriety?—
(Hear, hear.) The Noble Under-Secretary had referred to
our expedition to Portugal, but he was bound to have told
the House that the convention by which the Austrian
troops had possession of Tuscany was peculiar in every re-
te everree r beento
Itm enteredawr ca hs
intoto i n
thetoa buese'ffcoaenncety t inde-
pendentsahnadt
8 oeocot
Aa nu
statessdt ri
au nc
rai
ots
with
hadps
a nwno
t
take possession of the country, and were not to be amenable
to any authority but the Austrian Minister of War. There
was also a remarkable stipulation, that those roops wre
not to leave the country without the mutual consente of
both parties. Consequently, though the Tuscan Govern-
ment might say that they no longer required the services
of the Austrian troops, they sould not be removed with-
out the consent of the Austrain Government.—(Heal,
hear.) The very head and front of Lord MalmeatbhurY
the
Tuscan was entering into this petty huckstering with
Tuscan Government, and not calling
Govern-
ment to account for the insult.—(Hear, hear.)
Mather was the
Under-Secretary had insinuated that Mr.
uniary mat
the
who first suggested the subject of
the AustrisioNoblePelowed that the
sation, but the papers before the Thusfirst appeared in a
suggestion of pecuniary compensation lies
who teok a pp-
dispatch of Mr. Scarlett to Lord
slia _
early displayed an in-
to the Austrian
°lltaaigliTapers it appeared
tpaeartvioinew,
inofetahatie coafsea,nyinadsmiffiuccuhlt.
wale which was a most
Government for reparation. vel°"iirs Mather whether he
that Lord Malmesbury asx
to
go
the Foreign Minister to use to a
Malmesbury then, in the true spirit
Lord what will you take for your injury?"
isealmesbury therefore suggested pe-
Bmroint
British
monstrous
a suggestion which was accepted by
of a pedlar, asked.
Lord
(Hear, hear.) s
ation—
jeexctp.restsion
=WY "mplota pain and reluctance.—(Hear.) But on
Mr. atathernaming 5,000 L, for which he stated his reasons,
Ale. Blather
Lord Pilainlesbury, behind his back, and without giving him
formation on the point, wrote a letter to Mr. Scarlett,
desi
anY. in
gnating this as an exorbitant demand,
and naming
1,0001. as the sumfor which a British subject might
down cut
be
in the streets of Florence.— (Cheers and laughter.)
Lord Malmesbury in one of his dispatches stated that the
snm named by Mr. Mather was exorbitant, but Mr. Scarlett
would be able to judge "what can be got"—(llear, hear.)
If the Noble Lord below him (Lord Palmerston) had written
such a dispatch when he presided with distinction and honour
over the foreip affairs of tue oulitry, what Would have been

said by the then Opposition ?—(Hear, hear) "A pecuniary
i(ie,aecor,rhiigidejulteeiarnnasg instinct
sea
a ,
a indeed, on
laughter.)
weerah.s t tangible," said Lord
the
i n
r.d
Scarlett ; " you must hold firm language." Firitt
the)ic T
presidedht hnetn aso
in f
over
rhhetaht
tercuaFenosrpbeiiergi
ntg.om
got."---
(Cheers
h
That was on the 9th of March, but soon after Lord Derby
made his memorable speech at the Mansion-house on the
doctrine of compromise, and Lord Malteesbury, acting on
that doctrine, wrote a very laconic dispatch, in which be
came down to 5001., in a spirit which was worthy of the
Board of Trade. The Noble Lord, who said he did not know
mach of this matter—an assertion he was very ready to
believe, for he doubted if he had read the whole of the
rapers—remarked that Mr. Mather's character had not been
much damaged, though Lord Malmesbury had endea-
voured to make it appear to the Tuscan Government that Mr.
Mather had been the first to ask for a pecuniary compen-
sation.
Lord STANLEY explained. He never intended to say
that Mr. Mather's character might not have been damaged:
but he said there was not the slightet intention to damage it
on the part of the Government, and that Mr. Mather (as we
understood) had borne testimony to the fair and candid way
in which the Noble Lord had acted towards him.
Mr. OSBORNE—If Mr Mather was satisfied with such an
apology at the eleventh hour he was not the man he took him
for. He said it was Mr. Mather who first suggested a pecu-
niary compensation, whereas it was clear Lord Malmesbury
had proposed it, and he knew that the English at Florence
had passed Mr. Mather byin contempt, under the impression
that he had first put the question on the national honour, and
then said he was ready to take 5001., while Lord Malmesbury
was ready to encourage that belief in the mind of foreigners
and of the Tuscan Government. There was another matter
wt-ich never had been explained to the House to this day--
the case of Corporal Baggs—he believed that to be one of
the worst insults ever offered to the British power. What
security had we for the lite or honour of a British subject
when Lord Malmesbury was ready to act in such a way?
The boast of (;''iris Romanus sum" was gone now—it
seemed merely to ticket a man to be insulted with impunity.
Tee greatest temper, knowledge of law, and firmness was
eequirecl for the office of Foreign Secretary, and he regretted
the Noble Lord the Member for Tiverton had ever left his
natural post, for no other man was able to take up the posi-
tion with foreign powers he had done ; and, if he had been
at the Foreign-office, inch dispatches would never have been
id on the table —(Hear, bear.) To show that the Aus-
trian Government expected that a demand would
be made for reparation, Prince Lichtenstein bad,
with the sanction of Marshal Radetzky, put Baron De,
Barg, the officer who commenced the outrage, under arrest
for a week. It was the Austrian Govertment they were
bound to call upon to show Lieutenant Forethuber was
justified in his conduct, and, if they failed to do so, then to
demand some mark of their regret for what had occurred;
but the Austrians., so far from expressing contrition, bad
commended Lieutenant Forstbuter's conduct, and be was
go;ng about Florence as a sort of hero," as the man who
had cut down the Englishman." (No, no.) Yee, be
!,new it to be the case; and it was said Lord )Malmesbury
had given Lieutenant Forethuber "a step."—(A laughs)
The Noble Lord had been distinguished through this affair,
not so much for incapacity as for infirmity of purpose and
great ignorance. He bad never called on the Queen's Ad:*
vocate for his opinion, but, having a ready but ungrammat'''
cal pen, he trusted to himself altogether, and all
who showed well in the case, and kept up thecharacter or
the country, was Mr. Mather. How different was the conduct
of the Noble Lord when Mr. Russell was irnprisonep at SIW'
Grenada, and the Government refused all redress! tle
at once took the opinion of the King's Advocate, and 8
British fleet appeared off the port, whereupon the Govern'
sent of New Grenada at once paid 1.0001. Little had bee!
said about Mr. Scarlett, but be was at a loss to say which
was: the worst—the low views of the Foreign.efficee_e,'
the total mismanagement of Mr. Scarlett. The Noble
Lord said the poor man was very ill, but he (Mr. ()Aherne)
found that Mr. Scarlett had been very well till the difficulty
of his position commenced. On the 29th of May the Righc,
lion. Gentleman opposite said there would be improvements
introduced into our diplomatic service, and that in futuree
only men of classical attainments who had been at coliPg'
should be admitted, [The CIIANCKLLOa of the Eseectinetuo
—" I never used such words at all." Then, the Rige t floe:
Gentleman had been grossly misrepresented—indeed, he was
a man of too just a spirit to tollew such views, and, to use A
popular phrase just now, there w?s " looming in the
tepee" a chance that the Right Hon. Gentleman would kV.;
away from the very bad company about him.—(A
But as to Mr. Scarlett, he was on excellent visiting
with Prince Lichtenstein and tho Duke de Casigliano; ,aenied,
as Mr. Mather said, he at first treated the case very coldly'
He seriously impressed on the Chancellor of the Exehellit
the expediency of sending Mr. Scarlett to some quiet place
where there were no foreign troops, and to put Lord Malmo'
bury on the half-pay list, if there was such a thing at the
Foreign-office. He regretted very much the question had
been brought before the House in its present shape, and tbae
terra.;
he was prevented by some form of the House from moving,:
direct vote of censure on Lord Malmesbury for trifling with
the honour of the country, and for having disgraced us lc
the eyes of the whole continent of Europe.—(Cries es
" Move, move !")
The Marquis of GRANBY was anxious to refer, in the
discussion on the question, to the commercial policy of the...v
conntry. and particularly so because an election was now
~,,
inevitably approaching, and he, perhaps, would not Da
another opportunity. There never was a time, be mast say.
when there were such boldjand reckless assurances made by
the supporters of the free-trade policy as the present. '-tre''!
Noble Lord then adverted in succession to the
exhibited
at state of the agricultural interest, the silk trade, as _
Spitelfields, the West India interests, and these Or
ctne:
colonies generally, and proceeded to argue that it was I?e___°;'d
nary that some modification of the free-trade policy should
be adopted. The Hon. Member for Shrewsbury
that agricultural labourers had not improved in ac
interest
with the wealth of the country. Well, then, what
had improved? Ile had great doubts if even the mite_
facturing interests were in a prosperous state. The
er t.he ny u..nouratne member for Scar-
Noble Lord then referred to a statement made out
borough (Mr. G. F. Young), for the purpose of shove'
ing that last year there were 400,000 quarters
of corn less consumed in this country than had been con-
sumed in the year 1846. Now. with respect to the labour-
ing classes. It was said that they had reaped advantages
from the recent changes which had taken place in the corn.:
laws. This might be true in certain places, where wages,
were high. Bat it was not correct as regarded the great
body of agricultural labourers, and he had letters from seven-
ral clergymen and other gentlemen to prove this. It was..
said that the labouring cusses had cheaper bread and cloth'
ing than formerly. Now, as regarded cheap clotting, eel.
though it was cheaper now than heretofore, it was yet te_°:
that the clothing of former days was such that one gory'
was worth two, and the same might be said with respect
to
male attire. The Noble Lord then said that crime, poveeeee
and emigration had increased greatly since 1846, and Me!
this resulted from want of employment. The questiott;
issue would be between industry and idleness. They bad
Ministerial party) would put a duty on corn if they from
the people of the country with them.—(Laughter ene
the Opposition.) There were two remedies proposed_.
the p resent evils under which the industrial classes strLe
fered. The onewos a return to protective duties, and
other a revision of taxation, and he would infinitely gl'• b
et
the former. But if that could not be obtained, he th ilgL,
the peculiar burdens that pressed on the agricultural introL
rests ought to be removed. Her Majesty's Governmentwfg
in great difficulties—(Hear, hear)—because they were yonie
in office, and had opposed to them a party long experience,cen
and who had certainly not shown them much indulge._
They endeavoured first to force them to a premature dia"ri'd"
lution—(Hear, hear, from the Ministerial benches) stile
then endeavoured to retard the public business. Even the
Noble Lord himself had done everything he could that even'
ing to bring the Government into disrepute. Tl,O Noblene
Lord stated they had no opinions. He certainly had one
opinion, and that was that nobody was fit to conduct as
Government of this country but himself.—(Laughter.) pro,
(the Marquis of Granby) was convinced of the truth of
tectiouist principles, and had no doubt but the conene,
would ultimately return to them. tie had no further aritThL,
with regard to the coming elections than that the country
might be able to avert the misery which must inevit
rPo,yi
result from a free-trade
la
side, and laughter from the Opposition.)
• tea'
policy..—(Cheersfrem the Ministe
Viscount PALMERSTON said—Sir,. it is not my O._ s
tion to follow the Noble Lord who has just sat down into
comparison of the relative merits of the miseries or ie7e
trade or the blessings of protection—(Hear, hear).—betwe_qi
the calamities of cheap food and abundant subsistence, 11°,,,
the blessings of high-priced corn and the other conconeriaoenii
of the system which the Noble Lord advocates. Str,
upon all discussion on that questien as an idle waste of ti r,
- (Hear, hear.) The principle of protection is dee, cerd,
(Cheers, and a cry of " No.") I rely, like the Noble rot
on the good sense and judgment of the country, and
sacral,
quite sure the country will act the part of a registrar-gene.
sable(H ear, principle
hear.) wills
ibr,e
Ig ewniesrha 1 lteo-
and that at the next election day the interment of that s';_ued_
oh ers,,
tions to that which was the first topic of the speech ter'ela
Noble Lord (Lord J. Russell), and from which the rawebust
and
address universally
O
Lord who has just sat down has led the HOUSE! by
May, in some respects, have been a convenient dievereibl;
Sir, I certainly must confess that I read with anYth_npea
feelings of satisfaction the papers which have been laid that,
the table relative to the affair of Mr. Mather. Io" wish
ould
for the sake of the character of the country, ISh •din
niefewregisst]....
that
the whole of that correspondence to have beenohau3ryie
oblivion.—( Hear, hear.) Sir, lam concerned to
the be.
that feeling on my part applies to the whole,
to m
tha
to
it was not a comedy, but a tragedy-, of tin Lgd much to
criticise in the conduct of
(Hear, hear.) I cannot help saying cries concerned, ex-
ginning to the end —for I must own thatt.seefie.!
Government
he late Govern
I think t present
cept Mr. Mather and his son. I think the
ear)— sorry to say,
took a wrong view—( Hear, h
and I am Florence
Government took a wrong
view;e rge d'Affaires at
a
think, in some respects, th
s what is the course whenai.
subject
took a wrong view. Now, fir ghat
on a British ~,,,Jby•
personal outrage has been
c°lll
nt ought to pursue?
the
abroad that the British Government almost all parties c
degree of injury which the
facts of the case—to ascertain the ehgow
far
he
wag in
the
British subject has sustained, and
how far those by whom_nes_
wrong, or, if not in the wro g,
themselvesn unjustifiable aggresw,
injury was inflicted were it is the first duty of the Governmentd to ascertam clearly
ration ought to be demanded. luen't
been committed, p
"e first in a demand for the nuiehtu to
reparation may consist
also in a demand for compensation
offender;
the prile
if theeruovernment finds that an outraeri
Upon these points it has always been nvee
the sufferer.
ollfatvhiedg done that,
of State to consult the Queen's Au •
to as f
to lay before that officer the facts of the case, o
cats,
to his view and knowledge of the habitto
tice for the Secretary
what, according sio
courts of justice in this country, might be the fittingae_ra,
demand as pecuniary compensation, and in how far, he
lug to international law, the British Government sigh r,
justified in demanding the punishment of the wrongiutbee
Now, this does not appear to have been done hY_rthete
Government. But the first question that arises is, !Ae reed
an injury inflicted ? I think that no man who hasjejarY
these papers can hesitate in believing that a grievous a
__.ost
was committed, that a British subject was exposed
vecie_ ;00
violent and cowardly outrage without any pro
aura"
whatever. A British subject harmlesely_
efilest of snot b 1
by an officer with his sword, then by the
h is cut down
band of music iu the streets of Florence. H a.c"fimrsPt wrest
officer, and then in a cowardly manner e
him.
"cow, sir,
the sword of the first officer who struck
man upon one who is unarmed?
attack by an armed tcher, wee
of the English bu
we all know the old anecdote
t. n
rob
of his profession.
what is the feeling of different countries with regard
while employed in the avocation
he had had words. " VirbYie
struck by
knife in his hand, and cane
you ain't ,t
has a. "
to strike a man who
said he,
Sir, that is the English feeling French
return the blow." _
e,ar.
) Now, what is the L.ee
what hmaatn wmitehanwaned cowardly fellow
a subject.—(Hear,
usll
ofknow that here was a distinguisurn
feeling? Many
service, named Colonel Harvey:, w°
officer in the British
en the
engagement. Ho served J
had lost his arm an Dbriec
war, mutilated as he was. the act on it
In
Peninsular elee 9
re into battle, there happsned asn
anu.
ing his rqi—ent fled, between the cent ling trops,
en( lifted was
was technically
e, cau
to him, and with-sabre tiP ant
a French officer rode p m, oppon
him down; but when he saw tw• afar )
going to cut .ae.., •
had 91117 93" arm Pie aroppici hilr3 IyeAPQ

I think' he was not to be blamed for that part of his arrange-
ment. We demand a payment of money from the Tuscan
Government; they say, " We-give you the sum, but we
give it as an act of generosity," denying the responsibility,
and denying also that if any similar case should arise they
would be bound to make good the injury done to a British
subject. Well, if her Majesty's Government were satisfied
the better Way_ would have been to say, " We take the
money in our sense, and, whatever you may say to the
contrary, if a similar case should occur again, we will
compel pea to give compensation.— (Hear, hear.)
We do not care a pin for your assertion, that you are
net responsible: we tell you that you are, and that we will
make you responsible."—(Hear, hear, and load cheers.) The
present state of things is not one which need lead to any
serious interruption of the friendly relations_ between this
country and Tuscany—relations which the Tuscan Govern-
ment, evidently think we attach iefitaitely more importance
to than I think is attached to them by any one in this
country.—(Oh, and laughter.) Of course, we should be
sorry to break .off friendly relations with Tuseany or any
other Government, but somehow I think we should survive
such an event.—(Laughter.) With regard to the state of
Tuscany I will say that I quite agree with the Government
in thinking it a matter of great importance to maintain tt
principle of the independence of that country, but Ldo not
think that you maintain its independence by compelling it
to pay for something which has been done by another
country.—(Hear.) It is, something like making Tuscany
the whipping-boy of Austria.—( Hear, and laughter. ) I this
that a better practical lessen might have been read by applyil
in the present instance, to Austria.—(Hear.) The practical
lesson read to Tuscany is this—and it is one that is °pea-
able to all small states • "You say you have practically so r-
rendered your independence, and have admitted a foreign
garrison, over whom you Ilene no control; well, we will
make you pay for the conduct of drat garnson." There is a
moral hi that, but I am, not sure whether on European
grounds the lesson would not have been better read to other.
powers—( Hear, hear)—by saying to them, "If you taw
advantage of your superior force to occupy with a garr
son another state, mind you shall be responsible for the
conduct of that garrison, and if
•that garrison injures a
British subject we will come to yon."—(Hear, hear, atid
loud cheers.) Both lessons might be good, hut I am not
sure that the latter would not be in a European sense tfie
better of the two.—(Hear, hear.) I 'am very much in-
terested in the independence of Tuscany, and I must sety
that these papers call the serious attention of the Home
and the country to the unfortunate position of a
large portion of the Italian. statese-e(Hear, hear.).
The Italians are a people endowed with very &eat and
eminent qualities; they are gifted with great intellectual
ability; they have 'shown themselves in former times not
inferior as statesmen, and in political knowledge and cepa-•
city, to the people of any other part of Europe, and it is
lamentable to-see the 'present state of Tuscany, of the Roman
States, and of Naples. —(Hear, hear.) . It is difficult to say
in which of these states the greatest degree of misgovern-
ment prevails. The
.Government of Austria desire that Use
people of Italy should draw a coniparison favourable to
themselves between that part of Italy which they govfrrn
and that part which other Governments rule over; but, 'Eke
the gentleman front the sister island, who complained to I:.'‘is
bootmaker that whereas he bad ordered him to make oine
boot bigger than another, he had only made one smaller than
the other, so the Austrian Government, instead of making
such a comparison that the Italians should say,- "Tile.
Lombard and Venetian states are better governed than we
are," only lead them to say that there are other states worse
governed.—(Hear, hear, and laughter.) I believe there is
no 'example of misgovernment, of cruelty, of illegality, of
violence, of abuse of power of every sort and kind equal to
that which prevails at present in the Neapolitan and Ro-
man states.—(Loud cries of " Hear, hear," and cheers.)
It is a disgrace to modern Europe. In Tuscany things are
not so bad, but the people are exposed perpetuelly to acts
of licentious violence from a foreign garrison. This occupa-
tion of the Roman. States in particular, and of Tuscany, did
not escape the attention of the late Government. It is evi-
dent that that occupation cannot cease except by a common
understanding between the Government of France and the
Government of Austria. The French would not evacuate Roes le
until Austria had abandpped Tuscany, and in like manner
the Austrians would not quit Tuscany until the French hied
consented to leave Rome. We were told, indeed, that no-.
thing of this sort could be, done until the month of May
had passed, and there was much force in the arguments then
toed, but the month of May has now gone by.—(Hear, hear.)
I do entreat her Majesty's Government to turn their minds
to this 'question. It is one that really concerns not merely
the welfare and happiness of one of the most interesting pon-
tions of the people of Europe, but it is one which concert +s
great international principles. I should hope. that he ,r
Majesty's Government, being on good and friendly terms
with the two Governments mainly interested in the decision
of this matter, will exert that influence which justly belongs
to the Government of this country to persuade the Govern-
ment of France to put an end to the anomalous mid irregular
state of things which now prevails in a great part of Italy.--
( Hear, hear.) I shall be told perhaps that the state of the
Roman States is such that if the French garrison return
great disturbances would take place, but I would remind the
Government of what passed in 1831 and 1832, when the five
great Powers of Europe gave to the then Pope advice with
regard to the improvement and the internal organization of
his Government, which had it been acted upon would have
secured, I am confident, the tranquillity of the States which
he governs. Some such- arrangement might now with ad•
vantage be adopted—(Hear) - but no practical steps has yet
been taken with a view to those improvements then recom-
mended, and which are now more wanted than ever—(Hear,
hear.) I have to apologise to the House'for the time that I
have trespassed on its attention, but the question is one whic h
I am sure most-engage the sympathy of every man in this
country ; and I am persuaded that if the Government take
it up in the spirit which I think they are disposed to do,
some great good may yet be done By their interference.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER—I sin ex-
tremely glad that in the course of this debate we have been
favoured with the opinion of the Noble Lord (Palmerston)
the Member for Tiverton. Oa these subjects the Noble Lord
is a.very high authority; and I am sure that the temper
and tone with which he treated the questioq to-night will
lend additional influence to the opinion he has expressed.—
(Hear, hear.) The Noble Lord, we have been informed by
the Noble Lord (J. Russell), the Member for the City of Lon-
don, is a very high authority, because he understands the
business of The department in question.—(Hear, hear.) One
is rather tempted to ask the Noble Lord (J. Russell) why,
under such circumstances, he turned the Noble Lord out
(Cheers.) When he contrasts the abilities of his Foreign
Secretary with the Foreign Secretary whose conduct we
have now to defend, we cannot forget the remarkable circum-
stances under which the two Noble Lords separated.—( Hear. )
These cases, in which an individual injury—if I may use
the expression—is experienced in a foreign country by one
of her Majesty's subjects, although not so important at the
outset as those in which the nationality of • the country. is
concerned, are really, from .that very circumstance, the
most. difficult and most troublesome cases to deal with.
The Noble and Gallant Member for Middlesex ( Hr. Osborne ),
who spoke in his usual airy tone—(Laughter)—told us, " It
is very easy to settle these things. Look at the case of Mir.
Russell, our consul at New Grenada. The people of New
Grenada collected in great numbers, insulted and ill-treated
him, and seized his papers; and the Noble Lord (Palmer-
ston) directly ordered a British force, which proceeded to
New Grenada, and reparation was immediately given."
Yes, but that was a case in which the nationality of the
country was deeply concerned. • No doubt when a consul,
Who, 'in South America, may. be looked upon as a euasi-
diplomatist, as representing in a degree the authority, if not.
the Crown of England, is ill-treated by the people to whom
he is sent, the remedy is very apparent, and when the means
are at hand, as they always are in that quarter, nothing can
be more prompt than the result which is obtained. But in
the case in question there were none of these circumstances.
The nationality of the country was not at all concerned; and
although it was an outrageous, wanton, and cruel act, still, as
Lord blalmesbury very properly said, it was an accidental
one. And I was quite surprised at the elaborate manner
4a which the Noble Lord (Russell) attempted to show, by the
use of these two epithets, that there was inconsistency in
the language of the Secretary of State. In my opinion the
words are perfectly consistent, and they clearly and accu-
rately describe the insult. Then we are told we did not
apply for redress in the right quarter; that we °tight not to
have gone to Tuscany, but to Austria for redress. -I shall
not defend the conduct of the Government by reference to
thatof Lord Granville, or any other Minister; whether
right or wrong, it was founded on principles they had
adopted after the most mature deliberation' and anxious in-
quiry. In our opinion, if, there be a state which maintains
diplomatic relations with her Majesty, with those public
rights there must be correlative duties; and it was our opinion
that, as Tuscany is recognised and treated by us as an inde-
pendent state, an outrage to a British subject in Tuscany
ought to be brought before` the notice' of the Tuscan Govern-
ment. The Noble Lord (Palmerston) has done justice to
the courtesy which, throughout the business, has been
exhibited by the Austrian Government. He says they
behaved with great sympathy and consideration, and asks
why we did not go at once to the stronger-power which vir-
tually committed this outrage. I have no doubt Austria
would have been very willing that we should have sought is
this instance reparation from her, as it would ' have been a
virtual acknowledgment of her supremacy in Tuscany.—
(Cries of "Hear, hear.") It would have been very
agreeable for Austria that we should, without difficulty,
have treated Tuscany as a medlatised Power. But that is
hot part of the policy which her Majesty's Ministers wish
to maintain with rererence to Italy. I think the Noble Lord
(Palmerston) has treated this subject in a manner more
superficial than becomes one who is so well acquainted with
it. I think he might have foreseen that, under some circum-
stances, the power-of holding Tuscany responsible in this
controversy might be of very great importance to'England,
and that the time might come, and circumstance might
arise—if Austria retained and wanted to retain her position
in Tuscany—when it might be of the greatest importance to
England to show herself in the ports of Tuscany in a
Manner which might considerably influence the -decision of
Austria on subjects of very great importance. But if, in the
first instance of a misunderstanding taking place—because
a convention has been entered into between Tuecany and
Austria which we have never recognised nee acknowledged
—we are to say practically, " Henceforth Tuscany is only a
province of the Austrian empire, and we must go to Vienna
for redress for injuries received in Tuscany"—that is a doc-
trine I could riot sanction ; and lam sure it would not be
At t
oantnhye
thatyrat rate it
principle;ki t. dßo eustwe lint
and sanctioned by the Noble Lord if he were in a more respon-
siblethe
they
latepos
wereGti owo nvi
.se—(ear.)
Ite :net r .2c
coursete seemw
were
r think
that
t
idle at Vienna. Though we did not officially call upon
Austrii to make reparation, we exercised that influence we
possessed at that Coart in a manner which was calculated to
facilitate and accomplish a friendly and satisfactory result.
But I acknowledge I have heard nothing from the Noble
Lord, for a moment to induce me to believe t hat it was the
duty of a British Minister, under the circumstances—an out-
rage being committed on a British subject in Tuscany—to
have sought satisfaction from •Austria.— ( Hear, hear.) The
next considerable point in this ease is, that referring to what
has been called the only means in which the Secretary of
State endeavoured to obtain reparation for this injury. le .e
nothing of 3r• say
nothing Mather further than that he was a respsee"...
table Englishman placed under circumstances of great diffi-
culty, circumstances
which, from his previous habits of
life
little experience of. He appears to have
conducted' himself with discretion and good sense; and
Clucted he had had
his conduct or language would,
any attempt to criticise
both in ta ate and good feeling.—
I think, be wanting
I am to:d that the Secretary of
(Hear, hear.) But when
State 'has sent for 31r. Math er, and proposed a pecuniary
uttd, m
indemnity tb settle the affair, I am bo thatin that iustice astate
colleague and the Government, to say
country an
inent which gives to the House and(Hear, hear.) There
impres-
sion which is not' very rate•—
aceu .
have placed on the
is -- r .o. -appearance in the epee. we
table of such an incident. There There is a statement by Mr.
Mather, which I do t.
wish .ticise • but I beg
not to en •
the House to view the case as men of the world and
Members of Parliament, and- they will easily understand
that, at an interview between Mr Mather and the Secre-
tary of State, such a subject ' •
might have been brought up
and entered into with perfect propriety, on the part of the
Minister, and on the part of the gentleman who was cow-
plhinina e.,ainst, the conduct of a foreign power. I have
hero the' minute made by Lord Mahnesbary atter the inter-
view with Mr. Mather. I shall not read that minute, be.
cause its COUteuts might introduce into this . d t
9 A 9 ill.
•

Plised him by and went to seek for an opponent with whom
!1,1,e might contend upon equal terms. That, Sir, 'is the
erench feeling.—(Hear, hear.) Well, Sir, I will be told that
this case is a proof of the Austrian feeling. I don't believe
In,v such thing. I belieie that the cowardly conduct ef
'this lieutenant in cutting down an unoffending British sub-
ject has met with as much disapproval and disavowal on the
Part of his comrades hi Tuscany, as under the circumstances
they dared to show towards such an action. And I am
Persuaded that if Marshal Radetzky had known the true facts
of the case at the time that he said the officer was fully jueti-
Aed, I am convinced that a brave man like Marshal Radetzky
WoUld haye sympathised with the feeling of Prince Schwan-
_enberg, who, w h
hen e was appealed to by Lord Westmore-
Land, who said, We are both soldiers, and we never, I am
sure, could have raised our swords against an unarmed man,"
and Prince Schwarzenberg, in a responsive feeling, e*-
e'l'lned, "No, certainly, nothing of the sort could have hap-
Peened to either of us." I am convinced, I say, that if Mar-
t"' Radetzky had known the true facts of the case he would
'ever have written what appeared in these papers: or what-
ever we Government,
think of the policy pursued by the Austrian
evernent, no one who knows the Austrian feeling and the
Austrian army can doubt their generosity and personal
courage. Well, Sir, there was an outrage committed. By
'Vnn? Why,' by an .Austrian officer in Florence. Who
should be responsible? Prima fade I agree the Government
Of the country in which.the outrage was committed; but re-
alsonsibility is the companion of power. Those are respon-
'ible for a thing who could have prevented ir, or who could
Punish it ; but where there is no pewer there ought to be no
ereaeonsibility. Now, Sir, the state of that Austrian gar-
"'eh is this—that they are in Florence, as stated by my
Honourable and Gallant Friend, 'their continuance there
daPending on the will of the Government of Austria, and
nat. upon the will of the Government of Tuseany
that is not now for the first time known by these dis-
Paatches, but which the Government knew before I quitted
°Luce. But then, were the Austrian troops amenable,
‘°,2l,i 1e there, to the Tuscan authorities? It is perfectly
autumn
known they were not. Why, Sir, in the course of last
eetanan a rude. insult was offered by a detachment of
ikuutrian troops to the Members of the grand ducal
eat'', 4- They were stopped in their carriage, and corn-
relled to get out of it when taking drive in the neigh-
wurhood of , Florence; and into that carriage out of
Which the, members of the Grand Duke's family were
I,akelt they put a drunken comrade who was so drank that
Government
Was unable to returnee the town. What did the Tuscan
'xevernment do in this case? Did they punish this drunken
!Ilan No, they appealed to the commander-in-chief, and
the delinquents were punished militarily by their own
officers.VN'ell, it being known that the Tuscan Government
have no power or authority over the Austrian troops, it
**me to me certainly that prima facie the Austrian Govern-
lenent was the quarter from which redress should have been
..'elnantled. That redress naturally was of two kinds.
In the first place, her Majesty's Government ought to
slave demanded the punishment of the officer, of whom
i
'4l a at least was known. that he, an armed man, had
cut down an unarmed British subject. Well, Sir, the
Austrian Government might have made a reply. No doubt
`POY might have said, " Mere are certain regulations of the
dktistrian service which made it imperative on the oflicer,
under the circumstances, to do what he did. Had he not
Pie so we would have punished him." That would un-
rartber abtly have been an answer that would
me have required
edexplanation. The English Government would have
been entitled to say—" Show us your regulations; we can-
not take it simply on your statement." But if the regula-
ti°lts had been shown to bear out this assertion, and the
Austrian Government could have proved that the officer had
'le alternative but to do what he did, or be subjected to
Punishment by his own superiors, then I must admit that
3Y demand for the punishment of that officer could not
laelth propriety have been pressed. But then you would have
_tight to • say to the Austrian Governnient—" You may
Take what regulations you like, provided they are not applied
against a Banish subject; but when your regulations are
am
PPlied against a British subject, we think the Unjust and
°Proper, and we expect at least that you will make
VI.
ofdapolgy for this injury on a British subject by the regula-
,,,ig4a your service." And I mast say, from the handsome
the Austrian Government has been concerned, r think that a
great and generous Government
,would have, made that
eelele would have been acceptable ,as an apology from one
eeevernment to another. But then there I think I have a
'ight to criticise the conduct of the last Government, be-
ghae, whereas the Noble Lord has accused the present Go-
vernment of holding one language- at Florence and another
ta_."Vientla, I must observe that, in making the communica-
tioto the Government of Austria, there were no instructions
ton Lord Westmoreland with regard to any application that be
31 to make to that Government. The dispatch distinctly
"I have no instructions to give you." No application
"4 Made to the Austrian Government. There, I think, an
rot. was committed. The other part of the redress would
inave consisted in a demand for compensation to the individual
b ; and that would have been a proceeding borne out
fat
precedents. You may say, " It is unfitting
"af an injury to an individual, or the honour of the
'country, should be measured in pounds sterling;" but
nevertheless the Power giving such a compensation makes
Val. admission that an atonement is due, and it is perhaps
only atonement that an individual can obtain
ref Who has suffered a severe bodily injury. The last
,nevernnaent, then, in the first communication's sent
a Tuscany instructed Mr. Scailett to demand " ample repa-
ration," and expressed the expectation of her Majesty's Go-
vernment that that repiiration would be promptly given.
Qat they omitted to state what that " ample reparation"
e. °N3 to be and in so far I think Mr. Scarlett was left in a'
"faationin which I think the agent of the British Govern-
eat might not to be placed, because he was, left to deter.;
tine what the reparation was to be. He was not told wile-
h
ter it was to be an apology, or the punishment of indivi-
e,"„ala, or a sum of money. He was left to judge what the
hre of the reparation should be; and I think that was
11,(.4 a matter which ought to have been left to the dis-
cretion or an agent. It indeed reminded me of aconver-
sationl had not very long ago with an agriculturist in.
the country, who lamenting, like the Noble Lord, the
rafortunate condition Of the farmer, in reply to my ques-
e;°4, " What would you have done for him ?" said, " Why,l! the farmer a fair chance." " But how ?" said I.
et:111Y, give him ajair chaace," was the only answer I
ie hid elicit—the man imagining that that was a sufficiently
wetelligible description of the precise remedy that
eel" accessa. In the same way, an " ample repa-
ae.""ha " seems to me a convertible term, not of
17411,e definite quantity, but like the result of an alge-
e;'",cal problem that means " equal to nothing."—(Laugh-
es/9 It seems to me that a demand might fairly be made
;`:`• the first place on the Tuscan Government. There was a
:teennaption that they were liable to make this compensa-
Da• It was impossible, indeed, to exact from them the pu-
lhaleut of the Austrian officer, because heswas completely
elJe had their control, but they ought to make a compensa-
a:e4 te Mr. Mather. The Queen's Advocate should have
as he
consulted; the rum demanded ought to have been such
ne recommended ; and that sum having been demanded,
the Governmeat ought to have abided by that demand.—
thlusear,hear.) Now I coins to the present Government, and
t say that their course is still more open to criticism
must
that.of the late Government, because they did what was
dell unusual—nael, call oil a sufferer to assess his own
ieamages.—(ilear,m heayr.) Well, he could not judge of what
Xhil fitting 'compensation for himself; that must depend on
judgment of impartial persons, and the law adviser of the
elvercl
was the proper person to give that advice.—(Hear,
:ar') I must say that the Noble Lord the Member for the
"Y of London was well borne out in his remarks on the
-spume pursued in forcing Mr. Mather to name the sum
tlainst his own. inclination and protest, and then showing
eelh up to the Tuscan Government as one who made an ex-
7eitant demand. If hat demand was considered exorbitant
cannot for the life oft me understand why it was communi-
'eeted to tke Tuscan Government.—(Hear, hear.) Now if it
44(1 been a subject of dispute between two foreign states of
Musa weight, we might, if we had been mediators, have
aten bound to convey to one the proposal of the other. If
trance and Austria had been the parties, and France had
asked for this 5,000/ , and we had been unable to effect a
liininutioa of the claim, we should then have had to make
known to Austria the demand of the other power, and we
Should have been bound by impartiality to add, " We own
'that we think it more than you should be called upon to
Pay=' But hi the present case, I cannot understarld why
'V. Mather was not told that the sum named by him was
eZorbitant-, and ought to be reduced by himself.—(hear,
hear, and cheers.) think, therefore, that the course.
adopted by the present Government is open to that objection.
ed I am sorry to- say that I cannot approve of the manner
in which Mr. Scarlett executed his instructions, because he
evidently went, below the minimum amount which he was
tolde e to" require. He was told, " The least you are to accept
'OO4 and if you cannot get that perhaps you must have
course to arbitration." Well, that was an intelligible in-
7Taction, but he accepts less than half the sum, and then
takes
es in part the release of the two Messrs. Stratfords.
(Gear, bean)" I think it would have been unfair that they,
should ,have made up the difference, but the fact is, with re-
gard to them, that they were accused of that which was in
itself
an offence, that is to say, they had in their House a
Private printing press contrary to the law of Tuscany, and
Was shown that they printed things of a tendency un-
favourable to the Government. But they were tried by au
eAustrian court-martial at Leghorn, a protest being raised
''3" me when I was a member of the Government against the
competency of the court. We find by a fundamental law of
Tuscany that even the Tuscan Government cannot establish
Inertial law by the supersession of the ordinary tribunals,
_and of course much less could a foreign Government do so.
We, therefore, protested at Florence and Vienna against the
competency of the court, and consequently against the
validity of the sentence. To throw the Messrs. Stratfords
tato the bargain in the present case was, therefore, no great
satisfaction to Mr. Mather—(Laughter)—and I think it
148 not, diplomatically speaking, a fair arrangement, inas-
much as we should have had them without loss to Mr.
ather.—(Hear, hear, and laughter.) Then, I should say
that Mr. Scarlett acted hastily and unwisely in this
Netter and I also very humbly .think that her Ma-
ittre 'Government acted very hastily in sanctioning that
.ar-
frgeinent. They seem to have been under the impressee.n
-eat whatever a British agent abroad agreed to, whether in
„..e.htiformity with or against his instructions, must necessarily
" adopted by his G varnment.—(ilear,
o hear.? Now, that is
"t according to international principles- It
the, you can
. show
the acts of an agent are contrary to his instructiodn. 3, you
cite
rydisavow him, and refuse to sanction his procee
near.) Therefore the Government would have been
Perfect, • • •
elk iy justified in refusing to agree
if de by Mr. Scarlett.—(Hear, hear.) I confess that I think
to the arrangement
rather
pecuniary compensation was to have
of that
lather from Tuscany or from Austria, that in a case
been demanded,
re-
turn a sum of 500/. was altogether inadequate,
from for the sufferings of the individual, or as an
atonementeithermre-
arh one country to the Government of another.—(Hear,
and loud cheers.) But then, Sir, I think that the Go-
retrulnent, having adopted that arrangement, and having
ee.3,.ented to take 5001. and the two Stratfords in exchange
(Laughter)—l think they acted with great haste, and on
emperfect examination of documents, when they disavowed
W, • Scarlett in the last dispatch on the ground that he had
because
the principle of the responsibility of Tuscany,
Z'eceuse Mr. Scarlett did no such thing.—(Hear.). What-
.%
mistake Mr. Scarlett may have made in his anxiety to
rile to an arrangement, he did not abandon the principle;
waived the discussion of the principle, but be by no means
eke
lradoned it, and he even distinctly re-affirmed it. If the
eNoble Lord the Under-Secretary of State will look at Mr.
aearlettes note to the Duke of • Castigliano of the 18th of
larch he will see that it contains word for word the asser-
naa on the part of the British Government that Tuscany is
responsible for what happened to Mr. Mather. When Mr.
Scarlett and the Duke of Castigliano came to a final arrange.:
Inent, it was agreed that the latter thould offer 220/ and the
Stratfords, and that the discussion on the principle of respon-
. sibilitY Should be waived. The Duke of Castigliano does not
adhere to the barin. He adheres in regard to the money,
but"r perseveringly reiterates in his note the principle that
A. Us
eanY was not responsible. In Mr. Scarlett's reply,
anted the 18th April, he says—
"I accept your arrange-
meat ; but as you have thought it right to re-affirm your
Principle of the non-responsibility ot' Tuscany, I think it
right to-refer you to my- note of the 18th of March, in
Which the principle of the British Government is laid. down
Viet you ~re ,caponsible, slid I, ten you th :t British
Go-
verement maintains that principle in all integrity. I am,
therefore, at a loss to naderstand how the °Government
thought that Mr. Scarlett abandoned that PrhiciPles - and I

•
feeling, which I do not wish to encourage, or might hurt
the feelings-of individuals not present; but I say most dis-
tinctly that, on that occasion, Lord Malmesbury did nothing
rill said nothing but what any of his predecessors
might, and probably would, have said ; and without the-
slightest reflection on Mr. Mather, I must say that the ques-•
Lion was treated in a natural and proper manner, and in a
manner quite distinct from what has been conveyed by this
discussion, and in, some statements which I have seen. Two
tproyinftos
rwereinjurythdeonn.dise
,tocuassesdu—bjtelicte r:fphareartmion due
ajooty, taontdhecou
the
re-
parationn-
due to the individual suffering. Lord Malmesbury
very properly cut the first subject short. He said—" The
honour of the country is under my custody, therefore we
need not converse about that;. but it is my duty frankly and
sincerely to; confer with you, upon the means by which some
reparation may be made to your injured son."--(Hear, hear.)
Therefore they naturally came to the mode, which is the
only mode in which reparation could be made. I hear
great delicacy expressed about a man taking money where
an outrage of this kind:has been committed. Why, it is the
only mode recognised in this country by which a reparation
can be made. Whysgentletnen, in this country, on subjects
in which their most delicate honour is concerned, appear
before courts, and, accept pecuniary damages:—(Hear, hear,
and , laughter.) Does anybsdy, suppose, ...when da-
mages are • tendered under such circumstances, that
they are offered 'a reparation for-the, wrong complained of?
They are offered because that is the mode by.which, accord-
ing to the custom of this country, a certain punishment can
be inflicted upon the person who has done the injury, and at
the same time a certain reparation offered to the person who
is injured. And to pretend that there. is anything novel or
monstrous in recommending that an individual in the posi-
tion of Mr. Mather, who has suffered as he, has suffered' at
Florence, should, accept as,an avowed acknowledgment for a
wrong inflicted by a Government of a fine from that Govern-
ment, is a proposition, which I think few on reflection would
attempt to substantiate, and 'which I am sure the common
sense of this country would, not fOr. a moment. entertain.
First, then, as to the quarter in which we .applied for re-
dress, and which the Noble Lord :.(Palmerston),, notwith-
Standing the many ingenious observations he made, would
not, as a statesman learned in the international law, for a
moment unequivocally deny
_was the right qmarter ; and,
secondly, as to the mode in which the satisfaction. was to
be obtained trona that power. I maintain that the
conduct of the Government was perfectly proper. Then
I am told by the Hqn. Member_ (Mr. Osborne) that Lord
Malmesbury showed great infirmity, of purpose. I see no
infirmity of purpose; for,l find in his dispatches' he is con-
sistent itntrying to,nbtain the same end; and In his very
first letter to Sir Henry 13u1wer,
.of the 26th of April, he
desires him not. to remit in any manner the principle ,upon
which the demands are Made. Mr. Scarlett, writing on the
23d April; states that no objection had been made to the
amount of 5001., which he had fixed positively as the mini-
mum of compensation. Yet,,under those circumstances, the
Secretary of State still instructing the Minister, who he
supposed had then arrived at Florence, Sir Henry Bulwer,
and receiving information that the compensation fixed on
had been agreed to—suddenly he finds that the whole
circumstances are changed, that the principle is given up,
that a much less compensation is accepted. The. Noble Lord
says we are in error in supposing that Mr. Scarlett waived
the principle of responsibility; but he dispensed with what
the Secretary of State required should be an acknowledg-
ment of that principle; that was the:great compensation by
the Tuscan Governinent: If it was a question between
2501. and 5001., that would certainly not be an object which
would justify our having recourse to the measures that have
been recommended. 4 was because the great object was
not attained—that object being, in our mind, not merely
this particular instance, but having reference to circum-
stances that may exercise a greet 'influence over the state of
Europe, and'on this ,account we required and' desired this
acknowledgment of responsibility,' with which we should
have been justified in taking
_the sum that has been ac-
cepted. But, says the Noble Lord (Pahnerston),." what
could possibly have induced the, English Minister to let the
Tuscan Government know that Mr. Mather hid fixed, upon
5,0001., and at the same time to acknowledge that the sum
was exorbitant?" The reason is quite obvious:' The object
of the Government was to obtain, if not a .considerable, au
ample compensation for the sufferer, not with reference to
the vindication of the national honour, but as a compensa-
tive to Mt. Mather for the gross insult, and by way of ac-
knosledgrnent on the part' of those who had committed the
injury. The views of the Italians with regard to compen-
sation are very different from what are entertained in this
country ; and it certainly was not indiscreet to let the
Tuscan Government know that Mr. Mather demanded 5,0001.,
although the Government was not prepared to sanction
such a sum, which they knew it would be quite "impractica-
ble to obtain. Of course, the Tuscan Government, hearing
of that amount, would be 'inure prepared; and weie'more
thatp e e p are
was cl
dn,
tgt
our
I:
to
rto
sumoffo e
kr
attention the'ptlhplace
ocyesiOtnoo
consented/., t
the
h n h
eic . hot
stateto
oah_
-give,
ii yvol
not ultimately,astill
aht
nhe da Noble
did
t bc
aenL;
o forr
as-
sured
• remark-
able
has
cacthlhleea Noble Lord that he Only does justice to the feelings
of Government when ho assumes that they look with great
interest and with some anxiety to the present state of that
important and interesting country. But the Noble Lord
spoke in a tone ' as though the GoVerhment • were
responsible for this. The state of Italy is no
worse than we found it. - The' Noble Lord 'has
been making these speeches on Italy for a considerable
time; and very just are his observations, -and very
genious his policy; but the state of Italy has not been im-
proved hitherto either by the councils or the conduct of the
Noble Lord. —( Rear, hear.) The Noble Lord has not only
made speeches on the state of Italy ; he has even sent some
of his friends on a mission into that country.—(Hear, hear )
But when we see that after all the efforts of a man of the
vast ability and experience of the Noble Lord the state of

issued by the .Committee of Privy. Council on Education,
and laid on the table tonight; and I think that the Noble
Lord had better have read them before he delivered his
speech _this_ evening:- (Hear.) But it is not true that we
have altere I the management clauses. They remain ; but,
consistently with the opinion we have always held, we have
ventured, in two instances, to offer an alternative to those
who wouldnig_ accede to the management clauses, which
we have not disturbed, and which are still the clauses of
the Committee of Council. Well,- if this alternative, is
.one
of which the House disapproves, it will take means
to express its feeling; ' but--confident I am, not
only that every person who is interested in the Church of
England, but that everybody:who is- sensible of the value of
justice in public affairs, will approve of them.--(Cheers-) I
We are charged with having taken the vote, and then having
introduced anew system. But what are the facts? The first 1
management clauses, A, B, C, and D, were dated on the2Bth
of JuneslB47 ;._ and the vote (100,000/4 was taken on the
26th of April.-( Loud cheers.) . The clauses themselves did
not appear until they appeared in-a bluebook, six months
afterwards.-(Cheera.) In 1849 there, were some important
alterations made in these clausee. They were signed on the
26th of May. It is true that the vote (125,0000, was not
passed till June 4, but the clauses were never laid on the table
till they appeared in a blue book-in the month of the next.
January. In 'fact, sWth the sole exception of the year
when the pupil teachers were introduced, they were never
laid on the table before the vote was taken.-(Hear,
hear.) The noble Lord must not expect to shrink under
the gsberdioe of Lord Lansdowne. Within the last
eighteen months there bad been. inliportant alterations re-
lating to Roman Catholics; I,! resbyterians and Jews, but
these were never submitted to Parliament- (Hear, hear* )
The charge is one that affects our character not only as
Ministers, but as gentlemen, and
.1 trust that such conduct
,
will never be that of nay Government 'Worn whatever side it
may be recruited.-(toud cheers.) If I thought that we
had taken advantage of the House of
Commons-if I thought
we had cheated the people through the representatives of
money to Support a eystem which ' they looked upon with
dislike-I should have conceived that there was spirit
enough in the House, even atthia. period - of the session, to
have expressed their reprobation of such conduct.-(Loud
cheers.) The Nolite.Lord maybe, assured that we shall go
to the country, with no undoin such a manner as will allow us to' meet the people without
()
shame; and ihatever the Noble Lord may say of the change
.eonfidedde, I trust, bat at least
of our opinions, I shall be prepared to vindicate them
before my' Conetitueats, iii 'a manner that I trust will entitle
me to maintain their good opinion. I deny that there has
been at any time since the unfortunate Year 1846, the circum-
stance of which I deeply deplore, I
deny
that there has been
any attempt on our part to ' change the position which we
then took. Hook now, and shall ever look, on the changes
which took place in 1846, both. as regards the repeal of the
corn-laws and the change in the -sugar duties.s.l
shall
always look upon those measures as totally'authorised.-
(Cbeele.)' I opposed them, as most of my friends around
me opposed them, from fear and apprehension of the suffer-
ings which those changes would produce; and that suffer-
ing, though it may be limited to particular classes, has been
far greater than we anticipated. I deny that after these
laws were passed I, or those with whom I have acted, have
wished to recur to the 'sae laws which regulated those
un
industries.-(Cheers.) I cannot recall a speech-I defy
anybody to quote any speech that I ever made, or any
uttered,
ma coursel ever eV
as desirable
your charge against Lord Derby? you say he recom-
mendedseenntednedce
suchthat
or Possible. What is
a'tixed 'duty, and that now he has intimated that
the country will not support such a policy. Is a
fixed duty a recurrence to the law whieh reulated the
importation of corn before 1816?. my Why, se
Lord Derby
had declared that he counselled a recurrence to- those laws,
do not you think you would be ever ready to refer to his
speeches, and that night after night you would din your
quotations in our ears'? I defy yon to produce a single sen-
tence of the kind. ' When we come to this question of a fixd
ditty, on which you have tallied so much, 1 say I will not
pin my career, my political career, on what is not a prin-
ciple bat a measure. .1 shou'd be very glad as a financier if
there was a moderate fixed duty -on corn. I
admit that,
and I see plenty df great . authorities opposite me who have
often and often advocated it. But if I find by circum-
stances which I do not wish now particularly to describe-
(lronical cheers)-by acts whichl have no wish now to de •
nounce, that a. fiscal proposition is invested with a pecu-
liar odium, that it would be' one of the unwisest things
a Minister could do to propose ' such a tax, whether
rightly or - wrongly, I . cannot- see that
I am bound
to propose it.• Why, I could offer authorities in
favour of duties ' on - corn, not from my own
bench, but from ;writings you perpetually
quoted-men
whose political opinions entirely agree with Yours, distin-
guished writers; members of the political economy club--
not merely the writings of Mr. M 11 11 h
'-a--08-, and whom once
you always quoted, though now you shrink from his
authority-but to the writings of Colonel. Torrens, to the
pages of Mr. Mill,. I might appeal to scientific pages, and you
would find it difficult to quote others against Me. But in
governing mankind we must look to something beyond
mere scientific propriety; and if a measure, though it n;utY
be recommended by the highest scientific authority, is one
that the popular will repudiates, I do not think that- any
Minister is bound to propose it. But what is this mea-
sure which you seem always wishing us to
propose?
which you with such anxious wishes seem so zealous that
we should introduce? It-is, after all, nothing but a coun-
tervailing duty, not merely viewed in its financial light; it
is a countervailing duty against certain inequalities of
taxation. And if you can remove these inequalities of taxa-
tion, and redress the fiscal injuries and injustice which you
believe to exist, without having recourse to an odious
means, but by a means which is not odious, why I think
that we are acting in strict consistency with, all that we have
said; that we 'are acting in perfect unison with all that we
have counselled, if we adopt the course which we think gre-
ferable, and which we believe to be popular. Why session
after session,. at the desire and with the sanction of my
friends, I have repeatedly urged upon this House a variety of
means, all of the same character, by which this result might
be obtained without' having recourse to this unpopular
method, which yon in your secret heart seem so anxious to
have recourse to. Is it anything inconsistent in me or in
those with whom I act, that we should now counsel that
course which for four years, and against great Obsta.cles, we
supported?" Our wish is that the interests, which we be-
lieve were unjustly treated in 1846, should receive that
justice that they deserve with as little injury to others as is
possible for human wisdom to . devise. I call it reconciling
the interest of the consumer and producer when you have
not permitted the consumer to flourish by Placing unjust
taxes on the producer, while at_ the -Same time you are re-
solved to support no tax which would give to the pro-
ducer an unjust and artificial price for his Preaue
tion. These are the views_ which we supported , in
oppositiod-these are thb views which we are resolved, if
possible, to carry into effect. It is but justice to those
classes to whom you acted unjustly in 1846, and we wish to
do justice to them 'without 'altering the system which now
byeitlthe
beliails.eve support thtill - raed
country. The Noble Lord thelicy Mewmbebe r forth of
London talks of oar being a party without a principle.' Well,
he seems to be in opposition without' a cry -(Cheers.) He
confesses that nothing is left,--oe
N
*no movement, nc,
agitation whatever is left.' The Noble Lord, with the ima-
gination of a poet-for he is still a poet, at his last gasp, to
my great surprise, discovered a resource-something we must
rally round; we must rally round a
P the a otheptof that pro-
Gentleman has'emblazoned' on ills sta
Pm'.ndard the •nscriWion,
11
" No confidence in the Derby scnistr "- ' hY'
Y (Cheers.
~
a year ago, upon that seine standard w•as emblazoned, Do
not trust' the Noble Lord the m
-anther for the City."-
(Cheers. ) Sir; we shall survive that av t of confidence*, and
if the only way in which the Igoble Lord thinks he can make
the present Government unpopular, mode by,
Popular it the only
which he thinks he can upsetthepres;nt Administration is by
showing to the country that it do - ~ seess the con-
fidence of the Right 'Hon. Baronet etshneoMember for Ripon,
why, then, Sir, I must express My heart' fidence that at
this time next year we shall'still havey*con
honour of serving
her Majesty.-(Loud cheese.) the
Lord D. STUART said he wished the' attention
- eti to recall
of the House to the case of Mr• kt . sure, if
• ether He was
'Hon. Members would read 'the di9 . they would say
that if had been Lord Malmeabir_ patches, J court to
Tuscany and to Austria at the ..-IT B desire to pay
-'cPens of re of this
country, and to do all he could to inure the character of
Mr. Mather, he could not-have ,donethan he had
actually done. Thelßight Hon. tha, betterthe
Chancellor
of the Exchequer described what' t Gentleman
d in Tuscany
~ n unhappy squabble." Didhad .occurred as athat Phraseology bee*"
a British Minister? All that fir.
Mather demanded from
the British Government was redrese,
h a' was nothing
in his conduct to criticise ' unless ird t &hie .
yielding so
readily to the wishes of Lord maim
wereb _ _
ry (Oh, oh.)
What chance was s thereof; success, WhenesthellPOreign'Secre-
tary to
d taken such. an ex aor The effect P
Tuscan was to determine thel c.,.. cry course.
--` Qtrver ent not to make
adequate reparation: t was all very well for the Right
Honourable Gentleman totalk f y
The o-
respecting the indepen-
dence of foreign states.
Ilonouranle Gentleman
did not take that' view sons®
Yea when he
fi, re ago,
de-
fended the assault on acow. it
let nth 'km3, re ected the inde-
pendence of Tuscany, tun also
roe act
t,' ts•' If the ho nc mist on foreign resP
tbr British su jec
this matter, the -Ur of England was not to
vindicated in this
it eott„,
be
osition than harry had cries
ed at a
more disgraceful Dpied.
• 's dispatch ever befo ep
As to Lord Malrnesbary
probably
tils speakin of them as a
whole,
he
Mast
say
that
before such an extraordinary set
of state papers were never
Present d to Parliament.
Nor was this the only outrage committer:l e itish subjects
in Tuscany. The dispatches eousme on Br
need by a statement
that British subjects were subjected , t
-outrage id
Tuscany than in anyother country. to mere Lord
the Member for Tiverton was at the.'"
~_ n the Noble
office the honour of the country .was m;,l!ed of the Foreign-
Tuscanris,
subects were protected-(011 I and Div.-tined and Blt
.on
y, in Rome, in Austria, and ja
_c9e-but now, 1 ,
tries En
coun , continental
glishmen were liable to insult
no
dress. while our Foreign-otetce Rad there was
hope of re
it now was.-(Ohl and Divide.) Wos constituted as
to .
The motion was then agreed _ . and tb .
Committee of Supply was, brought up. f the
Colonel report. o
Colonel SIBTHORP opposed the vine for
the
of clerks and , other expenses :atteraliug the
~ payment
• sxational Ex-
hibition. _
The Howe then divided, when there appeared
Fore the v0te...116 :.....
.._ ..- Against it - .............. . . . .......... 23
Majority for the vote .. ........ ...„ ee
The House then went into. Committee
_,,.
vv d
of Consolidated Fund°l ays an
Means, and the Surplus and Transfer
of Aids were voted.
t
Several orders of the day were post o
o
oed. ,
NEW ZEALAND BILL.
- that-.this Bill be read • time
on the motion
a third time
on Thursday, , ~; -
Mr. A:GLIQNBY said the effect of that would be, that
one stage would be. passed lvof ithout discussion--and there
subject
was the of the position the New Zealande -
which would be broughtforward. onspany
nderst d
Sir AKINGTON was u
to oo t
-° °ay, that there
were some few verbal alterations t
nit be made in the Bill,
and that there would be arasorpPjerZ
.A. 17 discussion.
After a few. words from M
no.tice that on I'
Mr. ADDERLEY gave _
posonement ot all the clauses he would move the.
7.land Company, and having
reference to the New their reference
should the gentle
to a Select Committee,
persist in insertinga representing
that company in the Houseu terbnry settlement, clauses giving
them control over
Mr. Gladstone
After an ob-
servationssi tone as to. the propriety of piste
from M • .--
he third reading
was fixed for
Thursday next.
NISI PRIUS OFFICES BILL.
ugh Committee pro forma
This Bill went throe.
APPOI OP _OVERSEERS
sTethisTT- . . BILL.
..
through This Bill abso went
Committee.
ENCUMBERED- ESTATES (IRELAND) BILL.
this Bin be read a second time
On the motion that
the postponement I -
Mr. BUTT suggested
which was agreed to.'
" SAVINGS PASS,
(IRELAND) BILL:.
Committee. ,
• This Bill passed through _
DISABILITIBS REPEAL BILL
Mr. ROUNDELL PALMER moved the third reading of
this Bill. - - -
Mr. II•IULLINGS opposed the stage on the ground•of the
lateness of the Wirt - • ' ... .

Italy is rather aggravated than not, her ilzijesty's Govern-
ment are sensible that they must proceed with very great
deliberation.— (Hear, hear.) That the time may come when
the fairest part of Europe may not be possessed by the
hostile garrisons of 'foreign countries is a result which every
man must desire who has the least sympathy for freedom;
or who feels grateful for what Italians have done for
modern civilization.—(Loud cheers.) I do not think it is
necessary to say more upon the subject that is before the
House. It has been introduced by the Noble Lord the
Member for the City, the head bf a Government which
in my opinion is greatly responsible fur the affair
in which Mr. Mather is so much concerned.—(Cheers.,
The affair is a painful one, because every one must feel for
one of our fellow-subjects, when he is injured, and when he
is one of such tender years, and who appears to have be-
haved with such good feeling throughout the whole trans-
action.—(Cheers.) But it is not a question on which, even
with an impending dissolution, you can impeach a Govern-
meut.—(Cheera.) No one knows that better than the Noble
Lord the Member for the City himself—',Cheers)—because
after due reflection, when the subject had been certainly
announced, if not upon the paper, the Noble Lord added a
very interesting postcript to what was announced to the
House.—(Laughter.) I must not follow the amiable ex-
ample of the Noble Lord the Under Secretary of State for
Foreign Affairs, who left it unnoticeff; nor can I leave
the reply to my Noble Friend the Member for Stamford.
—(Laughter.) I, am bound myself to notice the elabo-
rate attack of the Noble Lord. The Noble Lord has
taken a review of what has occurred during the brief pe-
riod that we have sat on these benches. We have heard
from him a statement of that kind before this session.
The very first night that I had the honour to take my seat,
the Noble Lord'rose and opened his batteries.—(Laughter,
and Hear, hear.") The Noble Lord has sometimes re-
curred to the attack, but his drum has been muffled, and
his fire has been slack.—(Laughter, and Hear, hear.)
And now we have his last effort, but I believe that it is a
forlorn hope, and that he will not take the citadel.— (Re-
newed laughter.) Amongst other documents he has criti-
cised an address which I have•recently issued to my consti-
tuents, and he would seek to convey to the House that I.
have declared that the abrogated corn laws were only passed`
in order to pay rent.—(Hear, hear.) I wish the Noble
Lord, who has read many extracts from dispatches (though
with the context they convey to me a very different iins
pression from that which he sought to convey)--but I wish
he had done me the honour to quote from my address any
passage that would have supported that statement.—( Hear,
hear.) I have stated, and I am always ready to say, that
the laws that are passed with the view of maintaining rent
are laws that cannot be tolerated.;—(Cheers.) But I have
never said that the corn-laws were passed with that object—
(Cheers)—and I must do the Noble Lord the justice to add
that he never said it. But Honourable Gentlemen have
said it every night of their lives, and therefore it was in
reply to them' that I wrote the sentence to which the
Noble. Lord seems in •a very- mistaken manner to refer.
(Cheers.) I say that laws passed to maintain the amount
of rent paid in this country cannot be tolerated, but, at the
same time, laws that inflict upon the 'land of this country
burdens, and imposts, and regulations, which other pro.
perty and other industries do not bear, are equally unjusti-
fiable.—(Loud cheers.) If I at any time have recommended
a revision of taxation with a view to equalise the bur-
dens on the land, I have never recommended such a
measure as a compensation for rent, which the Noble Lord
has quoted as if they were words from my own' mouth.
But it the consequence of our legislation— and I take
it only as an incident—is a considerable diminution of the
rents of the country—if it can be shown that there is a pres-
sure of taxation upon the land which is not shared by the
other great properties of the country,.—l am not wishing to
enter into an argument—l am only assuming the facts, to
notice what I consider to be the misrepresentation of the
Noble Lord I say that, assuming what I have .said,
there is a legitimate claim for the property the value
of which is depreciated, and which can be shown to be un-
justly taxed, for redress and relief.—(Cheers.) The Noble
Lord has also stated that he is not aware, although I have
referred to the great things that the present Government
bas done (and of which I was not conscious that I had), that
we have really done anything of any consequences except
the passing of the Militia Bill—which he could not pass.—
(Loud laughter.) " What," says the Noble Lord, " is the
Militia Bill? —I make you a present of that; and the next
great measure on 'which you plume yourselves so much,
you only stole it from our'Commission; and when you intro-
duced it, you made such changes in it, that, had it not been
for my trusty, friend the Right Hon. Member for Tiverton,
you would have marred all its beauties."—(Laughter.) But
it these Bills for the reform in Chancery pass, they will in
my mind confer one of the greatest blessings which society
has experienced ; and no matter who may be the Minister
and what may be the Parliament—neither the Parliament
nor the Minister that passed it will be forgotten.—(Cheers.)
But there is something more. I remember that on the 15th
of March, when the Noble Lord appeared in the new Oppo-
sition of which he was the recognised leader, he came for-
ward and said, that it was incumbent on me to declare the
measures which it had been thought necessary to peas; and
when I mentioned that measure of Chancery reform in the
catalogue of those I meant to try, the Noble Lord received
the intimation with a derisive scoff.— (Cheers.) He was
supported by all the sections of that new opposition, and,
more than all, by that section which, though the following
is small, make up for the bulk of numbers by their fidelity—
by those that follow the Noble Lord the Member for Tiver-
ton, who said that ,he trusted the country would not be
iNt
otciribilesedi L to forrd itt h, e except
Member
o when h e
Tiverton.—(Loud
v a e
rcthoaD.n
em-
barked in a Chancery suit.—(Laughter.) Well, there is a
prospect of that Bill being carried; but I do not claim any
a
great good to the country we did it, in spite of
thoree do
—ce(wi
jas cheers.offoudred us
)
" Well then," says the Noble Lord, "there is another subject
respect to the agriculturaels
which
with which
of great importance. your equivocal conduct with
you interests besides the false
you
havehave arrayed yourself, besides
troubledmost
t and disturbed every-
thing,queusntsmoonstitutional manner
your plumageta s
what have
you have acted in a
done
education."---
in tampering with the great
(Hear, bear.) Now,
this indignation on the part of the wlLaeneLto arouse all
those mournful questions which, with almost a ord,and all
broken heart
.have been , addressed to, us by the Honourable
for Chichester?—(Laughter.) I am, here to faiember, e end the
conduct of the Government. The Noble Lord says that for
party—nay, for a higher object—for bindings parpo
we
have been tampering with the established system of esdeite"
tion.—(Hear, hear.) Yes, you shall hear.—(Cheers ande
laughter.) The Noble Lord, cannot hear of education and
religion being used for party purposes. , Does, he remember
the appr, priation clans. ? —(Cheers.) He shrinks with
horror trout the repetition of such maneeuvres ; but the
Noble Lord has had recourse to the same unjustifiable course.
seems that there have been certain, management clauses

Mr. R. PALMER explained that the object was to relieve
persons of the Jewish persuasion fromcertain extraordinary
disabilities under which they at preaent laboured. The Bill
had been introduced in the other /louse by Lord Lyndhurst,
of whose judgment no one could have any doubt. Under
these circumstances he must press the stage.
Mr. NEWDEGATE said that the present passing of the
Bill would intercept a trial now in progress in the courts of
law. He should, therefore, move that the Bill be read a
third time on Friday next.

Mr. R. PALMER suggested that Monday should be sub-
stituted for Friday, which was agreed to, and the Bill post-
poned accordingly.
The Protestant Dissenters' Bill passed through Committee
pro forme.
The Public health Act (1818) Amendment Bill was read
a second time. _

The Thames Embankment Bill passed through Committee.
The County Courts Further Extension Bill was read a
third time and passed.
The Representative Peers for Scotland Act Amendment
Bill was read a second time.
MAYNOOTII COLLEGE.

On the motion for the adjourned debate,
Mr. 11. HERBERT moved that the House adjourn.
The gallery was cleared for a division, but none took place ;
and cn returning, we found
Mr. S. HERBERT speaking. He pointed to the state
of the benches on the Opposition side (the Ministerial
benches being full, and the Opposition benches very
thinly occupied.) The absence of Members proved the
unexpectedness of this discussion, at least on the Oppo-
sition side, and at the same time suggested the impro-
priety of the Government consenting to allow any divi-
sion to be taken. Lord Jahn Russell was absen, for in-
stance; yet that Noble Lord had an amendment on the
motion, proposing that a Commission should be appointed
instead of a Committee to conduct the inquiry; and, as it
was a farce to suppose that any Committee could sit that
session, of course Mr. Spooner meant to alter his motion, so
that the vote should be, whether or not the management at
Maynooth was a tit subject for inquiry. With such benches
a division would be no test of the opinion of the House.
Mr. SPOONER should certainly take the division. He
had heard' of no such amendment as that attributed to Lord
John Russell; it was nut on the paper. He himself could
not alter his motion ; he had no power. This question of ad-
journment was interjected. It was the wish on that (the
Government) tide to divide on the main question.—(An al-
tercation then took place between Mr. Spooner and Mr.
Megan ; Mr. Megan affirming that Mr. Spooner had stated,
early in the evening, in the lobby, that he would not bring
the question on that night, and Mr. Spooner insisting that,
he had been entirely misunderstood.)
Mr. ELLIOTT said that this was a trap for the House.
Of course no one on the Opposition side had expected that
the division would take place that evening, and hence the
thinness of the benches.—(oh, oh.)
After a few words from Mr. NEWDEGATE and Mr. V.
Sclet.m, who denied that he had ever spoken against time,
and who taunted the Government with "not coming out" on
this occasion,
Admiral STEWART said that in voting for the adjourn-
ment, he did not wish to be understood as pronouncing any
opinion on the main question.
Mr. P. HOWARD did not think anything would be
gained by continuing the debate at so late an hour. He
never knew anything to be gained by an attempt to take
the House by surprise.
Mr. SCHOLEFIELD said that in the present state of the
House it would be impossible to take the real sense of the
House on the question.
Mr. HORSMAN wished to know the intentions of the
Government.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that if
the House did not agree to the adjournment, the Hon. and
Learned Member for Cork would of course continue his
speech, and with every respect to the Hon. and Learned
Gentleman it was his intention to go home when he began.
Sir B. HALL said he would certainly pair off with the
Right lion. Gentleman rather than listen to the speech of
the Hon. and Learned Member for Cork.--(Laughter.)
Mr. R PALMER said that he intended to vote for the
inquiry, though not on the ground put forward by the Hon.
Member (Mr. Spooner), but a division taken at that hour of
the night would not faithfully represent the opinions of the
House of Commons on the question.—( Hear.) He therefore
thought that the debate ought to be adjourned.
The House then divided, when there appeared—
For the adjournment of the Hou.se ... 29
Against ... 133
Majority ...-101
Mr. MAGAN then moved the adjournment of the debate.
Blr. SCULLY protested against the debate being then
continued, and recommended Mr. Spooner to withdraw his
motion.—(Laughter.)
Mr. SPOONER said he would not object to the ad
iourn-
ment of tke debate, not wishing to put the House to ncon-
venience.
After a conversation, in which Mr. Elliott, Sir J. Young,
Mr. Gladstone, Mr. Newdegate, and Mr. R. Palmer, took
pert,
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER suggested
that they should then adjourn, and out of consideration to
the Speaker, meet this day at one o'clock.
The House then adjourned at Three o'clock.

Lord CHICHESTER said the alteration had the effect of
more perfectly carrying ont the principle of the clauses, and
in contravention of it.

ROUSE OF LORDS, June 14.
The LORD CHANCELLOR took his seat on the Wool-
sack at Five o'clock.
MAYNOOTH.
The Earl of WINCHILSEA gave notice that in the
course of the next session of Parliament he would move
for a Committee to inquire whether the moral and reli-
gious principles inculcated at the College of Maynooth
are not subversive of all Protestant government.
Lord BROUGHAM said that the course proposed by
the Noble Earl was certainly better and fairer than that
taken—he would not say where—but certainly not in
their Lordships' House.
The Duke of RICHMOND presented a petition from
the farmers of Sussex, complaining of the present mode
of messing the property-tux.
GREAT WESTERN, SHREWSBURY, &c., RAIL-

The Bishop of OXFORD said the question was whether
an important alteration had been made before the vote was
taken. Now this important alteration was made when the
vote was brought forward. It was now said that this was
carrying out what had been determined on before. The al-
teration was that schools receiving aid should accept the
management clauses. He thought the Government made
important alterations after the vote was taken.
Lord LANSDOWNE said what he asserted was that no
alteration in principle was made in what had been done.
SURRENDER OF CRIMINALS (CONVENTION WITH
FRANCE) BILL.
Lord BROUGHAM rose for the purpose of imploring his
Noble Erieud opposite to re-consider the propriety, which he
strongly urged upon him, of withdrawing the Extradition
Bill, on account of that which afforded him the best con-
ceivable opportunity for doing so—namely, the total change
which had taken place in the French law upon this very
:,object of extradition since the convention with France was
entered into.
The Earl of MALMESI3URY said it was not at all
necessary that he should keep their Lordships waiting for
the announcement which he should have felt it his duty to
make in the course of the evening, had his Noble Friend not
made the suggestion. He begged to say that he had come
down to the House with the intention of informing their
Lordships, at the proper moment, that her Majesty's Go-
vernment had thought St to withdraw the Bill alluded to
for the present.— (Cheers.) Bat he could not make that an-
nouncement without stating that it would be extremely
dangerous at the present moment for the Government to
continue the existing Act of Parliament under the new law
which had been passedin France. He could not yet under.
stand the full bearing of that law, but, as far as he did
understand it, it seemed to him that the French Govern-
ment might reclaim any criminal in any part of the
world, whatever might be the nature of his offence, and
although that offence might not have been committed on
French ground.—(Hear, hear.)
Lord BROUGHAM—And though he be not a Frenchman?
The Earl of MALMESBLTRY—And though he be not a
Frenchman.

WAY.
Lord BEAUMONT rose to mrive the suspension of
the standing order, No. ISS, sect. 1, with regard to the
Great Western, Shrewsbury, and Birmingham Rail-
way, end Shrewsbury and. Chester Railway Amal-
gamation Bill. This standing order, known by
the name of the " What-in:litre order," was to the
effect that in the case of an Amalgamation Bill, the
consent of four-fifths of the proprietors should be
obtained at a meeting held for that purpose. When first
created it bad required only the consent of three-fifths,
but within the last twb years it hod been extended to
four-fifths, In the case of the present Bill, which had
been passed by the Commons without opposition,
as being a Bill of the greatest importance, but when it
came to their Lordships' House, it not being denied that
four-fifths of the proprietors had not consented to it,
although three-fifths had, the Committee of Standing
Orders had no other course to report but that the stand-
ing orders had not been complied with. He thought
that this was a case where their Lordships might, not
only without danger, but even with advantage, suspend
this standing order, because this question was
no less than whether there should be only one
means of communication between London and
the Mersey, between London and Ireland—
whether all the traffic, and all the important transactions
conducted between those two points of the kingdom
should be confined to one single mean 3 of communication,
and whether the possessors of that means of communica-
tion should be the possessors of a monopoly.
Lord LYNDHURST said that this standing order was
made to protect the minority against the rage for specu-
lation among the majority, but it had never been in-
tended to stand in the way of any great public advan-
tage. He believed that on the ground of public policy,
and for the benefit of the public at large, their Lord-
ships were justified in complying with the motion of the
Noble Lord.
Lord REDESDALE said that this was the first time any
attempt of this kind had been made to set aside this standing
order of their Lordships' House; and with all respect to the
Noble Lords who had preceded him, he must say they had
not shown such an acquaintance with the subject, and even
with the rules themselves, as justified them in recommending
to their Lordships the dispensing with the standing order.
With respect to the question of the public interests involved,
his impression was, that if the amalgamation—the public
value of which seemed to be so much insisted upon—were
effected, so far from there ensuing any competition between
the Great Western and the North-Western Companies, an
arrangement would be come to between them, the effect of
which would be to establish a complete monopoly. In the
Committee on Standing Orders the case of the petitioners
for the amalgamation broke down on their own evidence;
and now they came before their Lordships asking that the
case should be tried on its merits—a coarse which their
Lordships, he thought, could not accede to. For unless they
supported the standing orders of the House, they would open
a door to jobbery such as they would never close.
After a few words in explanation from Lord LYND-
HURST,
The Duke of RICHMOND said they should not discuss
the merits of the Bill on-the. case for the Standing. Orders
Committee. If they threw over the decision of the Standing
Orders Committee, they would never get persons to attend
that Committee all day, when they knew that their Lord-
ships could ugh o readily induced to set aside their decision,
founded thou it was upon so useful a standing order as
this was.
Lord BEAUMONT said if they did not suspend the stand-
ing order on the present occasion, the maintenance of that
standing order was in jeopardy; for it behoved them to see
that that order operated for the purpose for which it was in-
stituted, instead of acting as an obstruction to a just decision
of an important case upon its merits. Ile admitted that the
standing order had its advantages, and if .their Lordships
agreed t,) his motion on the present occasion, he would always
being lightly dispensed with.
adLvocatd its nototlG
I,IAINI felt a great repugnance to withdraw-
ing Lord
matter of a private nature from the Select Com-
mrit-ee-to the decision of the House, for obvious reasons. He
did not say that a case had not been made out for departing
from that rule, bat the proof MILEL rest upon the party cell-
o them to make that departure. They were called
uinpgonn; onn an allegation of a fraudulent proceeding in, shares, to
snap nd the standing' orders. That allegation, made on one
aid®,
denied ou the other. He wanted to know, then,
;i-cl-
had or had not the Standing Orders Committee an opportu-
nity of exercising their judgment upon the truth or false-
hood of that allegation? Lie understood that the Committee
bad had that opportunity, and that it had not thought
r upon investigat the allegation, to repor in favour
proper
of the Justifiableness of suspending the standing order. if
that were so, he was against suspending it.
The Earl of ST. GERMANS said that the question to
which the Noble and Learned Lord (Brougham) referred
was fully considered by the Committee, and they decided
at there was nothing shown to justify their recommending
that the standing order be dispensed with. He agreed that
the breaking down of the monopoly was desirable, but the
}louse had no right to call upon the shareholders to make
a sacrifice of their own interests for that purpose. Besides,
setting aside the standing orders would form a bad pre-
cedent.
Lord BEAUMONT said the question to which the Noble
and Learned Lord referred had come before the Committee,
and the evidence produced by the alleging party amounted
to this, that 15,466 voted altogether; of those, 10,257' voted
for the amalgamation, and 5,209 were in the minority against
it; and of that minority 230 votes were traced to the
'North Western Railway Company; and the decision of the
Committee therefore was, that as only 230 votes out of
swoo votes were traced or proved to be in accordance with
the allegation, they were not justified in recommending that
upon that allegation the standing orders shouli be dis-
pensed with.
Lord BROUGHAM—The answer of the Noble Lord was
perfectly fair, perfectly candid, and perfectly fatal to his own
ca".—(Laughter.)
After a feW words from Earl FORTESCUE,
The Marquis of LANSDOWNE said, that after the state-
ment of the Noble and Learned Lord (Lyndhurst), as to the
preyi9OPTQcodieg4 Affectin Chid tritAgactiQu, whether the

an En;

M-A,

man

sere in Lou-

Lord BROUGHAM—A.Ye,
don.—(Hear, hear, and sensation.)
CORRUPT PRACTICES AT ELECTIONS BILL.
The Marquis of LANSDOWNE moved that the House
go into Committee on this Bill. He said the practices which
had taken place at St. Alban's were not confined to that
borough, and the present Bill had been brought forward to
extend to other boroughs, where corrupt practices prevailed
the remedial processes which had been adopted in that case
by issuing a Commission. He thought it would prove a
salutary check to corrupt practices to have hanging over
boroughs a searching inquiry, not only into any partichi
election complained of, but into previous elections, through
which the general character of the borough might be ascer-
tained, and if found delinquent it would be disfranchised.
Ile believed that the measure would have the effect of taking
away one of the reproaches which, in the eyes of the people
of this and of other countries, attached to the Constitution
of this country, and that by timely and constitutional means.
That was the basis on which the measure was framed, and he
could hardly believe that the Government, or their Lord-
ships, would refuse to go into Committee, with the sincere
desire to accomplish an object so desirable.—(Hear.)
The Earl of DERBY said the object of the Bill which had
jest been explained by the Noble Marquis was one which
he was sure would meet with the general concurrence of
their Lordships, as it hail already met with the general con-
currence of the other House of Parliament. No one of their
Lordships could wish that the system of bribery and corrup-
tion which had of late years, he was sorry to say, largely
increased, should remain unchecked. It would even be ne-
cessary, for the repression of that system, that they should
consent to measures of a somewhat exceptional character,
and not legislate, as hitherto, upon indiyidual cases, but by
which, under general powers, Parliament might inquire
the conduct of delinquent borough
s. But nasmuch as this
Bill was of an exceptionable character, as it established a new
tribunal, and invested it with extraordinary powers, they
were bound the more narrowly to scrutinize the nature of
these powers, the exigencies and circumstances under which
they were demanded, and the manner in which they
were to be applied. By the Bill the Commissioners
would be invested with the same powers as the Special Come
missioners appointed to inquire into the boroughs of Sudbury
and St. Alban's. They would have power to call before
them all parties, and examine them upon oath; to require
the production of all papers and documents, and even, in the
case of parties who had hitherto been exempt, such as can-
didates, Members, solicitors, and agents, to cAI upon them
to give evidence which may criminate themselves, with
the view of taking ulterior proceedings for the disfran-
chisement of corrupt boroughs. These were extraordinary
powers, and opposed to the previous practice of Parliament '
in such matters. Hitherto special Commissioners had been
appointed with definitive instructions to examine and report n
upon individual cases ; but in future an unnamed and
un-
known Commission was to have the power of making such
inquiry, armed with greater powers than any previous Com-
mission, and that too appointed solely by the Rouse
of
Commons. That was so great an innovation, that he h
urge its importance upon the attention of eir Lor st Ps°.
For the first time it was proposed to hand over c e
u
to the House of Commons, upon an address to thesivelY
the power of appointing a Commission with such Crown,
extensive
and extraordinary jurisdiction of powers. He
they were bound to' resist such a provision and require
that the House of Commons, havingre:i takenoe
oi.
that the
initiative, should ask for the concurrence
House in any address to the Crown.—
.av, hear.) One
strong reason against giving this Commis'
asked for was, that it was not named. illinei" the power
they were specially named in the Bills b 11 ordinary cases
appointed, even when the Government yh
which they were
of Parliament. Hero they neither had ad the confidence
the information nor
the check, and that he thought would induce their Lordships
to refuse investing the House of Commons alone with the
power of constituting such a tribunal
the Bill was this—it was founded •
Another
objectiont cor-
ruption in towns, cities, and
obroughs. But its
on evidence of get
included counties, divisions anduniversities.
The words by which these latter to
counties, be be-
lieved, not in the original Bill, but Were included F,
all
no-
tice, afterwards. Re, therefore, prove
but introduced, that it vas
was of op unjust to classify counties,
pecially the universities, e of bribery
had ever been made w divisions of counties,
•, against which no eel and, ee-
-1 elitist whicn
bribery had been proved.ith the class of places
that respect, to Hewould
' •ss— al form'
and
restore the Bill to its origin
omit the reference
to counties and universities. proposcrine, therefore, in
further, that the proposed powers wen_tecia Hy
beyond what the ex-
igencies of the by giving the
Commissioners thee required, attacels!
end inquire into any '
power to gou eans they might,
election they ti su
if they 1
ILeasediought proper. Kdo the last or the two
last elections, and go back
, omit inqUirY.
_,. when
years, to a period
antecedent t Bill or
"vv. when another gene-
o the Reform '' t nee for the purpose
retion of electors were innd wassysteme atic bribery. What'
of proving
he continuous a
proposed was, that the power of f examination should be
confined to the next previous election, and on bribery being
nijasi n might then proceed to the
proved, that the Coln—
election previous, and so on, ° but never in any case to omit
c,e, to pm cm the election of
44 electiop, ph 'AI Wit"

114:bjaectedlalaillsiketaet.
pow ter which the Noble and Learned Lord had referred to as 1846 to inquire into that of 1841.
having been used by one cf the great railway companies had it confounded with bribery, which
been . exercised iu this 'instance or not, it nevertheless op- ' treating, which had never been so defined. The of
pear ed that it was in the power of a great company to make Commons had always drawn a distinction between theustew
US3 of this standing order as an instrument not to ad- i and the practice was, that while the proof of bribe d'o,
vane ;e their own legitimate interests, but to defeat the sub- qualified the person against whom it was proved from hord-
sten tial interests of ethers, and of the public; and, there- ing a seat, treating merely disqualified for sitting for the
fore, if their Lordships should decide that night that they ; borough in which it was proved to have taken plaee. Re..
were 3 no t justified in going into the merits, he trusted that no ' sides, it depended very much upon the feeling of the Come
lon ; tin le would elapse before their Lordships reviewed this mittees of the House of Commons to say what treating was.
sten tlini ; order; for he believed that, in its present state, it In Serne cases they had declared treating to be proved nt
affu tded . a great temptation to powerful companies to enter cases where no one would say that any moral wrong what-
oPo, 3at ;reeraeuts with other companies for the purpose of ever had been committed. He did not mean to palliate thee,
este blia ping monopolies. kind of corruption which was scarcely less injurious in its
L era BROUGLIANI having expressed a hope that his consequences than the worst farm of bribery, namely.
Nob le : Friend would not divide the House, the drinking, which was a disgrace to so many elections
Tho motion was negatived without a division. and to the country at large.— (Hear.) But in the case of
muiu rEs OF COUNCIL ON EDUCATION.—MA- country voters who came half a dozen miles or more, and
NAGE,NIENT CLAUSES. who partook of the refreshment which he would have had at
itig b. t as tothtveh
~
,74,e: thmeamrqoutiiionbtfhLatAtNhesoprode‘rvofEth, e day be now read, his own home unless engaged upon election business, he
who spoke very indis- could not consent to place bribery and treating on the same
twit:l:it:Tr:ea
tin cti3 ' was understood to say that he wished to set himself footing, and believed that a grave injustice would be done if
Al( ere ,
Privy Council
night last in that • it were so.—(Hear, hear.) The amendment he should
Pr ivy regard to the alteration made by the Committee of therefore propose would be, that the consent of that House
Council. It was stated b, the Noble Earl the other should: be had to any address to the Crown fur inquiry into
ni, itt , that
ye al. ;none had mad Le of
of the late Go- the case of delinquent boroughs; that counties, divisions of
wi th reference t e alterations in the management clauses counties, and the universities be emitted, and the Bill confined
at no material alt
of .i o Jewish schools after the vote by Parliament to cities, towns, and boroughs; that the Commissioners, in
tie grant for the Year, said, order to prove that continuous bribery and corruption ex-
theratidns had but he had in general terns
ye rnment after the vote had been made by the late
.Go- sted,should be
.limited to the next previous election, with-
he dan opportunity of referring been taken, and he had since oil, the retrospective power proposed to be given in the Bill
such precedent,
at dso far from the proceeling to the exact circumstances, of taking any election they choose; and that treatiugsaould
put on the seine footing as bribery, while every
the to be done to discourage and prevent it. In
pa patsy on their Lordshipsc,ontrary would be proved by the thing ought _
ngs of the Privy Council afford- not be
table. propcsing these amendments, be trusted it would not be
let ter, dated Bth -Janu They contained a
art', to th.
Jewish Com- considered that he was actuated by any wish to impede the
mi ttee, to the effect that ......,
progress us impair a measure which was intended to meet a
co aid. be made satisfactor ' unie"
an art angement
m tat would be made by ish'teo
i h Them, no arrange- great evil. But the innovation on the powers of one of the
ni fired; but at the same time he b - —ey w°"ld be be- three eetates of the realm which it proposed was, in his
egged to di as they could nut co rear in, and the suggee-
lie ved it was from mere inadvertence that Say that tee be- opinion, Er.l.ln .
a Noble Lord had been made,and 1 the staden,en, , . •
t tions were iastifiel by the reasons he had adduced to their
- tL, . ,i ,
le waseatistie 'as turance last Friday that no alterations aboard"sl with his Lordships.—(Hea9
ARGYLL thought that the amendment to
un tit au opportunity had been afforded to their be made The Duke of
ore of detail, but would alter the
H. >rise, and especially to the other House of Pee7"LardshiPs* exempt counties was not .
ju, tging of the propriety of that change. He "'tient, of' whole principle Bill. By making en exception of
of the
.. .
,_.
rested upon t-te 'eon was implied against all other
authority of the minutes on their Lordships' tabl3, SS r be counties a charge of co,, option
he conceived to be a misrepreeentatiou of what had occurrede what
constituencies. Re did not see much force in the other al-
un that with reference to
rotations proposed; but he hoped that
,
under his cognizance, as the head of the Council, and he .reconsidered by the Govern-
rig I adverted to it -only for the purpose of setting hitnSt • 'zesPing counties would be
rig let. , It went, and that they would not press it.
he had merely rho Rail of DERBY said, that after what had fallen from The Earl of DERBY, in exptanation, said
had been the ; Noble Marquis, he was cure their Lordships would give r
introduced
to restore the Biil to the Etate in which it
hit nan opportunity for explanation.—(Hear, hear.) On I.,btc by the late Government.—(Hear.)
Bill did not
Fri clay night last he had the honour of receiving a private inaree eSifA.NLEY (of Alderley) said that the
It
not a from the Noble Marquis as to whether a minute had vided *va
better power of the House of Commons. only
uptroa-
ber in issued by the Committee of Privy Council, without, particular 4r machinery than the present for carrying o
ho, cover, intending to raise any discussion upon it. The borough would_ had
Bill for the disfranchisemenbt ofuanby
No ble Marquis did put the question, and he simply detailed under the consi—de--ra-ad been always the case— bebrought
the circumstances, and it was with some surprise that he mitted that but litttira of their Lordships' House. He ad
-
the
eived an expression of disapprobation, not with regard counties, but he thou little corruption had been practised in
to the substance of the minute, but to the mode and time of a new machinery forgcheckingestablishing corruption, counties should
for the charge that he had purposely abstained from laying persist in his amendment for the Noble Earl would not
this minute on the table of either House of Parliament until Lord REDESDALE thourgehtt
it
excepting
coun ties.
amend-
the vote had been obtained. The Noble Marquis went on to ments proposed by his la oble
desirable that the
e F
state that no important alteration had ever beed made by the They were all, he believed, desiriend should be adopted.
o
late Government until it had been submitted to Parliament Conservative party ought above ralilis to check bribery. The
to
previous to asking for the vote. Indeed, he went further, as they suffered ten times more than
others
be desirous, inasmuch
and stated that no alterations of any importance had been of it. Considering the immense
powers
from the practice
male without first obtaining the sanction of Parliament. stowed in the Bill on the Commissioners proposed to be be-
h
Though the case of the Jewish. schools would not afford him most desirable to provide that they should g thought it was
a precedent of the sort, yet he was quite sure that in the de- address to the Crown on the subject of bribery, named in a"
duration made by the Noble Marquis he was speaking in think that the alterations proposed could be He did not
c
error of the facts of the case. Recollect the charge, that it an invasion of the privileges of the other House. It was th
bad never been the practice to make alterations in the mi- duty of their Lordships to take care that the sanction of
nutes of Council after obtaining a vote from Parliament. both Houses should be given to the application, of the Act
The Noble Earl here proceeded to give in detail certain alte- in each particular case.
rations of the minutes by the late Government, which nega- The Duke of NEWCASTLE wished that the Noble Earl
tived, he contended, the assertion of the Noble Marquis. had. followel the usual practice and bad given notice of his
The management clauses were not laid before Parliament amendments on the second reading. If it had been proposed
when the veto was taken in the succeeding year. The ma- in the Bill to deprive their Lordships of any privileges they
nagement clauses passed after the vote was taken of the fol- possessed, he should have concurred with the Noble Earl
lowing year. He had stated cases in which alterations were in his objections to .it; on looking, however, carefully at
made alter the vote was taken, and not laid before Perlis- the terms of the Bill, he found that it proposed to confer no
tnent Until the fleet session. He hoped he had said enough new power on the House of Commons. Before any address
to show that Government had not acted without precedent, could be moved on the subject of bribery and corruption, a.
at the same time he was not disposed to withdraw from the Select Committee must have reported on the case. He felt
cognisance of Parliament any of those proceedings. He was certain that, Seeing what had occurred in Monmouth, no
not aware when ho made the statement whether the vote Noble Lord in that House would wish to screen such corrupt
was taken. The object which induced the Government• to practices from the fullest investigation.
bring the measure forward, was that the National Society Lord BROUGHAM thanked his Noble Friend near him
was to meet the next day, and they thought they would be (the Marquis of Lansdowne) for having redeemed his pledge
generally satisfactory to all moderate Churchmen, and calcu- made in 1847. He (Lord Brougham) entirely approved of
lated to reconcile them on points upon which there had been a this measure, with some slight exceptions. At the same
great difference of opinion, time it could not be denied that by this Bill they were
The Marquis of LANSDOWNE said he placed implicit making a great change in the law, as well as a great alte-
reliance on the statement made by the Noble Earl, and ration in the position of witnesses. He thought the Noble
begged to say there was no intention of imputing to him any Lords who preceded him had not at all exaggerated the
want of good faith. If the Noble Lord thought the altera- object of this Bill. The effect of this Bill would be,
tions made were in opposition to the pledges given to Parlia- that for the first time witnesses could be compelled to
ment, he would have been justified in the observations he had give testimony, whether these witnesses were principal
made, but the alterations made in the management clauses parties or accomplices, or neither, and to answer
Were to carry out the principles upon which the minutes were all questions, produce all documents, papers, and books, as
based. __ _ _ well as all the written evidence, although the answer to such

questions and the production of these papers might have the
effect of criminatmg the party so interrogated—(Hear,
hear)—and the only protection given to these witnesses was,

that they might trust to the tribunal before which they were
sent to be thus searchingly examined, and which tribunal
would be empowered to give the party a certificate of in-
demnity against all civil and criminal proceedings.—(Hear,
hear.) In the event of the parties giving false testimony, they
were denounced by this Bill with all the terrible pains and
penalties attending corrupt and wilful perjury. Those horrid
and foul crimes of corruption and perjury—the commission •f
which was so disgustingly and notoriously prevalent during
contested elections—alone influenced him (Lord Brougham)
in supporting a measure the object of which was to create so
novel and powerful a tribunaL—( Hear. ) For his part he had
no objection that the inquiry should extend back to at least
the-jest seven years; but he regretted that the measure did
not embrace intimidation, which it was of the greatest im-
portance should not be overlooked.— (Hear, hear.) As to
treating, he did nut see why it should nut be regarded as
bribery, because it was a mere cover and shift to bribe voters
whilst fn a state of beastly intoxication, as was well known
to all those who enjoyed the honour of carrying through
contested election.—(Hear, hear.) He (Lord Brougham)
remembered an instance, limb), years ago, of the grossest
corruption in the way of treating. In one borough the ex-
penses were between 50,0001. and 60,00)l. ostensibly for
beer; and when complained of, the answer made was, that
in a borough at the other side of the estuary the cost must
have been greater, as the tickets distributed there were for
wine instead of beer.—(Laughter.) It might be said, " why
will you seek to prevent men coming a distance getting
refreshment ?" He (Lord Brougham) replied that, unless
you stopped it altogether, and shut the door against it at
once, there was no other way to terminate the evil. He
doubted not, when it should be generally known that all
parties would be subjected to a most rigorous cross-exami-
nation—not alone as to whether they gave money, or to
whom they gave it, but as to their belief and very supposi-
tion on every matter connected with the election—the effect
would be to discourage and diminish those foul practices of
bribery and corruption ; because then it must be evident that
the characters of those who solicited the suffrages of any
constituency were certain to be at the mercy of their agents
and supporters.—(Hear, hear.)
The Earl of HARROWBY observed that, whilst support-

sae Earl of minas, ~..,.. 5....,....__
_____,
Ong the measure, their Lordships should be careful hovithey
exalted into a conventional offence that which public opinion
did not stigmatise with reprobation.
The LORD CHANCELLOR said the towns and cities
had been found guilty of bribery, which, in fact, was the
and universities. Upon every
principle of justice, counties and the universities ought to be
ginttorodthuecincogatnhtiiess Bill ; but that was not the case
wreiathsonre rd
fora
excluded. Their Lordships did not usurp any privilege of
the Commons, because every investigation with regard to a
seat of that House must originate in the Commons. If their
Lordships allowed such large powers to this Commission,
they would give up their rights. If theßill passed in its pre-
sent form this House would have no power of is_
suing a Commission, which was to be constituted of
barristers of seven years standing. lie had
the
greatest respect for the bar, but he should know
what their antecedents were, and whether the
competent to discharge those duties upon a Commission Y 'were
by
which the powers of that House were abrogated,
Bill was passed, the parties might come t
House, but was there any probability that they
o the bar of that
and if they did, in what position would their would do so;
placed when they had to deal with a C Lordships be
by the Crown ? With reard to retrospective
Commission appointed
he thought there ought tog be a trospective inquiries,
quiries. If they were to pees limitthe to such stale in-
to have a crusade against past off Bill, why were they
wounds that had been healed ? There enc and open up old
it. With regard to treating it ought to be a bar to
rea-
sonable refreshment Should be
eught to be checked, but _
treating ought to be made the allowed. The matter.:?!
They should not make treat' sulject of a separate Bill.
what treating was. He mg an offence until they ee
_____,
by his Noble Friendthought the amendments proPwv"
ought to
Lord TRURO said be agreed to.
the object of Bill to acquire the
means of presenting such
previous inquiry should as the House of
cases
legislative inter-
ference, •an object decide called for
d to desire to
accomplish. Ile waswhich all parties proles?!
_.
asked
not aware that anything "'"
to be done by the Bill encroach upon the pri-
vileges of their L which would
of
Commons asked
their Lordships, in The House,.
the ower of in-
quiry in fact, to participate in
quiry demanded that narti-
and to refuse .
mind
which for the purpose; . in the public mind
cipation would create impression
„...,,,h
,sake, would very much re-
Yium he, for their Lordships .
in fact, to the gret. There objection,
propo-
sitions
the could be no
Address to the Crown on the
of Bill, for an or the appointment of
part of the House of Commons, conducted in an
the Commission. If the inquiry was
Persons, it was competent
improper manner, or by PP?
int - Per Tiler appointment' of barri-
for their Lordships to reject.
lr.meant not the disqualification
stets of seven years' stand in l'gstanding and upwards, but of
of barristers of eight years
barristers who had been called to the bar for not less than
~,,e ud Learned Friend had objected to
seven years. His "Dyna eo) could see no justice in setting
the time, but he (r 4" ni,
t, because it was impossible to say
any limitation to
theelections' or what number of years were ne-
what number of f
the p f h Bill •
aired into or urposesany
1 cassary to be ing .
b To limit the time would, therefore, be
particular borotc
b tof the Bill. All former measures had
to defeat t" ()the requisite powers. This Bill, it was allowed,
fallen short
, oef impediments. It was, therefore, for their
presenteu
tpo show themselves as desirous as he believed them
LordshiPs
tting an end to the bribery and corruption that
to be of P.
, sm Cited to prevail in many parts of the country. Be
wasi a~- 1 uently, be grieved if they rejected the measure,
should, er 1 the amendments.
it
or marred few ywords from the LORD CHANCELLOR in
After a
explanation,
I,or-
CRANWORTH said he considered that legislation
on this subject would be a nullity if a Commissian were not
no itted to issue except on an addressfrom both Houses.
tr linof • • that it would be far better to leave the
He was opinion
decision to the discretion of the Crown.— (Hear.)
Their Lordships then went into Committee.
The Earl of DERBY said he still thought the amendments
proposed would be beneficial. With respect to bribery
in counties and 'universities, this Bill would be a dead
letter; but the general object of the measure was dis-
franchisement. The amendment he had now to propose
was in the first clause, and it was to the effect that an ad-
dress to the Crown should be the address of both Rousts,
and not of one.
Lord CAMPBELL feared that the amendment would ma•
terially damage the efficiency of the Bill.
Earl GREY expressed his astonishment at the amend-
ment now proposed, after the Bill hed bean adopted by the
other House of Parliament, The object of the Bill was to
obviate the risk, which at the present moment practically
existed, of a difference oi opinion between the two Houses
as to whether inquiry should issue
or not. If the amend-
ment were carried he thought it would be idle to proceed
with the Bill. The propos •
'at appeared to him to be only an
indirect mode of getting r.d of the Bill altogether.
The Earl of DERBY had been prepared to ascribe the
present measure to a conscientious desire to put down bribery
and corruption, but a new light had been thrown upon the
subject, when it was contended that the measure was framed
with the sole object of avoiding a conflict of opinion between
the tWO liPtleg,s, A similar ar gunnt might be advanced
1
4