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

1852.

15,

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 daring 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 *as 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.
But 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 r. 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; se
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 officers 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 jestice
and impartiality of the tribunal. Still, it was perfectly
obvious that he had been brought before a legal tribuna,,
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 ho 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
had 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. Mather—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 difficulty which might have
occurred had it been determined to make Austria responsi-
ble. But the main difficulty of making Austria responsible
was 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 ne 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 donejastice
to the conduct of the Government, that was no reason why
the Government should not do justice to him.—(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-Mather'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 indicted, 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. He 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 in-
jury suffered was to be asked, then he thought the demand
of 5,0001. 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 hipeself 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 minimum except 5001.
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-eand 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 222/.
instead of 500/.—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 diecul-
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-
struct'ons permitted him to accept, and under that impression
informed you, 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—Mr. Scarlett does not say so.
Lord STANLEY—That dispatch was addressed by Lord
Malinesbuty to Sir H. Bulwer. He was endeavouring to
show that lllr. Scarlett was not disavowed for taking 2221.
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
more general questions to which the Noble Lord had re-
ferred. He could not in this transaction find anything which'
indicated on the part of the Government that which the
Noble Lord had charged 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 Membor for London ;!
leeteusse if ever there, was a question which ought to be eemel
siarea separately on its merits, without the general imbe-I
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 Se 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-
speete and such as had never been entered into by one inde-
pendent state with another. It was to the effect that
8,000 Austrian troops were to march into Tuscany and
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 troops were
not to leave the country without the mutual consent of
both parties. Consequently, though the Tuscan Goveircne-s
yofhLokSr.dteL3Linaagil °Voer
ment might say that they no longer required the services
of the Austrian troops, they sould not be remoer ed ,
Tear,
out the consent of the Austraiu Government.iEnweisthuryiil
offencehear.) very
wTasheenteringh
intodthisfrontpett
ea and
Tuscan Government, and not calling thehoAar7.l. Vie N the
meet to account for the insult.—(Hear' Mather was .
orp-ecuniary
wed that the
person who first suggested the melee
Under-Secretary had insinuated tdicatt
subject
sae - eared in a
satin, but the papers before they ,rge „pp
Lordcompensation Granville, ye
la displayed an in-
of Mr. Scarlett touch
suggestion of pecuniary
as ho eo the Austrian
per view' of the case, inasmuch
of aain aifucultee to?„P papers it appeared
tention,
casereparation. Fru° ---Mather whether he
131; took a pro.
Government for
asked Mr.r. e, a
GovernmentMalineenrY g° tooreign'
wmcn was a most
compe
Minister to use to a
that Lord
wished the
e u
'o for the Ley then, in the true spirit
you take for your injury ?f'
k " Whaimesbury therefore suggested pe-
of a' pedlar, as ere
hear.) Lardefeaa
suggestion which
was accepted by
(Hear,
compensation
and reluctance —(H
cu 'ary .t,nein • ear.; But on
Britishnionsrls subject.ex )1.
asks
sL o r
mem blather ,"5,000/., for which he stated his reasons,
us'uniryle,isbehind his back, and without giving him
Dir. mauler
Lord Malin,,ciion on the point, wrote a letter to Mr. Scarlett,
any infirig this as an exorbitant demand, and narahlk
(Lew° j'gonta!lsrithe sum for which a British subject might be cut
clover: la the streets of Florence.— s
s (Cheers and laughter;)
Lo
Malroesb ury in one of his dispatche
stated that the
Bane named by Mr. Mather was exorbitant, but that
t
Hear, hear would would he able to judge "what can be got."—( ?)had written
If the Noble Lord below him (Lord Paimerrta and how&
such a dispatch when he presided with distill
OMthe foongz3 affairs of the country, 'flat wv"" b'Ye been

said by the then Opposition?-4Hear, hear ) "A palmier
compensation is at least tangible," said Lord Malmesbury to .
Mr. Scarlett; "you must hold firm language." Firm
language, indeed, on the theme of " what can be .
(Cheers and laughter.) That was in the true spirit of the
peddling instinct which presided over the Foreign•office.
That was on the 9th'of March, but soon after Lord Derby
dinoacdtreinheisonf'ecommo rparbolnel
espeechand aLt
rtdh e
malan3n seisobnu-Thy Mousea c
tionng !gabs
that doctrine, wrote a very laconic dispatch, in -which he;
same down to 5001;, in a spirit which waa worthy of the
Board of Trade. The Noble Lord, who said he ctid not knot's,
much of this matter—an assertion he was very ready to
believe, for he. doubted if he had read the whole of the
r r9rs—remarked that Mr. blather's character had 'not been
much damaged,- though Lord Malmesbury had endea
voured to make it appear to the Tuscan Government that Bit.
Mather. had been the first to ask for a pecuniary comp"'
cation.

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 slightest intention to damage it
on the part of the Government, and that Mr. Blather. Oa we
understood) had borne testimony to the fair and candid will
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 hint
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 by in contempt, ender the impression
that he had first put the question on the national honour,. and
then said he was ready to take 500/., while Lord MahnesbUri
was ready to encourage that belief in the mind of foreigner
and of the Tuscan Government. There was another matter
welch never had been explained to the House to this day--
tho case of Corporal Baggs—be 'believed that to be one of
the worst insults ever 'offered to the British power. What
security had we for the life or honour el' a British subject
when Lord Malinesbury was ready to act in such a waYfe
natural
ettuhNreaolbrpl.
The boast ot " Civis Romanus sum" was gone now—it
seemed merely to ticket a man to be insulted with impunity.
greatest temper, knowledge of law, and firmness erg!
oeorsLeti,:nrdfor:n oec
seep:red for the office of Foreign• Secretary, and he regretted
tihemerbnieranfowr
ils'ivaehrltoonto litaakdeenvoerthleett hia
posi-
tion with foreign powers he had done ; and, if he had been
such dispatches would never have been
id on the table —(Etear, hear.) To show that the At's'
trian Government expected that a demand
be made for reparation, Prince Lichtenstein had'
witk the sanction cf Marshal Radetzky, put Baron Pg.
Barg, the officer who commended the outrage, under arrest
for a week. It was the Austrieu Govertment they were
bound to call upon to show Lieutenant Forsthuber rag
justified in his conduct; and, if they failed to do so, ther,t°
demand some' mark of their regret 'for what'had occurren_l
but the Austriane, so far from expressing contrition, bad
commended Lieutenant Forsthuber's conduct, and he It,
going about Florence as a sort of hero," as the man w","
had cut down the Englishman." (No, no.) Yes, n 6
knew it to be the case ; and it was said Lord Malmesbury
would
had given Lieutenant Forathuber "a step."—(A laugh.)
The Noble Lord had been distinguished through this stral:i.
not so much for incapacity as for infirmity of purpose re
great ignorance. He had never called on the Queen's
vocate for his opinion, but, having a ready but ungrarearati-
cal pen, he trusted to himself altogether, and the only mgcsi
who showed *ell in the-case. and kept up the charecter
the country, was Mr. Mather. Howdifferent was the coeclatt
of the Nobre Lord when Mr. Russell was imprisonep at 548isr
Grenada, and the Government refused all redress! eig
at once took the opinion of the King's Advocate, and s
British fleet appeared off the port, whereupon the Govern'
meat of New Grenada at once paid-1.0001. Little had beet,
said about Mr. Scarlett, but he Was at a loss to say laict,
was: the worst—the low views of the Foreign-office. or
the total mismanagement of Mr. Scarlett. The Noble
Lord said the poor man was very ill, bat he (Mr. Osborne)
found that Mr. Scarlett had been very well till the difficultyt
of his position commenced. On the 29th of May the Rlg
Hon. Gentleman opposite said there would be improvement;
introduced into our diplomatic service, and that in )mere
only men of classical attainments who had been at collet:
should be admitted, [The CHANCELLOR of the Fereonesent"'
—" I never used such words at all."] Then, the Right hleu
Gentleman had been grossly misrepresented—indeed, he by':
a man of too just a spirit to follow such views, and, to Ode
popular phrase just now, there was " looming in the g
twice" a chance that-the Right Hon. Gentleman would We,
wile/
away from-tire very bad corimany about him.—(A 'Les
But as to Mr. Scarlett, he was on excellent visiting te..--A
OLS,
with Prince Lichtenstein and the Duke de Casigliano;
as Mr. Mather said, he at irst treated the case very en''''-h;
He seriously impressed on the Chancellor of the Exchequer
the expediency of sending Mr. Scarlett to some quiet Pig!e
where there were no foreign troops, and to put Lord Walt:
bin)? on- the half-pay list, -if there was such a thing at the
Foreign-office. He regretted very much the question bnuat
been brought before the House in its present shape, and th
he was prevented by some form of the House from moving i.
direct vote of censure on Lord Malmesbury for trifling WI;
the honour of the country, and for having disgraced ug of
the eyes of the whole continent of Europe.—(Cries,. •
" Move, move .1") the
The Marquis of GRANBY was anxious to refer, se,
the
discussion on the question, to the commercial policy ni
country, and particularly so because an election Wag
inevitably approaching, and he, perhaps, would not baps..,,
another opportunity. There never was a time, he must sPers;
when there were such bold and reckless assurances made, e,:re
the supporters of the free trade policy as the present.
Noble Lord then adverted in succession to the dep....s
state of the agricultural interest, the silk trade, as exhil?lf;
at Spitelfields, the West India interests, and these ()ter..
colonies generally, and proceeded to argue that it was
nary that some modification of the free-trade policy shout
be adopted: The Hon. Member for Shrewsbury had stated
that agricultural labourers, had not improved in accord:
with the wealth of the country. Well, then, what inter
had improved? He had great doubts if even the man
he
efacturing interests were in a prosperous state.
Noble Lord then referred to a statement made out
of the House by the Honourable Member for Scar'
borough (Mr. G. P. Young), for tke purpose of show'
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 advantagesfrom the recent changes which had taken place in the cam'
laws. This might be- true in certain places, where wages
were high. But it was not correct as regarded the great
body of agricultural labourers, and he had letters from sea!:
ral clergymen and other gentlemen to prove this. It I
said that the labouring Classes had cheaper bread and cloth-
ing than formerly. Now, as regarded cheap clothing, al.'
though it was cheaper now than heretofore, it was yet true
e
that the clothing of former days was such that one go to
was worth two, and the same might be said with respect
male attire. The Noble Lord then said that crime, p
dver;
th
and emigration had increased greatly dna° 1846, an . at
this resulted from want of employment. The queshq.e,
issue would be between industry and idleness. They had
Ministerial party) would put a duty on corn if they rroo
the people of the country with them.—(
the Opposition.) There were two remedies propose eise,..`.
the present evils under which the industrial classes
the'
fered. The one was a return to protective duties, and _fa
other a revision of taxation, and he would infinitely I'7
the former. But if that could not be obtained, he thoughtarse-
Laughteri.
the peculiar burdens that' pressed on the agriculture
lin great difficulties—(Hear, hear)—because they were
ry
ou_pel
rests ought to be removed. Her Majesty's Governmentewel!
ie
in office, and had opposed to them a party long expee_c_7
and who had certainly not shown them mach maul ro;
They endeavoured first to force them to a premature
lution—(Hear, hear, from the Ministerial benchesv)n Pe
E a the
then endeavoured to retard the public business. ' .
ova..
Noble Lord himself had done even thing he could that
The Noble
ing to bring the Government into disrepute. eue_e the
Lord stated they had no opinions. He certainly he.
Government of this country butdaimself.—(Laughteli pro-
opinion, and that was that nobody was fit to conduct Ss
ies
(the Marquis of Granby) was convinced of the truth 0
_erg.
tectionist principles, anti had no doubt but the sou'Ze.
count*
would ultimately return to them. Tie had no further al33“`
with regard to the coming elections than that tbenev,_,l,
might be able to avert the misery which must i
result from a free-trade policy.—(Cheers from the Mines"'
side, and laughter from the Opposition.)
tion to follow the Noble Lord who has jest sat down
01,,til'eee
Viscount PALMERSTON said—Sir, it is not my !rint.sell:
--bete/ere.
trade or the blessings of protection--(Hear, hear) _ed.
comparison of the relative merits ot the miseries r
the calamities of cheap food and abundant subsistence!.
the blessings of high-priced corn and the other concomitant
of the system which the Noble Lord advocates. SIT', err,,,,,,
upon all discussion on that questien as an idle waste 0.1 Z.__
- (Hear, hear.) The principle of, protection is dead.
(Cheers, and a cry of " No.") I rely, like the Noble Lord.
on the good sense and judgment of the country, ana
or
quite sure the country will act the part of a registrar-ge___..e.,
and that at the next election day the interment of tha Tee'ee.
rablo principle will be generally and universally regesatee"...7:.,
—(Hear, hear.) Sir, I wish to address some ieve
tions to that which was the first topic of the speecele the
Noble Lord (Lord J. Russell), and from which th
Lord who has just sat down has led the House what
may, in some respects, have been a convenient ierne r_g'Zat
feelings of satisfaction the
Sir, I certainly must confess that I read with anytet In g
that,
the table relative to the affair of Mr. Mather. low
wish
for should wise.
for the sake of the character of the country-,
been buried in.
the whole of that correspondence to have . say diet-
ohlivion.—( Hear, hear.) Sir, lam concernedhoe to
1 from the be-
that feeling on my part applies to the
oepers-whiolehave been laid upoo
the wrong.---
it was not a comedy, but a tragedy.. of I
that I find much to
(Hear, hear.) I cannot help saying __
parties concerned, ex-
ginning to the end—for I must own that: it seems tome to me ate
criticise in the conduct of almost all
cept Mr. Math think the t present
hear)-el t
took a wrong view—(Hear,
and I am sorrytu.say,
Government took a wrong v.ectiargo d'Adaires at I ionence
think in some respects, the. t is the course when . a
' W 3
tcoo a wrung view. Now, mated on a British subject
has been com ht to pursue? Why,
personal outrage
Government oug
Mather and his eon. I the late ("overnient
abroad that the British
it is the first duty of the
ascertain dree of injury which the
facts of the case—to asctearined,
rand how far he was in the
ment to ascertain clearly the
how far those hy whom the
or, if not in the
msves unjustifiable aggressors-
wrong, , Elbe' Government
infliete
finds that an o a e has
utr g
injury was t e
Having done the ,
A eparation ought to ue demanded. That
been committee, r
British subject has sus
wGro:ge,rn
ist first in a demand for the punishment
may COLIS
reparation d r
next also in a demand for compensation to
of the offen t'epon these points it has always been the prace
tary of State to consult the Queen's A.dvo-
tice for
before that officer the facts of the case, to ask bins
sate, to lay
ding to his view and knowledgeofthe habits of
what, according .
courts of justice in this country, might be the fitting sum to
enand as pecuniary compensation, and in how far, accord-
ing to international law, the British Government might ber
'justified in demanding the punishment of the wrong-doer.
Government. But the first question that arjsea the suffetrbeer.Lcre
Now, this does not appear to have been done by either
an injury inflicted ? I think that no man who has 'et-`
these papers can hesitate in believing that a grievous inlnL't
was committed, that a British subject was exposed to a as
violent and cowardly outrage without any provocation
whatever. A British subject harmlessly accompanies
band of music in the streets of Florence. He is first
another
officer an officer with his sword, then by the fist of ,
officer, and then in a cowardly manner he is cut down ev!,
the sword of the first officer who struck him. Now,
what is the feeling of different countries with regard
.;,bil7y,
attack by an armed man upon one who
Englishlebutcher,e wil°'
we all know the did anecdote of then.
while employed was therts,
in the avocation of his professai,owl37
cowardly fellow you must be
said he, ' *hat a mean and
_e
his
and can't
striketo a man who has a knif in_ hand,.
such
that is the English feeling on
struck by, a man with whom he had had words.
retain the blow." Sir,
Now, what is the French
a subject.—(llear,
hear.)eknow that there was a distinguiebP"
wbo
officer in the British service,
feeling? Many
.01 u 'named Colonel Harvey',
had lost his arm in engagement. He served in tile
a 5 it
• t into battle, there happened a 'fete d
ing his regimen mutilated as he was. In the act of bring'
called, between the contending trwP6''
a French officer rode up to him, and withsabre "Antal
oat
wasPe Peninsular
itnescuhlna ri
technical) yr'
down; but when he saw 0114
going to cut him 9 _
- •
1114 024 9/1. arw PPE' 124 Tf"Pc4h, "4--r.144r:P5:-

Pa'sed him by and went to Beek for au opponent with whom
se might contend upon equal terms. That, Sir; is the
Preach feeling.—(Hear, hear.) Well, Sir, I will be told that
this case is a, proof of the Austrian feeling. I don't believe
any .such thing. I believe that the cowardly eonduet of
this lieutenant in cutting down an unoffending British sub-
ject has met with as.inuch disapproval and disavowal on the
part of his comrades in 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 ease at the time that he said the officer was fully justi-
fied, I ant convinced that a brave man like Marshal Radetzky
Would have sympathised with the feeling of Prince Sehwar-
zenbere.--,
who, when he was appealed to by Lord Westmore-
land, who said, We are both soldiers, and we never, lam
sure, could have raised our swords against an unarmed man,"
and Prince Schwarzenberg, in a responsive feeling, ex-
claimed, "No, certainly, nothing of the sort could have hap-
pened to either of us." lam convinced, I say, that if Mar-
shal Radetzky had known the true facts, of the case he would
sever have written what appeared in these papers: or what-
ever we may think of the policy pursued by the Austrian
Government, 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
Whom? Why, by an Austrian officer in Florence. Who
should be responsible? Prima facie I agree the Government
Of the country in which the outrage was committed; but re-
aPonsibility is the companion of power. Those are respon-
sible for a thing who could have prevented ir, or who could
Punish it ; but where there is no power there ought to be no
res eeusibility. Sow, sir, the state of
,thar, Austrian gar-
rison.
is this—that they are in Florence, as stated bymy
llonourable and Gallant Friend, their .continuaace there
depending on the Will of the Government of Austria, and
not upon the will of the Government of Tuscany; and
that is not now for the first time known by these dis-
patches, bat which the Government knew before I quitted
°Mee. But then, were the Austrian troops amenable,
while there, to the Tuscan authorities? It is perfectly
well known they were not. Why, Sir, in the course of last
autumn a rude insult was offered by a detachment of
Austrian troops to the members of the grand ducal
family. They were stopped in their carriage, and cern-
Pulled to get out of it when taking a drive in the neigh-
bourhood of Florence; and into that carriage out of
Which the members of the errand Duke's family were
taken. they put a drunken comrade who was so drunk that
lie was unable to return to the town. What did the Tuscan
Government do in-this case? Did they punish this drunken

tnani-TlO,tieey appealed to the commander-in-chief, and
the delinquents were punished militarily by their own
officers. Well, it being known that the Tuscan Government
have no power or authority over the Austrian troops, it
seems to me certainly that prima facie the Austrian Govern-
Meat was the quarter from which redress should have been
demanded. That redress naturally was of two kinds.
In the first place, her Majesty's Government ought to
have demanded the punishment of the officer, of whom
this at least was known, that he, an armed man, had
tut down an unarmed British subject. Well, Sir, the
Austrian Government might have made a reply. No doubt
they might have said, "There are certain regulations of the
Austrian service which made it imperative on the officer,
Mader the circumstances, to do what he did. Had he not
done so we would have punished him." That would un-
noubtedly have been an answer that would have required
fuither explanation. The English Government would have
been entitled to say—" Show us your regulations; we can-
hot take it simply on your statement." But if the regula-
tions had been shown to bear out this assertion, and the
Austrian Government could have proved that the officer had ,
no alternative but to do what he did, or be subjected to
Punishment by his own superiors, then I must admit that
any demand for the •punishment of that' officer could not
with propriety have been pressed. But then you would have
a right to say to the Austrian Government—" You may
Make what regulations you like, provided they are not applied
against a British subject ; but when your regulations are
applied against a British subject, we think them unjust and
improper, and we expect at least that you will make
an apology for this injury on a British subject by the regula-
ti,ous of your service." And I mast say, from the handsome
.manner in which this matter has been dealt with, as far as
the Austrian Government has been concerned, I think that a
great and generous Government would have made that
*ethical would have been acceptable as an apology from one
Government to another. Bur, then there I think I have a
right to criticise the conduct of the last Government, be-
cause, whereas the Noble Lord has accused the present Go-
vernment of holding one language at Florence and another
at Vienna, I must observe that, in making the communica-
tion to the Government of Austria, there were no instructions
to Lord Westmoreland with regard to any application that he
was to make to that Government. The dispatch distinctly
said, "I have no instructions to give you." No application
Was made to the Austrian Government. There, I think, an
error was committed. The other part of the redress would
have consisted in a demand for compensation to the individual
injured; and that would have been a proceeding borne out
by innumerable precedents. You may say, "It is unfitting
that an injury to an individual, or the honour of the
country, should be measured is pounds sterling;" but
nevertheless the Power giving such a compensation makes
ale admission that an atonement is due, and it is perhaps
the only atonement that an individual can obtain
Who has suffered a severe bodily injury. The last
Government, then, in the first communications sent
to Tuscany instructed Mr. Scarlett to demand " ample repa-
ration," and expressed the expectation of her Majesty's Go-
vernment that 'that reparation would be promptly given.
But they emitted to state what 'that " ample reparation"
Was to be, and in so far I think Mr. Scarlett was left in a
situation in which I think the agent of the British Govern-
went ought not to be placed, because he was left to deter-
Mine what the reparation was to be. .He was not told whe-
ther it was to be an apology, or the punishment of indivi-
duals, or a sum of money. He was left to judge what the
nature of the reparation should be; and I think that was
not a matter which ought to have been left to the dis-
ceei ion of an agent. It indeed reminded me of a conver-
sation I had not very long ago with an agriculturist in
this country, who lamenting, like the Noble Lord, the
unfortunate condition of the farmer, in reply to my ques-
tam, " What would you have done for him?" said, " Why,
givegive the farmer a fair chance." " But how ?" said I.
the farmer a fair chance. "But how?" said I.
Wh, give him a:fair chance," was the only answer I
raid elicit—the man imagining that that was a sufficiently
etelLigible description of the • precise remedy that
'gas
necessary. In the same way, an " ample repa-
retion " seems to me a - convertible term, not of
re 'definite quantity, but like the result of an alge-
enalecal problem that means " equal to nothing."—( Laugh-
-;et.) It seems to me that a demand might fairly be made
"". the first place on the Tuscan Government.' There was a
resumption that they were liable tie make this compensa-
toll• It was impossible, indeed, to exact from them the pu-
tienment of the Austrian officer, because he was completely
rYond their control, but they ought to make a compensa-
ten to Mr. Mather. The Queen's Advocate should have
ell consulted; the sum demanded ought to have been such
eue
the
he recommended; and that sum having been demanded,
;Ire Government ought to have abided by that demand...-.
rear, hear.) Now I come to the present Government, and
Must say that their course is still more open to criticism
than that of the late Government, because they did what was
Lerrunusual—namely, call on a sufferer to assess his own
damages.—(Hear, hear.) Well, he could not judge of what
the
fitting compensation for himself; that must depend on
judgment of impartial persons, and the law adviser bf the
rwee eves the proper person to give that advice.—(llear,
"ear.) I must say that the Noble Lord the Member for the
City of London was well borne out in his remarks on the
curse pursued in forcing Mr. Mather' to name the sum
!;ainst his own inclination and protest, and then showing
nine up to the Tuscan Government as one who made an ex-
hrbitant demand. If that demand was considered exorbitant
I cannot for the life of me understand why it was communi-
cated to the Tuscan Government.—(Hear, hear.) Now if it
had been a subject of dispute between two foreign states of
equal weight, we might, if we had been mediators, have
been bound to convey to one the proposal of the other. If
France and Austria had been the parties, and France had
asked for this 5,000/., and we had been unable to effect a
dineinutioa 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." Bat in the present case,• I cannot understand why
ear. Mather was not told that the sum named by him was
exorbitant, and ought to be reduced by himself.—(Hear,
hear,. and cheers.) I think, therefore, that the course
adopted by the present Government is operi to that objection.
'Sad I am sorry to say that I cannot approve of the manner
is which Mr. Scarlett executed his instructions, because he
evidently went below the minimum amount which he was
told to require. He was told, " The least you are to accept
Ys 5004 and if you cannot get that perhaps you must have
Nurse to arbitration." Well, that was an intelligible in-
aetruction, but he accepts less than half the sum, and then
tikes in part the release of the two Messrs, Stratfords.—
(,ttear, hear.)• 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 accusedl of that whichl was in
etts.e Itan offence, that is to say, they had in their House a
nvate printing press contrary to the law of Tuscany, and
was shown that they printed things of a tendency un-
eavourable4te the Government. But they were tried by an
Austrian court-martial at Leghorn, a protest being raised
by me when I• was a member of the Government against the
ropetency of the court. We-find by a fundamental law of
tecany that even the Tuscan Government cannot establish
Martial 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
*alidity of the sentence. To throw the Messrs. Stratfords
tOto the bargain in the present case was, therefore, no great
sletisfaction to Mr. Mather —(Laughter) -.and I think it
Was not, diplomatically speaking, a fair arrangement, inas-
betide as we should have had them without loss to Mr,
kather.—( Hear, hear, and laughter.) Then I shOuld say
thet Mr. Scarlett acted hastily and . unwisely in thid
?hatter, and I also very humbly think that her Ma-
Jester's Government acted very hastily in sanctioning. that ar-
rangement. They seem to have been under the impression
th 'at whatever a British agent abroad agreed to, whether in
conformity with or against his instructions, must necessarily
' adopted by his Goverunient.—(Hear, hear.) Now, that is
;It according to international- principles. If you can show
eat the acts of an agent are contrary to his instructions, you
'Vt disavow him, an refuse to sanction his proceedings.-
din gs.
(hear, hear.) Therefore the Government would have been
Perfectly justified in refusing to agree to the arrangement
Made by Mr. Scarlett. Hear, hear.) I confess that I think
ie
either
pecuniary compensation was to have been demanded,
‘"er from Tascanv or from Austria, that in a case of that
sort a suns in e
of 500/. was alts inadequate, either
ro for the sufferings of the individual, or as an atonement
snare
one country to the Government of another.—(Hear,
e eat. and loud cheers.) But then, Sir, I think that the Go-
vernment, having adopted that arrangement, and having
consented to take 500/. and the two Stratforda in exchange
it"( Laughter— examination they acted with great haste, and on
elimperfect of documents. when they disavowed
••r, • Scarlett in the last dispatch on the ground that he had
,ilsandoned the principle of the responsibility of Tuscany,
r came Mr. Scarlett did no such thing.—( Hear.) What-
net mistake Mr. Scarlett may have made in his anxiety to
•Vme to an arrangement, he did not abandon the principle ;
waived the discussion of the principle, but he by no means
abandoned it, and he even distinctly re-affirmed it. If the
Noble Lord the Under-Secretary of State will look at Mr.
.Larlett's note to the Duke of Castigliano of the 18th' of
"44; arch, he will see that it contains word for word the asser-
'dm on the part of the British Government that Tuscany is
Scarlett for what happened to Mr. Mather. When Mr.
marlett and the Duke of Castigliano came to a final arrange..
RI: meat, it was agreed that the latter thould offer 220/. and the
"Stratford and and that the discussion on the principle of respon-
sibility should be waived: •The Duke of Castigliano does not
adhere to the bargain. He adheres in regard to the money,
T butA he perseveringly reiterates in his note the principle that
d~allicanY was not responsible. In Mr. Scarlett's reply,
dated the 18th April, he says—" I accept your arrange-
ment ; but as you have thought it right to reeaffirm your
Principle of the non-reonsibility of Tuscany, I think it
right to refer you to my note of the 18th of March, in
'which the principle of theßritish Government is laid down
that you are responsible, end Y. tell you that the British Go-
vernment maintains that principle in all integrity. I am,
therefore, at a loan
to understand how the Government
thought that Mr, B°Arlett abandoned that PriliciPle, and I

T 11 .E

i think he was riot to be blamed for that part of his arrange- i
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 tak3 the
money in our sense, and, whatever you may say to the
contrary, if . a similar case should occur again, we will
compel you .to give compensation.— ( Hear, hear.)
We do not care a pin for your assertion, that you are
not responsible: we tell you that you are, and that we will
make you responsible."—(Hear, hear, and loud cheers.) The
present state of things is not one which need lead to any
serious interruption of the friendly relations between this 1
country and Tuscany—relations which the Tuscan Govern-
ment, evidently think-we attach infinitely more importance
to than I think .is attached to them by any one in this
country.(Qh. and laughter.) Of course, we should be
sorry to 'break off friendly relations with Tuscany or any
other Government, but somehow I think we should survive
such an event.—(Laaghter.) 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 the
principle of the independence of that country, but I do not
think that you maintain its independence by compelling it
to pay ,for something which has been done by: another
countrv.—(Hear.) It is something like making Tuscany
the whipping-boy of Austria.—(Hear, and laughter.) I think
that a better practical lesson might have been read by applying
in the- present instance, to Austria.--(Hear.)
The practical
lesson read to Tuscany is this—and it is one that is applic-
able to all small states - "You say you have practically sur-
rendered your independence, and have admitted a foreign
garrison, over whom you have no , control; well, we will
make you pay for the conduce of that garrison." There is a
moral in that, -but I am not sure whether on European
grounds the lesson would not have been better read to other
powers-(Hear, hear)—by
sayiog to them, "If you take
advantage of your superior force to occupy with a garri-
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 you."—( dear, hear, and
loud cheers.) Both lessons might be good, but I am not
sure that the- latter would not be in a European sense the
better of the two.--( Hear, hear.) I am very much in-
terested in the independence of Tuscany, and I must say
that these papers call the serious attention of the House
and the country to the unfortunate position of a
large portion of the Italian states.—(Hear, hear.)
The Italians are ,a people endowed with very great 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 capa-
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-
mant prevails. The Government of Austria desire that the
people of Italy should draw a comparison favourable to
themselves between that part of Italy which they govern
and that part which other Governments rule over; but, like
the gentleman from the sister island, who complained to his
bootmaker that whereas he had ordered him to make one
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, "The
Lombard and Venetian states are better governed than we
are," only lead them to say that there are other states worse
governid.—(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 prevaits 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 perpetually 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 Rome
until Austria bad abandoned Tuscany, and in like manner
the Austrians would not quit Tuscany until the French had
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
used, but the month of May has now gone by.—( Hear, hear.)
I do entreat her Mejeety'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 por-
tions of the people of Europe, but it is one which concerns
great international principles. I should hope that her
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 and 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 these 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 which
I am sure mist engage. the sympathy of every man in this
country; and lam 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 am 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. On these subjects the Noble Lord
is &every high authority; 'and I am sure that the temper
and tone with which he treated the question to-night will
lend additional influence to the opinion he has expressed.—
(Hear, hear.) The Neble Lord, we have been informed by
the Noble Lord (J. Rust-ell), the Member for the City of Lon-
don, is a very high authority, because he understands the
business of the departm6nt 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 Foreigni Secretary whose conduct we
have now to defend, we cannot forget the remarkable circum-
stances under which the twONobleLordsseparated.—(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 (Mr. Osborne),
who spoke in his usual airy tone—(Laughter)—told us, " It
is very easy to settle these things. Look at the case of Mr.
Russell, our consul at New Grenada. The people of New -
Grenada callected 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 dinibt when a consul,
who, in South America, may be looked upon as a quasi-
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 thanthe 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 Malmesbury very properly said, it was an accidental
one. And I was quite surprised at the elaborate manner
in 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, ought not to
have gone to Tuscany, but to Austria for redress. I shall
not defend the conduct of the Government by reference to
that of 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 din 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 in
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 mediatised Power. But that is
hot part of the policy which her Majesty's Ministers wish
to maintain with reference 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 ioreieen 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 circumstances 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 eonaiderably 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 Tuscany and
Auitria which we have never recognised nor 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 not sanction ,• and I ane sure it would not be
theNeoble Lo ifenrdy rate he ware in aor
Bs
iablf:
pi sanctioned
obny .
.....(Liar.) At eitdoesnmotse espeermtohn-
st
the late Government acted on that principle;and Ithink
they were Wise in the course they took
idle at Vienna. Though we did, not But we were not
Austria to make reparation, we
exercised officiallytils call upon
possessed at that Court in a manner which wast influencewe
calculated
t to
facilitate and accomplish a friendly and satifa
But I acknowledge I have heard nothing froni satisfactory result.l
Lord, for a moment to induce me to believe that it was obhee
duty of a British Minister, under the circumstances—otut-
rage being committed' on a British subject in Tuscany—to
have sought satisfaction from Austria.—(Rear, hear.) The
next considerable point in this case is, that referring to what
has been called the only means in which the Secretary of
State endeavoured to obtain reparation for this injury. I say
nothing of
Mr. Mather further than that he was a respec-
table Englishman placed' circumstances under of great dif&
swhich,
from his previous habits of
catty/ circurastanc l
x erience of. He appears to have
had had litt e e p
life,
he
conducted himself with discretion and good sense; and
ticiseb
his conduct or language wou
any attempt to ert
th in taste and good feeling.ld,
--
I think, be wanting o
told that the Secretary of
State (Hear,
hear.) But
has sent for Mr. blather,'
when I am
and proposed a pecuniary
indemnity to 'settle the affair, am bound, in justice to my tbat is a '
colleague and the Government, to say
thaty
an state-
mentmpres-
which gives to the House and co
sion whichvery ac is not curate,—( Hear, untr
he ar.) i
Th ere
is no appearance in the paper. we * have placed on the
table of such an incident. ' There is a statement by Mr.
Mather, which I d
wish
but I beg
not to criticise;
o
the House to vi • f the world and
ew the case as men o
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 perfectthe art of the
• Minister, and on the part of preoiet on p
t h gentleman who was cone-
vi:,ening aeaiest the conduct of af, • I have
ret,,n power.
here the minute made by Lord. Maltuesb°after the inter-
view with Mr. Mather. I shall u ary
not read that minute, be-
cause its cateut4 might introduce into this debate ill
I
-

SUN,

feeling, which I do not wish to encourage, or might hurt
the feelings of individuals not present; but I say most dis-
tinctly tat, on that occasion, Lord Malmesbury did nothing
anal said nothing but what any of his predecessors
might, and probably would, have said; and without the
slightest reflection' on Mr.' leather, I must say that the ques-
tion 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 statementsevhich I have seen. Two
Points were then discussed—the reparation due to the coun-
try for injury done to a subject of her Majesty, and the re-
paration 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 toyour injured son."—(flear, 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 mod© recognised in this country by which a reparation
can be made. Why, gentlemen, in this cou,ntry, on subjects
in which their most delicate honour is concerned, appear
before courts, and accept pecuniary damages.—( Hear, hear,
and laughter.). Does ahybsdy 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 pose;
tion of Mr, Mather, who has - antlered as he has suffered at
Florence, should accept as an avowed acknowledgment for a
wrong inflicted by a Government of a fine from that Governe
ment, is a proposition which I think few on reflection would
attempt to substantiate, and which I am sure the common'
sense of thisecountry 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
bo obtained from that power. I maintain that the
conduct of the Government . was perfectly proper. Then
I am told by the Hon. Member (Mr. Osborne) that Lord
Malmesbury showed • great infirmity _of purpose. I see no
infirmity of purpose; ,tor I find in his dispatches he is con-
sistent in trying to obtain the same end ; and •in his very
first letter to. Sir Henry Bulwer, of the 26th of April,' he
cleeires 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 500/., 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 Government. 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. It was because the great object was
not attained—that object being, in our mind, not merely
this particular enetance, but having reference to circum-
stances that may exercise a great 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 (Palmerston), " what
could possibly have induced the English Minister to let the
Tuscan Government know that Mr. Mather had fixed upon
5,000/., 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, an
ample compensation for the sufferer, not with reference to
the vindication of the national honour, but as a compensa-
tion to Mr. Mather for the gross insult, and by way of ac-
knoeledgment 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.,
hatbspo
hubfrla
seecal
tephtethaoacwarahl sum,etolaeadhsdn,at
tg amtoohieuneo
tro.uwsof
inauohettkmo,rti cerpthutwhlhe
otaetioechoyuuenelydiesoiookn;bintsh:hee
although the Government was 'not prepared to sanction
oapunrl
edpbaree
d,Government,quitean
ai . n iw pc
hearingrr aecmti
ocar
e-
ewenwemT itur
eswe
,uasilytt.
iilm:TaanhttheedalNyt
lodrboaeildmenL;aorfkrodr
ntliseetidgea I Itet state ofa4gteii yvel
net
as-
sure the Noble Lord that he only does 'justice to the feelings
of Government when he 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 Government were
responsible for this. The alto 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
.in-
onions his policy; but the state of Italy has not been im-
proved hitherto either by the councils or the conduct of the
Noble Lord. —( Hear, 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
Italy is rather aggravated than not, her Majesty'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.—(Load 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 of a Government which
in my opinion is greatly responsible for 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 oar fellow-subjects, when he is injured, and when he
is one of such tender years, and who appears to have be.
hayed with such good feeling throughout the whole trans-
action.—(Cheers.) But it, is not a question on which even
with an impending dessolution, you can impeach a Go:vern.- '
ment.=(Cheers.) No one knows that better than the Noble
Lope 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 unnoticed; 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 the,
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- 1
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, heeo I wish the Noble e
Lord, who has read many extracts from dispatches (though
with the context they convey to me a very different hue
pression from that which he sought to convey)—but I wish
he had done me the honour to quote
from my address any
passaged:let would have supported that stateinent.--( Hear,
hear.) I have stated, and lam 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-
tiable.—(Loud cheers.) If lat 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 if 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, fbr 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
has donte(and of which I was not conscious that Bead), 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
if 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
measurewhich it had been thought necessary to pass; and
when I mentioned that measure of Chancery reform in the
catalogue et 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 em-
barked In a Chancery suite=—(Laughter.) Well, there is a
prospect of-that Bill being carried; but I do not claim any
great
credit for it, except that when a chance was offered us
do this great good to the country we did it, in spite of
the Noble Lord the M
n Well then," says Member for Tiverton.—(Load cheers.)
of great important®. thelleeible Lord, "there is another subject
respect to the agricultural your equivocal conduct with
interests--besides the false
plumage with Which yiolavuhave arrayed yourself, besides
your false reform, you
thing, you have acted in ae troubled and disturbed every.-
in tampering with the most unconstitutional manner
great question of education."—
(Hear, hear.) Now, what have
horror from the repetition of such manoeuvres ; but the
, Noble Lord has had recourse to the same unjustifiable course.
this indignation on the part of thee
those mournful questions which, with aim
have been addressed to us by the - Honeoeu
for Chichester?—(Laughter.) I am here
conduct of the Government. The Noble Lord s
party—nay, wi‘eTotine to arouse all
Noble Lord, and all
a blroken heart
rtao LiMember,
for a higher object—for hustings purpose, o
defend the
that for
have been tampering with the established system ofr) educa-
tion.—(Hear, we
tion.—(Hear, hear.) Yes, you shall hear.—(Cheers ancad-
laughter.) The Noble Lord cannot hear of education and
religion being used 'for party purposes. Does he remember
the appropriation clause ?e-(Cheers.)' He shrieks with
It emu that there boire 'been certgon ;augment clituoco

TUESDAY

issued by the Coininittee of Privy Council on Education,
and laid on the table tonight; and I think that the Noble
Lied had better have read them before he delivered his
speech this evening ;-• (Hear.) But it is not true that we
have altered 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 'Ohose
who woutd-not -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. muse disipproves, it will take means
to express its feeling; but confident I am, .o
not
England, t
only that every person who . is interested in the Church
but that everybody who is sensible of the valueof
justice in public affairs, will approve of them.-(Cheers.)
We are charged with having taken the vote, and then having
introduced a new system. Rut what are the facts? The first
management clauses, A, B, C, and D, were dated on the2Bth
of June, 1847; and the vote 000,000/0 was taken on the
26th of Aptil.-_-(Lond cheers.) The clauses themselves did
not appear until they appeared in A blue book, six months
afterwards.-(Cheers.) In 1849 there were some important
alterations made in these clauses. They
were signed on the
26th of May. It is true that the vote .(125,000/.), was not
pasbed till June 4, but the clausee were never laid on the table
till they appeared in a 'blue book in the month of the next
January. In fact, with tne 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 Loid must not expect to shrink under
the gaberdine of Lord Lansdowne. Within the last
eighteen months there had been important alterations re-
lating to Roman • Catholicise Presbyterians, 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. I trust that such conduct
will never he that of any Government from whatever side it
may be recruited.-(boud 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 system- 'which -they looked upon with
dislike-I should have conceived that there was spirit
enough in the House, even at this period: of the session, to
have expressed their reprebatimo
uch conduct.-(Loud of
cheers.) The Noble Lord may be, assured that we shall go
to the country, with no undue.confidereete, I trust, but at least
in such a manner as will allow ads to meet the people without
shame; and whatever the Noble Lord may say of the change
of our opinions, I .shall be prepared to vindicate them
before my constituents, in -a manner that I trust will entitle
-s
me to maintainstbeir 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. I, look now, and e hall aver look, oilthe changes
which took place in 1846, both as regards the repeal of the
corn-laws and the change in the sugar duties-'I shall
always look Upon those measures as totally unauthorised.-
(Cheers.) I opposed them, as most of my friends around
me opposed thane, 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
far greater than we anticipated. I deny
that after these
lasw4
laws were passed I, or those with whom I have acted, have
wished to recur to the same laws which regulated those
industries.-(Cheers.) I cannot recall a speech-
I defy
anybody to quote any speech that I ever made, or any
sentence that I ever uttered, in Which I recom-
mended such a course •as desirable or possible. What is
a policy. Is a
your charge against Lord Derby?
mended a fixed duty, and .that now he has intimated that
e hncoet
tsaoptphoer t You say he recom-
mended
of combefore 1846 ? Why, if in-
cWilhiCh regulate.' the
or Lord Derby
had declared that he counselled a recurrence to those laws,
finedbe c oduunttyr ye
roc u r will
r
do not you think you. would he ever ready to refer to his
speeches, and that night after night you would din your
quotations in our ears? I defy you to produce a single sen-
tence of the kind., When we come to this question of a fixd
duty, on which you have talked so much, i say I will not
pin my career, my political career, on what is not a prin-
ciple bat a measure. 1 should be very glad as a financier if
there was a moderate fixed duty on corn. I admit that,
and I see plenty pf great authorities opposite me who have
often and often advocated it. But if t
- find by circum-
stances which I do not wish now particularly to describe-
(lronical cheers)-by acts Which I 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 tar, whether
rightly or wrongly, I cannot see that I e 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-oleo
whose political opinions entirely agree with -
Yours, distin-
guished writers, members of the political economy club-
not merely the writings of Mr. M'Calloch, and whom once
you always quoted, though now you shrink from his
authority- but to the writings of Colonel Torrens, to the
e
pages of .Mr. Mill, I might appeal to scientific e
Pges, and you
would find it difficult to quote others against me. But in
governing mankind* we must_ 10Qk to something beyond
mere scientific propriety; and if a measure, though it may
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. BO what is this mea-
sure which you seem always wishing us to propose?
which you with such anxious wishes seem so zealous tnat
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 yon can remoye 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 pre-
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 uptin this House a variety of
'means, all of the same charatter, by which this result might
be obtained without having recourse to this unpopular
method, which you 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 obstacles; 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-
decor
an unjust And artificial • price for his Prod"- •
um _These are the views Which we supported in
oppositien--these are the 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
prevails. I believe the country will suport these views-I
believe that that temperate Policy
will be ratified by the
country. The Noble Lord
the Member for the city of
'London talks of our being a
party without a principle. Well,
he seems to be in opposition without a cry--(cheers.) He
'confesses that nothing is beat without
0. inion, no movement, noole-
agitation whatever is left. , p.
-e Noble Lord, with the ima-
gination of a poet-far he is still a oet, at his last gasp, to 4
my great surprise, discovered a resource-something we must
~
'rally round; we must rally round the apothegm of that pro-
found gentleman the Member for Rs n; That Right lion.
'Gentleman has emblazoned on his standard the inscription,
"No confidence in the Derby ministry ."- (Cheers.) Why,
a year ago, upon that same standard
was emblazoned "Do
not trust the Noble Lord the
Member for the City."-
(Cheers.) Sir, we shall survive that want of confidence, and
e
if the only way in which the Noble Lord ord thinks,
he can mike
the present Government • unpopular if the only mode by
which he thinks heean upset the present Administration is by
showing to the country that it
does not possess the con-
fidence of the Right Hon. Barollet the Member for Ripon,
why, then, Sir, I must express re
°4Y hearty
honour of
that at
this time next year we shall still Mare the - of serving
her MiOsty.-(Loud cheers.) ,
Lord D. STUART said he wished to recall the attention
of the House to the case of at,
Mather. He was sure, if '
Hon. Members would read :the dispatches,
that if had been Lord Malreeshu,, they
to pay court to
Tuscany and to Austria at the expense•T' desire
of AL.:,
country, and to do all he could
of the dignity this
to i e the character of
Mr. Mather, he could not havenjur
Right d
actually done. The Hon, done better than he ha
Gentleman the Chancellor
of the Exchequer described what
had
d in Tuscany
as "an unhappy squabble." Did' occurre
become
a British Minister? All that Mr. Mather
hraseology
demanded from
the British Government was redress, and there was nothing
in his condabt to ' criticise unless it were his yielding so •
readily to the wishes of Ler,
ss-ne Malesburoa-(0h, oh.)
What chance was there otsuccess; , - _
h Foreign Secre • •
d taken such an extraord• " tary ha . Wen t e re
the T can I,euatY, course? The effect
• was to determine
I tie
- oieivernment 'not to make •
adequate reparation. t was all' v 11 for the Right
Honourable Gentleman to talk of eery we
the he 1
deuce of foreign states.
Tlie Rioeorespecting iu e
"‘ Honourable Gentleman
did not take. that view some Years ao; g when he de-
fended the assault on racow. es
- they reapected the inde-
dence of Tuscany, let them
also in ' t f reign respect
pen
subjects. If the hone
Ins on o
for British
of England was not to
in this matter, the -tir
be vindicated
it car of
had arrived at a
position than
more disgraceful
14'1 ever before occupied,
b 's
As to Lord Malmes
a'dispatchprobably u' speaking of them as a
whole, he must s-y, that
er such
an extraordinary set
of state Opers were nev
before Presented to Parliament.
Nor was this the only outrage eomr,„
-"lted on British telbjects
Tuscany. The ;dispatches conanie
in
statement
'that British subjects were subject y
uced by a
re eutra4° in
Tuscany than in any other country. ~ wt,pe more
Noble Lord
the Member for Tiverton was at the u
ri the
f the Foreign-
office the honour °film country was sadinai_a_O
British
subjects were protected-e(Oh I and u
and
bieteeinedbatnow,
in
Tuscany, in Rome, in Austria, and. in 'La
,countries, were liable to oth)econtinental
r C
• Englishmen insw.
while our Foreign-ofeee
It, and there was no
'hope of redress
and
__.. . _ ,
-' was constituted as
it now was.--iv' e.,,
(Ohl .l-'' 6 '
to
° The motion was then agreed , aria
...
up, the report of the
'Committee of Supply was brought
the- '
Colonel SIBTHORP opposed vote for •
of clerks and other ;attendingexpenses
al yment
the N Ex-
hibition.
there
The House then divided, when appeared
:......
- Fore the vote... a .s ................ . .
- 116
. .' Against it ............................ . .. ' 23
- -Majority for the vo e ..: . . ...... . 93...
• The House then went into •Cornmitse e
Consolidated` e. °' Ways and
Means, and; the Surplus of
Fund and. Transfer
of Aids were voted. -
- were postponed
Several orders of the day
'• ' -
NEW ZEALAND BILL. .
read On the motion that this Bill be
a third • time
'on Thursday, -
Mr. A.GLIONBY said the effect of that would be, that
without discussion would be passed
the New
one stage s--and there
of ew Z
was the subject of the position
_ealande Y
ompan
brought forward.
which would be .
Sir J. PAKINGION
was
sto be understood to MY that there
were some few verbal alterations
aSSI made in the- Bill,
and that there would be an opportunity for disc •
from Mr. J. A. SMITH, On.
After a few words
gale notice that- on the
Mr. AVIDERLEY
tonetuen third reading
p .
t of all the
he would move the pc):
Company, clauses' having
and
New 'Zealand
reference to thetheir reference
Committee, sho gentlemen re
to a Select should the
presenting '
in the House persist
in inserting clauses gg
he Canterbury settlement. • Aster ruin b
them control over t
err• GlOdstone as to the propriety OfannoSs .
servation from --• . the third reading e fixed.--t° 1
. . certain clauses, was for
polling
'Thursday next.
NISI P
R/US • OFFICES BILL
- .
hrough
This Bill went t Committee pro forma.
APPOINTMENT OF OVERSEERS BILL.
This Bill also went through Committee.
ESTATES (IRELAND) BILL.
ENCUMBERED ENCU - ES
is Bill be read a seemed time
' On the motion that this
the postponement P '
Mr. BUTT suggested __. 0, the stage,
which was agreed to.
Nees (
mIRELAND) BILL
SAVINGS •B. &h
CO REPEAL
This Bill passed throug
s REPEAL BILL.
DISABILITIE
Mr. ROUT PALMER moved the third reading of
1 this Bill. -
Mr. MULLINGS opposed the Stags on the ground of the
I litteizeo of the kW: •