The Sun.
London, England, 1852-06-22 00:00:00

HOUSE OF LORDS, June 21.
Tice LORD CHANCELLOR took his seat on the Wool-
sack at Five o'clock.
Earl FORTESCUE presented a petition praying the
Goverpment to adopt steps to secure the possession of
the immense deposits of guar recently discovered in
the islands of Lobos, and ger er elly to facilitate the itn-
,
portation of that article into this country.
The Earl of MAL lIESBURY said that her Majesty's
cruisers had received instructions to obtain all the lame
mation in their power relative to these deposits of guano,
and as far as lay in their power to secure British in-
terests. Her Majesty's Government had great hopes of
being able in some degree to break np the monopoly
which was at present kept up by the Peruvian Govern.-
meat in respect of this article.
Lord BROITGLIAM presented a petition complaining
of certain previsions introduced into the County Courts
Bill, enabhog articled clerks to practise in those courts.
Lord BROUGHAM presented a petition from 130
members; of the inner and outer bar against the clause
in the County Courts Bill preventing barristers receiving
instructions from any but solicitors. He hoped their
Lordships would agree to an amendment to remove the,
grievance of which the petitioners complained.
Lord CAMPBELL considered that if the Noble
Lord's suggestion were carried out it would be pro-
ductive of great mischief, and lower the character of
the bar..
After a few words from Lord BIIOUGTIAM and Lord
LYNDHURST the conversation dropped.
MARRIAGE WITH DECEASED WIFE'S SISTER.
The following petitions were presented on this sub-.
ject: —By the Earl of Essex (19 petitions, signed by
6,892 persons), from Barnsley, Wolverhampton, North-
tillerton, Colchester, Newport, and other plucee; the
Marquis of Lansdowne, from Bristol, Kingswood, Little-
ton-on-Severn, and other places, signed by 1,007 per-
sons; Lord Stanley of Alderley, from 'Liverpool, Chester,
Coegleton, Macclesfield, and Stockport, containing
5,904 signatures; the Earl of Beasborough, from Devon-
port, Exeter, Brixhnm, Chudleigh, Tavistock, and other
Parts of Devonshire, signed by 3,950 persons; Lord Gage,
from Bath, Southampton, Salisbury, Gosport, Peters-
field, and other. places, signed by 4,646 persons; the
Earl of Minto, from York, Leeds. Billericay, and various
other towns in Yorkshire aed Essex, containing 5,002
signatures; Lord Woclehouse, from Norwich, Bury St.
Edmunds, and Ipswich, with 3,860 signatures; the Earl
of Chesterfield, from Canterbury, Ashford, Romney,
Deal, Dover, Margate, Ramsgate, Woolwich, and other
places in Kent.
Earl ST. GERMANS said he was instructed by a
very large, intelligent, and respectable body of persons
to present a petition, praying their Lordships to concur
with the other House in amending the law so far es it
related to marriago with a deceased wife's sister. The
cetitioii was signed by 98,000 persons, among whom
were c'ergymen of the Established Church, ministers of
different denominations, merchants, bankers, lawyers,
and medical men, and as many as 16,000 or 17,000 mar-
ried women. Ali these individuals were com-
petent to form an opinion upon that important subject,
and the fact of their signing such a petiti m ought. to
have great weight with their Lordships. England was
nearly the only country in which these marriages, were
bold to be not binding, and none of the evils which it
was anticipated would recult from an alteration of the
law here were found. to exist in those countries where
marriage with a deceased wife's sister was allowed.
lf, then, the law and practiceof all other European States—
and, he might add, of the United States as well were con-
trary to the law and practice of this country, he thought it
behoved them to well examine the ground upon which that
law rested. The people of England were a moral and reli-
gious people, and if their Lordships satisfied them that these
marriages were contrary to Scripture, he was sure they
would cease to press for their legislation ; but even the bench
of bishops were not agreed on the point, and that left them
open to grave doubts as to the scriptaral character of the
law. The Noble Lord then described at some length the
state of the law on this subject. Previous to Lord Lynd-
hurst's Act these marriages were voidable, but not void at
any time after the marriage; but by that Act a limit was
fixed, by requiring proceedings to set aside the marriage; to
be instituted in the lifetime of both parties, so .that on the
death of either the husband or the wife the children could
no longer be bastardised. That was the present state of the
law. The opinion of Lord Denman was, that there was
nothing in Scripture against these marriages. Many of these'
marriages were contracted under the belief that they are
legal. In fact, they had either done too much or too little.
If they were contrary to Scripture, the punishment should
not fall upon the issue, but they ought to make it penal for
parties to contract them. The- restrictions against these
marriages he considered unjust, and he thought the peti-
tioners had a tight to ask for relief. He should next session
bring forward a Bill upon the subject, which he hoped would
meet their Lordships' approval. He should now move
that
the petition be laid on the table.
Lord LYNDHURST Said, as considerable misapprehen-
sion prevailed with regard to the Bill which he bad intros
duced with regard to this subject,
he thought it right to
offer some explanation Upon the matter. That Bill made
no alteration with regard to marriages within the prohibited
degrees. Whatever the restrictions ware before that Act
was passed, they were the same now. The Bill was not
introduced for the purpose of making any alteration of that,
kind. Cases of hardship
came before him where the
offspring of such marriages, who considered themselves
legitimate and entitled to inherit prcperty of parties, insti-
tuted proceedings against them in the ecclesiastical courts,
might be made bastards. What the Bill did was to make
such marriages which were not voided within two or three
years valid. Their LOrdships were in favour of that pro-
vision, but the bench of bishops, for whom he had the most
profound respect, opposed it
; and it was argued that to make
marriages voidable would lead to all the inconveniences it
was intended to obviate, and it was decided that such mar-
riages should be made invalid. What would be done with
marriages of this kind contracted abroad? At Hambnrgh,
there was a clergyman who, for a small sum of money, cele-
brated these marriages in the same manner as a celebrated
personage formerly did at Gretna Green. Whether these
marriages were lawful or not, he would not say, as he might
have to give a judicial opinion upon the question.
Lord CAMPBELL said, there was great misapprehension
upon this subject, that these marriages were lawful. This
induced parties to contract them, and then the number of
these marriages was brought as an argument for their being
allowed. In fact, these marriages were, before the liaising
of Lord Lyndhurst's Act, and are now, illegal. These mar-
riages stood upon the same footing as marriages contracted
within the ' prohibited degrees of consanguinity. With re-
gard to the fact referred to of parties going to foreign coun-
tries to contract these marriages, he should caution all men
against doing so. He had hoped that, after the overwhelm-
ing majority with which the former Bill was passed, the
agitation would cease, but it still went on. Allusion had been
Made to the practice in foreign PrOtestant countries, which
allowed these marritiges, but the marriage between an uncle
and his niece was also allowed. He would ask them, would
they follow that-example? They should act for themselves,
and do what was right. -
The Bishop of ST. ASAPH agreed with the Noble and
Learned Lord, that they ought upon this subject, rather than
imitate the conduct of tbreign countries, be an example to
others. The
was settled. Would any Englishman petition to marry the
question with regard to the Bible on this point
widow of his brother? These marriages were always vbid,
but could only be tried in the ecclesiastical crnes; but in
them there could be no punishment but for their souls' sake.
What he meant was, that it would be for the good of society
that punishment was given. Ile was quite satisfied that
this country would be found opposed to them.
these marriages were repudiated, and that all the woman of
The Bishopatement made by the Noble Earl that a great
of SALISBURY expressecrhis great astonish-
ment at the statement
majority of the bench of bishops were of opinion that there
was no foundation ,in Scripture for the prohibition of these
marriages.
It would not become him to say what was the
opinion of the majority of his Right Rev. Brethren—he
Would leave that to the Noble Earl—but this he would say,
that he never heard any statement with so much asto-
nishment. lie knew that the Most Rev. Prelate the Arch-
bishop of Canterburyfounded his opposition to the, measure
for allowing these marriages on the ground of Scripture,
and the position taken by his Right Rev. Brother the Bishop
of Exeter in his able argument was also mainly- founded
upon Scripture. Only one Right Rev. Prelate, did express
a doubtful or perhaps a positive opinion that' the ground of
f3cripture could not be maintained. ' He was therefore
surprised at the statement of the Noble Earl, but he was
still more astonished at the statement that a majority of
the parcchial clergy were in favour of 'an alteration of the
present law.
Earl ST. GERMANS—The parochial' clergy of large
towns.

of that kind. He hoped, therefore, their Lordships would
agree to the amendment by which the county courts would
he placed on the same footing as other courts in this re-
spect. The amendment had received the recommendatien
of the law officers of the Crown in the other House, both past
and present. He thought also that it would be desirable
to prevent attornies from acting as advocates.
The LORD- CHANCELLOR said the subject was one of
great importance; indeed it could scarcely be overrated.
If he had been a Member of their Lordships' House when
this question had been discussed he never would have agreed
to the introduction of those words by which barristers were
prevented from practising in the courts without the inter-
vention .of an attorney. He never would have agreed to
words which must lead to consequences injurious to the pro-
feesion of barristers. But whether they stigmatised the
members of the bar by g that they should not do what
sawing
was disreputable or opposed to the general feeling of the
profession was another.uestion. The bar was not amenable
to the Judges, but the members of it were amenable to their
own. societies, and if they misconducted themselves by act-
ing as attornies it would be animadverted on by the society,
and if persevered in the party would be disbarred. Besides,
if a man belonged to
a profession,
society he mixed with, made him obedient to the rubs of
and
the professiou, I.
a would be considered an outcast from
that profession if he persevered in the course which this pro-
vision struck at. Ile .would never have agreed to a law
which cast a stigine on the profession of the bar; but the
law having been. n
4SSed, he would not have proposed the
repeal of this clause, fearing that by so doing he might be
thought to give his
[sanction to a measure which he repu-
dieted. But this clause having been rejected by the House
of Commons, and the Bill
coming
down with the recom-
mendation of the law offieere of the Crown, he was unwilling
,
to reject this amendment, the consequence of which
would be that the bar would be in the same position in the
hear.) If the bar was brought county courts that it
stood in all other courts.—(Hear,
duct of its members, 114 one would be more ready than he
should be to atrike at that conduct, , and to restore the pro-
feesioa to that thought -which it ought to have in public esti-
mation. He thought neat in the county courts each grade
of the profession should ht into disrepute by the con-
its own rank. The at-
torney should never seek to invade the profession of the
grade himselt—he used the
barrister, and the barrister Should never be allowed to de-
of grades—by practising as
ATI attorney.--( Hear, hear.) It
each maintained his own Position, without interfering with
that of the other, tIiCY 1
w..d find it the. est for maintaining
their particular dignity and en interest.— (Hear' Lord LYNDHURST super Words because be was speaking
ted the amendment, and said
the only, means of defence which the barristers had consisted
in their power of overstepping the usual etiquette in cases
where it was necessary.
Lord CAMPBELL said is,
should withdraw his opposi-
tion to the amendment. te,_
encroaching on
each other, in the county ce,';','sal st
Ls or any other courts. He
the two branches of the
hoped that, i h i i
ader tee op.n.Ons that bed been expressed, any
p5er,,,,5,,,1n10y ofbrjoemct was to prevent
statutory prohibition would ec,
unnecessary. It was oleo.
ohat -where there were two representatives of the parties, one
ght to be' an attorney and th
--a other a barrister; and he
should approve of an amendment restricting one attorney
from employing another as advocate.
amen
Lordm end CRANWORTH said he should not oppose the
t.

The several amendments were
blthen a THE CASE OP mart reed to.
H.
Lord BEAUMONT rose, accoroing
, reed
aT '
attention of the House io the corres ondence respecting the
assault committed on Mr. Erskine blather The
P at Florence.
Noble Lord said it was some time since ihe papers had been
laid on the table,. and their Lordship had had lull oppor-
tunity of becoming acquainted with their contents. Though
they professed to .refer to an incident of an unfortunate,
hut in some aegree of a personal
character, other grave
and far more important questions to. notice, to draw the
3 -"J'et. Moreover, it would
have been observed that 'what at first seemed a ease
of the negotiations on that
simple in itself and easily arranged
, had been so conducted
in its subsequent stages that
it now ap eared something
like a Gordian knot.—(llear, hear. s
I It fail attracted great
attention both in and out of Parliaineot. It had been the
subject of a debate in the other II
nh-, had arisen in the course
°llse, and had been com-
mented on in many of the public
charges had been brought, regardio _
g the conduct of this
business, against, the Government;
and it had beeadirectly
irtiPlied that sufficient attention had
not been made to what
was due to the dignity of the countrY. These grounds not
prints. Moreover severe
only justified him in bringing the subject forward, but almost
imposed an obligation on their Lordships to take some netice
of the papers IMd before, them before the session closed. In
proceeding to examine these papera, he
would avoid as much
as' possible all that appeared merely verbal criticism,. or
allusions to trivial points, and would dwell on those
likely to affect our relations with these aiiittera alone in which a principle
—est countries in future.
Ile would divide the subject into two
parts—that which
referred merely to the incident itself--and that which re-
the state
ferred to the questions arising out s
os the negotiations to
which the incident had led. As to the first question, it
was involved, or were
might be taken for granted that, sehen an Englishman
was entitled to full Pro—
tteraotvieolaledfroinm foreign countries,
ovcoeunromtreiens h 4.
ritories he was travelling—that Government being in
friendly relations with this country—so long ,as he not
only, obeyed the laws of, the country,. but complied with
its usages and manners, so Mr as not wantonly to offend or
insult even the prejudices of the people. When' a person
so conducting himself received a wrong, if from another
private individual, that was merely a
. question between two
in whose ter-
private persons, no way representing any authority; it be-
came almost the duty of the individual injured to seek re-
deess according to the laws of the country in the first place,
and not there and then to call in the assistance of the repre-
sentative of his own country to interfere in his behalf.
When, however, the party inflicting the wrong on an Eng-
lishman was in the Service of the Government of that
country as an 'Official, or performing any duty placed upon
him by that Government, the question assumed a totally
different appearance. Then, instead of applying to the
law, in the'ordinary 'way, as between individuals, the in-
jured party certainly had a claitn upon his country to de-
mand shine kind of reparation for the wrong inflicted.
Bearing in mind that distinction, and taking into
consideration all that appeared in these papers, the
examinations before what was called a judicial tribunal,
and the opinions expressed in many of the dispatches by
Mr. Searlett, by Prince Lichtenstein, by Prince Schwarzen-
berg in Vienaa, by-Baron Castigliano, and even by
Radetzky—he had no difficulty in saying that the narration
he was about to give, in a few words, was the simple plain '
fact and truth.—(Here the Noble Lord narrated the facts as
they have already appeared.) It was as clear as possible,
Mr. Mather
from the evidence before their Lordships, that.
had in no way, either by
gesture, word, or motion , attempted
to insult the officer or do anything which he ought to re-
sent. Whatever the officer might • ht afterwards say was the
impression on his mind, it
was clear the youth had no in-
itnion, whatever to insult him or any other person. For
seemed that when the brother went to Prince Lichten-
stein, and was telling his story, the Prince, having heard
1
a different story
from the officer, said--•
' Oh, but' your
brother, pat his arm thus.. a No," said the , youth,
" he did not do that, but 'merely turned round to ask the
meaning of the blow Prinee.Lichten-
from, the officer."
stein said afterwards distinctly that theTesult of this inquiry
inetitated among. the
soldiers -was entirely in conformity
with what. Mr. Mather's brother had tad him, confirming
the fact that the youth had not in any waY put up his hand.
Again, •one of the , The Englishman
gendarme 'e stated,
in no waY offended the Austrian."ri Even Radetzky said—
a The accident :WAS WithOUt iending any offence. on the
part of the Englishnaan, a
Te idence was equa clear
that the. offending officers hadhn intention whatever to in-
sult or injure any Englishman. °ev
They certainly did not
know the man Was ea Englishman and could have had no
anti-English feeling in the i Nor had they any steps to en. individual or personal eeciine. against Mr. blather, being
ignorant of why or what he feeling a
fact was they teok
him for his Italian ; and theyWaßse..emed to have been in the
hebit of purning ,Itilieue• out---f. the way, as they did
dogs.— (Hear, hear.) kindles o
• an a little tons near,
they had treated him as they this
.man
habit of treating
the Tuacans when theyearlaosvere in
way; and if there
was any,feefing in the case, it
lea the anti-national feeling
that existed between the aausr•aln,st and the Tuscans. As
soon as the wounded man
Was conveyed to the hospital, the
brother
_went to Mr. s
nark -- " subseauentiv, it ap-
' ed that both the broth
pear tt ; and,
relied on Mr.
spur
and Mr. Mather Scerlett. They did not aPecif they wished,. further
than. wing the word, redreas Y what his judgment-
They neither asked for ; they left all to
4 jUdiei al inquiry nor for damages;
in fact, Mr. Searlett had the
entirely in his own
hands. At first, it seetaeci, 1i_.1,1,
r oat% tt had sent the youth
with re letter .to Prince Lichten . ear 0
jug—. He is a verY
good-natured man, and he viii hear as "oyur story:" It would
bays beep better had Mr. sr.
--ariett y examined into the
matter, and decided whether hhimself unofficially
with the Austrians, or o e ought to proceed
ffieially • the Tuscan Government.
The yopth was well received by Wit',lrLichtensteip, who
gave full fath to his story, A.,__ n
la -.44.• Scairleeett, at any rate, had
it in his power to write . ~,„_ .
'a for instructions. Through-
out the whole of the proceedia
rigs, Mr. Mather had invariably
sought to leave everything ~_
" th_ei judgment and discretion
of the Government here, or
nf fir. -Scarlett at Florence.
Mr. Searlett first of all applied .
'''Unofficially; and there cer-
tainty seemed to.have been
4inclination on
the part of the Austrian authert.
considerable
h early and subse-
to have arranged lea, int e .
queut stages, his
mind the matter unofficially. The
was th
imPre3s-1.1 -on
at the whole question might
have been thus satisfactorily.
eat
aged; because, when once
Prince Lichtenstein was coh--vinced that no insult was
intended by Mr. Mather, it.
Was not necessary that he
should ,state anything Mahar..
Os officer on service,
_r the
Lieatenant Forsthaber, had bee -
Lieutenant Barb, who was not oil d• .
It under arrest,
as well as
t . ' dif a full expres-
sion of re,tFet had been made, thee:
37,
al
have been little
difficulty an corning ,to an arrap_a would
especially as the
parties did not want any cepapeol_r.n nt,
-honour of the country was attaelsed4 ..an,.
" but thought the
persons. The
Teparation ought to have been lin
ain their
P 1 of that general
nature that it might have been tonaidered°gY
lion to the Englishman. injured, but an
anot onlyid
a repara-
w e gment' of
the right of. Englishmen to be protected ,
s eknotinental coun-
tries. , Mr. Searlett might have arrana.„_, c 9
gad in
snmatter cially. l'lsTot having done so, he hn_.,
unoffi-
ceed officially.
The moment e Was ,
~
`"4 no choice bat to pro-
' was rid of the whole
.A tria
ease.--rn• :left to do so US
that
assear, hear.) It had been said by a high authority astr. a
applying. officially to Tuscany, that ,„
ocarlett was wrong in
fin' ought to have gone
to the Austrian authorities. What Would have been the
case had he done so? This
that would at once have been an
official acknowledgment , Tuscan
—5 was made over to
Austria.----alear, hear.). Austria
.
doubt, would have
to been very ready and anxious to make
• any for
the.sake.of having it acknow edged th reparation,
at
-she was the party
to be applied to for injuries .done irk
..... in effect,
that Tuscany was part of Austria.--e
a Tuscanyßearheir.). After
that we should never have
All!aeen able to treat t Tuscany as
power. our nego
an independent.
c. . a .
to commerce; -`or
spy other
to A
subj 1
. gums with regard
ec‘, Must thee: undoubt-
edly have been addressed to Austria fro_
which, we our eaves had placed her.--(11 us th lion in
e posi
• tained that itr. Scarlett and the
a ear. Re therefore,
main .
ra ,
Government' com-
pletely ria . • slit in Saying that rusearty sh were
t tied her had ould be responsible as
lang at abirl'ulam al
t tak ependence--that while exr
oising t—e , ghts shilemlie
.... e the
that of an rode-
pendent power,--(ti ar2) UP. to that
mei* were, in power... One passage in time the late Govern-
was at ,-aloss to understand. It was conta*
these
.proceedings :he
~,h
' f Lord Granville to Lard Westmore
rota IneddisPa';
. .
los6 i—l3ut if this inquiry is not fairly c
''‘na, Situ was as foe-
flukice is used to suppress the truth, the nd and in
troitistilicted,
will be' obliged to seek for reparation for this 0 . Government.ana
-unoffending and unarmedßritish subject from ll'ragea up n
ti " That
seenaed ratherinconsistent ; for having once';lst
declared that
Tuscany was responsible, how could they ravel out of TO
cauy and go. to any other Pow er .of Europe ?revel ? n
t
Austria
go
refusing, they might as well have In the event of
vne tGer-
man Diet, and so round,the continent.-.(Neer hear. ,They
bound to fix on one power, and
were bo
,t
Up to that point the case was pretty clear Make it responsible.T theues.
tion arose, what should be accepted as redress?hen This was
not for Mr. Mather to say. It was a question between the
' GOvernment of Great Britain and, that of Tuscany. It was
their duty to fix that, and abide by their demand.--(Hear'
hear.) Mr: Searlett, not at the desire of Mr, blather, but
as representing. England, claimed a full judicial inquiry-
The answer- of the Duke de. Castigliano •merely went to
concede a private inquiry to ascertain the facts, but not
With. the slightest idea of any verdict, or giving any reps-

The Bishop. of SALISBURY believed that some of the
parochial clergy of large towns did express an 'opinion in
favour of these marriages, but their opinions would be -of
greater weight if they had not coupled them with arguments
which were not maintainable. Nothing, however, was more
clear than that the opinion of the parochial clergy was un-
favourable to'the permission of these marriages.-- (Hear.)
The petition was then ordered to lie on the table.
THE SMOKE NUISANCE.
Lord REDESDALE presented a petition from the Lord.
Mayor, Aldermen, and Common Council of London, praying
for an extension to the whole of the metropolis of the pre-
visions contained in the London Sewer Act of 1851, for
abolishing the nuisance of smoke from steam-engines and
furnaces. The Noble Lord said that it was disgraceful to
the metropolis that such a nuisance should be allowed
to exist.

The Earl of SHA.FTESBURY heartily concurred -in the
prayer of the petition. The nuisance arising from smoke
was injurious both to the health and to the pockets of the
people. Ile had been assured by an extensive manufacturer
who consumed his own smoke, that he had, saved thereby in
fuel and coal no less than 3001. a year.
The petition was ordered to lie on the table.
COUNTY COURTS FURTHER EXTENSION BILL -
Lord BROUGHAU, in moving the adoption of the.Com-
mons' amendments, explained the nature and character `s
those amendments. One of them was to increase the sale=
ries of the judges of the county. courts. By this amend.
went these judges were to receive a minimum salary of
1,200/ a year, which might be increased to 1,500/, at the
discretion of the high law authorities Of the country.
Another amendment was that these judges should be pro-
hibited from practising as counsel, barristers, special pleaders,
conveyancers, or attorneys, and that they should strictly con-
fine themselves to their judicial duties. The only alteration .
which he would suggest in this amendment was this, that as
conveyancers and others who might be appointed judges
under the Bill might have unfinished business in hand,
which it would be inconvenient to transfer to others; instead
of being' restricted from practising " from and after the
Passing of this Act," the words should be four,
five, er six months fronl and after the passing of this Act.
The 'only amendnient, to which he anticipated any objection
was that which referred to the prohibition of barristers
practising in the county courts without being instructed by
an attorney or solicitor. In
.those county courts Alone—,
whether great or small, whether in the, metropolis or in the
provinces—was there a statutory prohibition on an advocate,
from receiving instructions directly from his client, without
the intervention of _an attorney. The rule and etiquette of
the profession prevented him from going into court unin-
structed by an attorney or solicitor, but there wit S-110 posi-
tive rule preventing him from seeing his client in chamber in
matters of a delicate and private nature which he did not
wish to, communicate even to his solicitor. Now; why' not
leave
,the barristers practising in these courts, as those prac-
tising in all'other courts, to the usage and custom of the
profession? It was said that they would be too far removed,
from the supervision of the heads of the profession, and that
there would not be a sufficient check upon them. But if
persons were inclined to act unprofessionally, he thought
they would be much more likely to do it, and to do
it with impunity, in a crowded city
,like Loudon
than in a country town, where they would be narrowly
watched. He approved of the etiquette of requiring bar..
risters to be instructed by attornies; because in 99 cases out
of 100 he did not see how it would otherwise be possible to
get 011—to examine witnesses, for instanckand other things

ration. The court of
Au i learned do ne t
parties were adinittecti.aq o
advocatew hi whichwas
n one ofemployed,the
Out he was of no use. After •
taking down the derosiiians
of the witnesses, the p the court ewers of ceased.These
-
depositions were sent to the Austrian officers, but not to
-Mr. Scarlett at all, who only obtained
them, on application,
as a favour, the Duke de Casti I
had a right to withhold them. g_ atm maintaining that he
Mr. sear! It nets thus put
oil in the most insulting manner. itse
oltrse there was no
verdict or sen'ence, and the whole might be called an
ex parte proceeling. This might be said
inquiries of this kind in Tuscany were in its favour;
compered with those in some of the Rom Rarity Sat themselves,
hear.) As far as the inquiry went, it aPPeared.—( Hear,
been fairly managed; there had been no threateto' hesaNe-er
tampering with the witnesses; and the result wanin`ne en-
the Englishman gave no offence to the Austrian bes3'se;;;,,,—
he was cut down.—(Hear, hear.) When the present
Go
vernment came into office, they had all these- particular_
before them ; and there was a demand for redress!
He regretted that the first coarse taken by the Noble
Earl opposite was not a becoming one, or one that ought to t
have been adopted under any circumstances. The Noble
Earl (Malmesbury) invited Mr. Mather to do what was the
duty of the Government to asses the damages in the pend-
ing case, he being a party concerned. Anything more ex-
traordinary than that was almost impossible. Mr. Mather
had seemed unwilling to give any opinion, and repeated
almost twenty times that he wished to leave it to the Go-
vernment to decide—that it was for Lord Malmesbury to
say what he thought was due to the honour of the country.
—(Hear, hear.) If Lord Malmesbury had therefore stated
what ought to have been done. Mr. Mather would not have
had another word to say; but it was too herd to force him
to assess the amount of redress, after he had so many times
disclaimed the task. Even in the passage in which Mr.
Mather mentioned the 5,0001., be refused to consider the
question, without reference to British honour and interests.
It had been said that that sum was too much ; but it was not
long since a similar occurrence had taken place. A Mr.
Churchill, who was at Constantinople, went out shooting,
and was taken up as a poacher, and brought before the
Cadi by the proprietor of the land. The Cadi had him bas-
tieadoed, and set hits at liberty. At this insult to a British
subject great public feeling was aroused ; and first
of all, the Gorernment insisted upon the dismissal of the
Cadi. They very nearly likewise got the brother-in-law of
the Suiten into a scrape for defending the functionary in
question; and they made the Turkish Government pay
4,000/. to Mr. Churchill. But now, although this gentle-
man got 4,0001. for a slight bastinado —( Laughter)—here
was an Englishman nearly killed—and h'e (the Noble Lord)
regretted to hear that Mr. Mather had been again confined
to his apartment—and it was said that 5,0001. was too much.
(Hear, hear.) As soon as a money compensation had
been agreed to, it became a question of bargain ; the English
Government was to set to work, and, in the language of the
Noble Earl, try to "get wbet they could." It certainly did
not appear that the Noble Earl was able to play- the Jew
nearly so well as the fuse= Government- The Noble
Earl's instructions to our agent were that.s,ooo/. was exor-
bitant, but that he must get what he could; and here he
(Lord Beaumont) must say that the Noble Earl had stated
what was really not quite borne out by the facts, namely,
that Mr. !Slather considered that the injury was 'one that
might be atoned for by money. Mr. Mather had always said
jest the contrery; and the statement of the Noble Earl had
had a most damaging effect upon him in the opinion of
foreigners, who had applauded his spirit in treating it, nos
as a personal, but as a national injury. - ( Hear, hear.) But
the Noble Earl went on to see what could be got. He ap-
plied to Austria, but that po eer very wisely declined to put
the screw on Tuscany, and would have nothing more to do
with the matter. es, hen the 5,0004 was mentioned to the
Tuscan Government, it was horrified at the amount, and at
once denied its responsibility. Indeed, he must say that its
conduct throughout had been most disgraceful.—(Hear,
hear.) The Noble Lord ought now to have taken steps to
insist on his demand; and he must do him the justice to
say that he had never given up the question of Tuscany's
responsibility--(Hear, hear)—although Mr. Scarlett, in a
paper which had been laid ppoe the table that day, appeared
to have done so But the Noble Earl, instead of insisting
on what he had demanded, said, " Well, try to get 5001."
Then there seemed to have been some disposition at Vienna
to help Tuscany, and to pay the money for it; but of
course this could not be accepted on the prin-
ciple laid down by the Noble Earl. The Noble Lord,
however, never lost sight of the bargain, and when
he could not get 500/. he proposed au arbitration. Ile
did not seem to care from whom he received the money,
provided that it only appeared to come from Tuscany.
At this point Mr. Scarlett sickened, and then Mr. Barron
appeared on the scene. He sent home a great dispatch, an-
nouncing the glorious news that the question was settled, not
by the payment of 5,0001, as Mr. slather had demanded,
nor of 1:0001. which the Government could not get, nor
50.1. which they had consented to take, nor by arbitration
which they had offered. An unfortunate thousand frances-
coni was all ghat could be got, but then there was some-
thing more. Two Stratfords, whom he (Lord Beaumont)
really believed had been guilty of some great offence, were
thrown in to make up for the loss. 'He (Lordßeau-
mont) did not suppose that the Government here were
consulted as to that arrangement, but it was one of the
most extraordinary that could be conceived. Because A
had done an injury to B, .B was to receive reparation by
the exemption of C and D, who had done an injury to F.
This was the monstrous principle of the arrangement; and
by it the Tuscan Government escaped all responsibility
whatever. Nay more, the Duo de Castigliano actually went
so far as to say that the money was not paid as a reparation
for the injury that had been done, but that it was given to
Mr. Mather out of the singular liberality of the Grand
Duke—that it was, in fact, given to him as they would give
money to a beggar who bad no claim upon them. That
was the manner in which Mr. Mather and this country had
been insulted.—(Hear, hear.) A long correspondence of
an extraordinary kind between Mr. Mather and the Noble
Earl, and concluded by a pithy letter from Mr. John Blight,
was likewise appended to the papers; but he (Lord Beau-
mont) owned that it appeared to him to have nothing to do
with the question before him, which was far too important to
be mixed up with matters of that kind. He (Lord Beaumont)
maintained that so long as the present state of things con-
tinued in Italy, and so long as that country was occupied
by Austrian forces, so long would occurrences of this
kind be taking place. All their negotiations connected
with central Italy were in an unnatural position. Unfor-
tunately it had been the policy of Austria to encourage
every kind of misgovernment in the Roman and Tuscan
states, in order that they might contrast unfavourably with
Lombardy. They had urged on the wretched states
of Parma, Modena, and Tuscany to adopt systems hostile
to civil and religious liberty; and had even gone so
far as to threaten what little good existed in the
last, under the laws of Leopold 11. These attempts
on the part of Austria had been assisted by what was called
the clerical party, who, acting upon the feeble, priest-ridden
sovereigns, had brought affairs into such a state as would
almost justify a general rising of the people of central Italy,
both against their sovereigns and their foreign allies, by
whom those states were occupied. Perhaps, indeed, before
long such a rising would become inevitable. Under these
circumstances it was the duty of Great Britain, as ono of
the great powers of Europe, to urge upon the sovereigns of
these countries such a social amelioration, and such im-
provements in their governments, as would render
unnecessary the presence of the Austrian troops to assist in
enforcing their police regulations. Austria would then be
obliged, upon demand, to retreat, and our position in those
countries would be placed upon a national and proper footing
Lie trusted that the Government would endeavour to do its
.
duty, as it did in 1834, when it urged upon the Papal States
the necessity of social reforms; and believing that such
events would be likely to be repeated, he thought_ that they
would not meet the merits and justice of the case until some
great steps were taken to remove the anomaly of the three
duchies of Tuscany, Parma, and Modena being any longer
held by the Austrians.—(llear, hear.) He should conclude
with a motion, namely, that there should be an address
praying that such papers should be laid before Parliament,
containing the instructions to Sir Henry Bulwer, as would
show, under present circumstances, what was the proper
reparation to be now demanded, and what was the nature of
that which had been demanded from the Government of
Tuscany.— (Hear.)
The Earl of MALMESBURY would not detain their
Lordships in going into a detailed account of the transac-
tions, because the Noble Baron, who last addressed them,
and to whom he was much obliged for doing so, had given
an account of the accident or outrage which occurred, which
was as nearly as possible correct. When first he. (Lord
Malmesbury) felt it his duty to consider the case be believed
it to have been a brutal assault, for which there was no ex-
cuse the act- of a violent man—without any self-control,
and under the influence of an angry feeling, for which no
cause was given him. He looked on it with the same indig-
nation that every Englishman felt when the outrage was
described to their Lordships by the Noble Lord the late Se-
cretary for Foreign Affairs; he did not undervalue it, there-
fore, as some persons had chosen to say against him ; he
saw the brutality of the outrage, but he could not say he
was prepared to go, as many people had done, and ap-
parently the Noble Lord, the head of the late Govern-
ment—that Noble Lord considered it to be a national in-
sult, and an outrage on the honour of this country. lie
begged their Lordships to consider What the consequence.s
would be if it were laid down as a-rnle, that every English-
man assaulted abroad; or injured, should be identified with
the national honour of Great Britain, and that the moment
a British subject 'was struck, Great Britain should also
strike. Suppose death -to have-ensued —suppose murder had
been committed, he asked their Lordships what the conse-
quences would be, if this country supposed itself notoriously
insulted by snch results, and were, therefore bound to
avenge them with the whole strength of the empire.—(Hear,-
hear.) Men may be insulted in a foreign country, just as
foreigners were in this, and then they had a right to claim
the protection of the law under which they lived; but they
had- no right to go to the Foreign-office, who
could 'only see that justice was done them before those
tribunals to which they appealed. He, for one, did
not scruple at once to tell them, that although an ofe
fence was committed in Tuscany of a very grave and
serious nature, there were no grounds for claiming the pro-
tections of the Foreign-office, unless in the case to which
he alluded, or until Mr. Mather had failed in his negotia-
tions- How did the case stand? On the 27th of February
thelate Government made way for the present Administra-
tion, and when he came into office he found the case of
Mr. Mather had been previously inquired into by the Noble
Lord who preceded bins. If that gentleman felt himself
insulted, it was necessary for him to adopt the course un-
happily
usually taken in such matters 30 years ago. He
did not blame him for doing so, and although the prac.
tice of duelling was abolished, he should be sorry that
another mode of settling disputes were done away with, and
that was the acceptance of an apology for an injury—
es hen that apology was sufficient. He thought, where in-
sults were not premeditatedly given, that an ample, full,
frank, and gentlemanlike apology was sufficient. A man's
honour must be always safe in his own hands. He did not
say that Mr. Mather was wrong in refusing that which was
tendered to him, but such an apology was offered by the
commander-in-chief and at the hands of an officer who
knew how to speak the English language. Five days after
the accession of the Government he came into the office. He
was not sent for, as bad been alleged, when he said he came
to consult on what should be the basis of the negotiation.
11e (Lord Malmesbury) at once disclaimed the idea of
making it
,a national insult. He told him the national honour
was in his hands. and that it was no;business of his, except
so far as every. Englishman was concerned for the honour of
his country.—(Hear, hear.) It appeared to him that if he
adopted any other course English subjects abroad would
have to be protected by an- additional responsibility. He
did, not think he departed from analogous cases, or that he
was wrong in taking all responsibility from Tuscany, as had
been said
elsewhere. An eminent and distinguished par-
son, and another no less distinguished than the Noble
Lord, charged him three times in his speech with ibeing
guilty of great omission in starting first in the case. He
said he (Lord Malmesbury) had not consulted the Queen's
Advocate; bat the fact was there was no Queen's Advocate.
The late Government resigned on the 20th, on the 27th the
present came into office; but their predecessors remembered
their old friends even on their deathbed, and appointed a
Queen's Advocate on the day of their own funeral, and the
day before that of Sir Herbert Jenner Fust.
Lord CAMPBELL begged to remind the Noble Lord that
the appointment of a Queen's Advocaterested with the Arch-
bishop of Canterbury, and not with the late Government.

; -- ------- ---_________— - -
been
much ant that means the who la
n he
Lord MALMESBURY contended that that made. no dif- interest in giving the redress; y ferenee with e
respect to the charge against him, that ha hal matter would have
not consulted th Queen's Advocate. Then, again, the ' Without blaming the Noble Earl fbereasilY settled.-(Hear.)
the course he had pure
Noble Lord and the other Noble Lord who was for socao thric I sued, he would ask how he stood nowf it appeared that
his colleague, blamed him for appeadng to Tuscany at al: : Mr. Scarlett was disavowed, and the
whole
question was
but that he should at once have gone to ' Austria. The re-opened-not as to the amount, for thatovlve
_ent. This
all settled- but
for
er
Government had only their judgment and common sense to , as to the responsibility of the Tuscan G
gUide them, sod it seemed better to them not to recognise i hal increased the difficulty of the question,the Noble
eParation. or
in anyway the occupation of Tuscany by Austria. But he ; Lord must now either insist on an additional
was astonished to hear the Noble Lord make such an asser- ' on Tuscany ac.knowledging its responsibility by admitting
tion for he must have remembered that no longer ago than that stun to be due. He doubted whether the ar
'
ents in
1849 the same regiment, and he believed the name officer, the dispatches were sufficiently cogent to attain that
were in Tuscany, where they committed very gross out- Allusiou had been made to the occupation ,of the
IrtaeTilt•
rages and inflicted great injury on British property. And States by foreign armies. No one regretted this more
i yet what was his astonishment to find that Lord Palmerston, than himself, nor more desired to sea the time when
on the Bth of August, 1849, in writing to Sir G. Hamilton, these forces might be withdrawn with safety. The Noble
expressly declared that he considered the Tuscan Govern- Lord (Beaumont) had said that Austria encouraged
meat responsible for the outrages so committed. He held misgovernmeet and tyranny in the other Italian States
the same doctrines on the 30th of April following, in writing that her own States .might appear well governed by corn-
toViscount Ponsonby atVienna. 'l hen he was accused by the parison. This he considered most jesuitical reasoning, and
Noble Lord, in another place, of dishonouring Mr. blither; too absurd to obtain credence for ,a moment. He did not
the expression used being that he had dishonoured and taken know the exact terms on which the French forces occup4d
away the character and independence of an independent Rome, but he presumed they were independent of the Roman
English gentleman. But that was not so; and he observed tribunals.
that in a case tried in the city , Lord BEAUMONT-The city is in a state 'of siege.
where of Dublin, some tinie since,
person was lost through the negligence of those The Earl of ABERDEEN said in that case the troops
who bad person
which the Chief a steamer, the company gave COOL, would be independent of the tribunals, and therefore their
creditable iudeed. On situation
, was not analogous to that of the Austrian troops.
Saturday, the 2nd said was very
by which he. In conclusion, he would repeat that he did not condemn
thought the met , he received the dispatch,
did not consider ter
was finally settled, and although he the course of the Noble Earl, but hoped that great caution
the arrangement satisfactory, and not would be used in the instructions that were to be given to
thinking that Mr. sear
lions as to the amount ' d with his dirie- "t it Henry Bulwer -(Hear )
lett had compile .
Earl GB* • • Bulvver to that effect. tof money, he wrote to Sir Henry ANVILLE referred to various seises of armies
Other - same occupying foreign countries, and expressed a hope that time, which he had nodispatches arrived at the
opened.lii explanation of this he Government would demand explanations from Austria and
bad to observe that he ad
had to attend Foreign in other duties to perform. He France as to the conditions of their occupation of the Italian
Cabinet Councils. and also 'isters, her Majesty's Council, States. He thought it possible that such terms might be
true that from Saturdav toes place in Parliament. It was arranged by the mediation of this country as would lead to
these dispatches. The business node ay lie had not opened the withdrawal of those troops. (Hear, hear.) With re-
in recent years greatly increased; the Foreign-office had Terence to the present case, he wished to vindicate the late
thirt thousand Government from the charge of being too hasty and imps-
dispatches, in and out, came to that offle Y-three
enclosures, in the course of a year. if
be, without counting tient in demanding reparation. This was the first time such
dispatch, he would not have given the onee had opened that a charge had been made. In Tuscany a great number of
to Mr. Mather. • The most painful matteriavvr h 0 had done insults to British subjects had recently occurred wehout re-
he transactiond • and knowing that military officers had
was, tat Mr. Scarlett had deviated &mai hia -
dress being obtained ,
which, .h notwithstanding what had been said instructions, generally been the aggressors in these cases, he thought this
Prime Minister, were clear and precise. The v ..4.: the late a case in which he was bound to demand prompt reparation.
_re three It had been said that .....
that demand ought to have been made
in number. The first was, that the responsibility should eminent. He could not agree in this -
thrown upon Tuscany of protecting British subjects with;r7 'to the Austrian Gov _ .
its territories: Secondly, that he should obtain 5001 as an (Hear, hear.) He thought it would have been a gratuitous
indemnity to Mr. Mather; and that no less sum should be to insult to the Government of an independent state to pass it
accepted, and if there was any doubt upon that matter WI. over in that way. The Noble Earl (Aberdeen) referred to a
Scarlett's own words would show it, when he said, "he took reaty now in existence, which did not exist in 1849; but it
; • of this case that the secret
upon himself the responsibility of accepting the smaller article Y since the occurrence .
sum." The third was equally plainly stated. It was that, ex-min" the treaty had been referred to which was said to
it he failed in these points, he was to wait until that able tribunals,the occupying army from theurisdiction of the
In where the attack was on
and_ experienced diplomatist, Sir Henry Bulwer, arrived. a private ill -other similar cases,
lie had never received any explanation why he had not amenable tividual, it had been held that the army was
done sit He regretted that Mr. Scarlett should have made thought, fun the tribunals of the country. This, he
this error, but he could not blame himself, under such cir- redress from iYhj9rilled the late Government in demanding
cunastances, for writing to Sir Henry Bulwer to renew the referred in detalfastean Government. The Noble Earl then
. .
negotria 1 ns. stated the ' - 3._ some of his own dispatches, and
view wito which Written.
Lo dtCAMPBELL should not 'have risen to address their had • pointed out that ' f •
i they had been He
Lordships on this subject had not Mr. Scarlett been his own by the Tuscan Govern- dal-1.-reifies were thrown in the way
relative, and did he not feel bound to defend him from tbe to Austria; and he %rasa/17T it niigbt be necessary to look
harsh comment which had been made on his conduct. His and' Learned Lord Cider.'
i iul3.? t o be borne out by the Noble
relative well deserved everything that could be said in hie Government to apply to - tice. Oat it was open to the either •T
favour. He had served under Lord Aberdeen and Viscount was said he had neglected to a art.- Haar hear.) It
Palmerston, and earned the approbation of both. The Noble cute, but he had no facts to lay the Queen's Advo•
Earl said the remedy to be sought in the case was the ordi- instructions to Mr. Scarlet werealhbefore that officer. His
nary remedy to be obtained in an English court of law.' He described, he was to demand reparation if
the facts were as
Go-
differed from the Noble Earl on that point, and maintained vernment, and bad anticipated the threel of the Tuscan that the case was one for the immediate interference of the Government might take upon that demand-
courses which the
Government.-(Hear, hear.) If Mr. Mather would have experience which he had had in the 1/lend- After the
accepted of an apology the whole matter might have been thought he had learnt what were the pro-.
soreign-offiee, he
amicably settled, for Mr. Scarlett had made all the necessary which to submit cases to the Queen's Advocate.
occasions on
arrangements, and Mr. Mather replied in the most un- consulted a gentleman of long experience in attiT He had
qualified terms that he would not accept of an office, who had since been raised to a judicial
eincee Foreign-
apology from the whole Austrian army-he insisted gentleman said the late Government had done quite, and that
on an investigation. In judging of the final result the instructions they sent out to Mr. Searlett, in denanght in
their Lordships must take into account the large dis- reparation from Tuscany in the first instance. and in ending
not re-
cretion left in the hands of air. Scarlett, who was told to ferring to the Queen's Advocate till the facts were
get an annuity, without being told whether it was to amount tained.-(Hear, hear.) He would add that he thoughatsett .to 5/. or 100/ a year, or what Mr. Mather would have got Austrian G •vernment had been actuated by a desire that the
from a jury in England-a very doubtful matter. The in- matter should be arranged in a conciliatory manner ;in this
straction on that subject was an exceedingly strange one. he included also the conduct of Prince Schwarzenberg, veh-, Mr. Scarlett was instructed to tell the Teacart Government had displayed great abilities in the office be had held,
-
that the 5,000/. asked by Mr. Mather was exorbitant. The Earl of DERBY congratulated the House on the
Now, he thought it would be just as prudent and as discreet calm and temperate tone in which the question had been
not to instruct Mr. Scarlett to show the dispatch to the Go- discussed, tending, as he said, to disencumber it of the rub-
-vernment of Tuscany.-(Hear.) Besides, the Tuscan Go- bish which had been heaped on it in the public prints and
vernment were themselves asked, in one dispatch, to fix the elsewhere. He rejoiced that all deviations from the main
sum which they.would give. They were informed that such question bad been avoided, and all reference to particular
a sum would be expected, not as Mr. Mather would have ob- and exceptional expressions in dispatches. There seemed
tained from an English court, but what he would have been to be a general concurrence of opinion that in the first in-
awarded by a Tuscan court. -.Yet in another dispatch the stance the late Government was justified in appealing to the
Tuscan Government were told that such compensation would Tuscan Government. The principle was, that so long as
be expected as would have been awarded by an English Tuscany enjoyed the privileges of an independent state and
court if Mr. Mather had been out down by hastliog one received diplomatic functionaries in that capacity, she
of the Guards in Hyde-park. The Noble Earl round must be held responsible for any injuries to 'British
fault with Mr. Scarlett for settling this matter till the subject in her territory.-(Hear, hear.) Every one
arrival of Sir H. Buiwer; but in a dispatch of the 27th concurred in exempting young Mather from blame; admit-
of April be was instructed to bring matters to an imme- ting that he had involuntarily raised his arm, there was
dials termination before Sir las
- Bulwer arrived. And it nothing to justify the outrageous insult committed upon
was under the pressure of that dispatch that the nego- him. It was necessary to draw a distinction between the
tiations were brought to a conclusion. The three charges national point of view, and that regarding the individual. If
against Mr. Scarlett were that he took less than SOOL, an Austrian officer had committed an offence or insult against
that he surrendered the responsibility of the Tuscan Govern- a British subject as a national offence; if he had joined, for
meet, and that he mixed up the case of the Stratfords instance, in pulling down the consular flag, or offering any
'with that of Mr. Mather. Now, with regard to the first insult which might be considered a national insult, he was
charge, Mr. Scarlett was left with very vague instructions not prepared to say that we ought not to hold the nation em-
at frst. He was then told that he must hasten the ploying that officer responsible for a national insult.-(Hear,
conclusion of the negotiations before the arrival of Sir hear.) But in this case, from first to last, there was no
H. Bulwer. Under these circumstances, it was not sur- question of national insult or indignity.-(Hear.) It was
prising that he consented to accept less than 500 L Now, perfectly clear the officer did not know that the offending
with regard to the surrender of the responsibility of party was an Englishman, that he had no previous malice or
the Tuscan Government, he admitted that if Mr. Scarlett grudge against him. It was perfectly clear, from the very first,
had acquiesced In the terms of the Duke of Castigliano's that all the Austrian authorities, differing from us as to
letter of the 10th of May, he- would have surrendered the responsibility of the officer, joined in disclaiming any-
the responsibility of that Government. But he did no such thing like national feeling, and in expressing regret at
thing, for, in the letter of the 11th of May, he protested the unfortunate occurrence which had taken place. Prince
against the Dake of Castigliano's interpretation, and reas- Lichtenstein, in his dispatch, regretted the sad occurrence
Sated the principle, which he had already laid down in his which had given rise to the negotiation, and hoped the Eng-
letter of the 17th of March, to which he referred, as to the fish Government would not have occasion to write to him
responsibility of the Grand Ducal Government.-(Hear.) again on such_a subject. It was impossible for an officer
The Noble Lord, therefore, was 'quite mistaken in supposing placed in his position to offer a more handsome expression of
that Mr. Scarlett had surrendered one iota of Tuscan respon- regret; and when, at a subsequent period, Prince Schwarz-
sibility. The third charge was that Mr. Scarlett had mixed enberg himself, on the part of the Austrian Government,
up the case of the Stratfords with that of Mr. Mather. Now expressed their regret at the occurrence, all international
he knew a good deal about the case of the Stratfords, because feeling, as between England and Austria, might be cowl-
he happened to be in Florence at the time. These two dered to be at an end ; and he joined in.the observation
gentlemen, the sons of Lord Aldborough, were tried for an that any apology from the Austrian officer was unimportant,
offence against the Tuscan Government, before an Austrian after receiving that signal and marked expression of regret
court-martial, and were sentenced to be shot. That was a from his superior. Not only was there an expression of re..
violation of international law; and if redress had not been gret, but there was a distinct declaration on the part of the
g • iven, he had no hesitation in saying that it would have commanding officer that if Mr. Mather would make the de -
justified
a declaration of war. The shooting of these gentle- claration that he intended no insult, the officer would, in any
men was not carried into effect, it was true, but they terms he might desire, express his regret at the action
were kept in rigorous imprisonment. Now was it which had led to this unfortunate result It was said
.not proper and right that this matter should be brought to a that they ought to have demanded that the Austrian
termination? It was brought to a termination, but the case officer should be subjected to a trial for the offence which
of the Stratfords was not mixed up with that of Mr. he had committed. That trial had taken place, and
Mather,
to the injury of the latter, for these gentlemen were the Austrian officer had been found not guilty. God forbid
liberated' from prison on the 7th of May, in consequence of that he (Lord Derby) should defend the extremes to which
Mr. Scarlett's letter of the 6th. He believed that the more the Austrian military law went; but, by the rules of the
those papers were considered the less the blame which would service, an Austrian officer was liable to degradation, and to
attach to the conduct of' Mr. Scarlett, and the more it would be deprived of the power of ever serving again if
.he'did not
appear that he had faithfully carried out the instructions cut down any one whom he supposed to have insulted him
Which had been sent to him.-(Cheers.) while on duty. Consequently, if they had gone to Austria,
to
The Earl of ABERDEEN said it was satisfactory know how could they have demanded the punishment of en officer
that no national differences were now at issue on this ques- for an offence of which he had already been acquitted ?--
tion ; for from the first Moment in which it was clearly as- (Hear, hear.) So far he (Lord Derby) distinguished he-
zertained that this violence and outrage which was corn. tween an offence committed against the nation and a .
me per
misted was unpremeditated and done in ignorance, however sonal injury to an English subject in a foreign country
who
the injury to tho individual might remain, the insult to the was violating no law. He thought the Noble Lord had
country was done away with, for nations, like individuals, committed an error in appealing to Tuscany in the first
committed
must net regard as an insult -what was declared not to be Instance. When a personal injury had been co • -
ed
intended as such.-(Hear, hear.) With regard to the in- against an English subject abroad, his first duty was se
jury to the individual, and the redress due for that injury, appeal to the tribunals of the country; and if those tribua
he was disposed to agree with the Noble and Learned Lord uals were unwilling or unable to grant him re sin thinking that that redress' might be demanded from had then a legennate right .to appeal. to his ow es
' he
either party-from the Tuscan or the Austrian Govern- moot to make it a question between the two Gun dr
Govern-
ment-but he should say preferably from the Austrian. lie thought that this principle had been lost 'vernments.
Though it might be very well to say that you wished was unfortunate that in the first instance Mr. ght of. It
to insist on the independence of Tuscany, that did not alter accepted the trust which Mr. Mather had carlett had
the nature of the existing facts, for with regard to the Am- hands; and had thus prematurely made wha placed in his
Irian army, Tuscany was not independent, and though `they matter a qUestion of international dis t Was a personal
might receive all the money they demanded from the Tuscan that the Noble Earl was therefore in errorPilte.
He thought
Government, that would not make Tuscany independent of mand upon Tuscany, before reparation 11 in making a de-
tbe Austrian army, which was by treaty excluded from the the Tuscan courts.-(ileac, hear.) ad been sought for in
jurisdiction of the Tuscan Goverement. The instance cited paration was to be given, what ou 1 t But supposing that re-
by. the. Noble Earl of compensation received from Tuscany in quality? Should it be an apolo g? 1 Abe its character and
18-19 was a proof in confirmation of what he now said, for by Austria, and was rejected in a n apology was offered
the treaty by which the Austrian force was exempted from by Mr. Mather, who demanded most contumelious manner
Tuscan jurisdiction was signed in 1850, so that it was in a exemplary punishment of the an inquiry, and the full and
very different position from that in which it was in 1849, which the Noble Earl thought offender. The only case in
when it was only an- auxiliary force. But this was not a for the Government was in , it was a case for an apology
new case, for they had seen other armies of occupation in ness of the tribunals. TheLna Case of the failure orun vr-.
• ly the same position as that of the Austrian armynow Scarlett to demand an in • Noble Earl bad instructed
precise
rted that
• 'r That was the case with respect to the French that inquiry had been a full and had been con-
- of Spain in 1822, under the Duc d'Angouleme. ducted with no desire and fair one, occupation
one. Then came the
deny that Spain was indepen- demand We did not then pretend to
.. founded upon that screen any We of the
d ring that time. We carried on transactions with offender. But the Tuscan incLiuirY' fa,,,reeit-` 'd they had a
dent a
the Spanish Government, and sought redress from that Go. treaty with Antis • brovena.z---- t impossible, for
vernment; but where the French army was concerned the the Austrian oM rlassa Which ,tendered that
the cognizance
Spanish Government was unable, and was lay treaty finable, of the
courts. Re
ere.. were withdrawn from
it would have been
to exercise any act of jurisdiction. The same was the case most unwise if (Lord Derby) thoughttotal irresponsibilit
when France was occupied by the allied army, and when of the Aust • they had accepted the.
call d u on the Tus y
the British forces remained in that country after the occupae Governmentthe at all. It was a matter o.
le of Tuscan respon-
BritPur-
the papers on the table that the illustrious Dake who corn- sibilit 0 affirm andmaintain the principle
The article
mended the British troops in Portugal proposed to make the treetnY for injuries inflicted in Tuscany.
by no means bound
ish troops amenable to the Portuguese tribunals. Ile t --a Was one which this country was
took that declaration as a statement of the facts of the case • 1:' aree3galee, for it was not a patent, but a secret one, un f
Europe.-(Hear, hear.) He
-
but at the same time, if such a transaction as this occurred
' knows to the other powers o
in Lisbon-if an English officer had cut down a Porto thought he say, that in the parrallel case
Might venture to .
uese •had acted in precisely a similar
with or without reason-he thought the Noble Duke would m 1819 the late Government
the Queen's Advocate, when
have had him brought before a court-martial, and would
ne they to insist upon the sole responsibility
deliver him over to the_Portuguese tribunals. The Aust • t had felt it their duty ,
army, therefore, in this instance, being independent _nen of
Tuscany for injuries inflicted in that cauntry.-(year,
to punish the offender,
Tuscan Government, it seemed to him that the of the hear.) But i
'f Tasceny was unable
natural and tion to the parties who were the sufferers.
the reasonable course to pursue would have been to 1 it could afford reparation . .
redress to that power which was independent of Tus ook for d nothing to say against Mr. Mather's
.„,, fie (Lord Derby) had
compensation.
Mr. Mather had
by whose subject and officer the outrage was commitetallY' acceptance of a pecuniary
~„iwtinpOssible ; for he had Tufts
the Austrian authorities seemed willing to give that ed. And dement& ,„,,”-h-a-t by" treaty it had ledgeditselfnotiredto do ;
'for the officer was tried before a military court of in redress,i canY tql ecant° inpensation wasp th - • left. It exculpated the officer on 'the ground that he clue
and P- 417
co . . . . e only thing
*0 been more judicious if the Noble Earl had
their military code. Into the justice of that code
violated ght have •if that could have been done, upon some
not enter further than to say that, it appear: ehe would fixed at
°n
which he admitted 'cl ded; bat the and most barbarous that a man with unreasonable fixed sun' Jt• h• l8enute thi
considered in - chief us ice imse that no ng could
should be allowed to resent what he his, hand Lord
in. re uncertain than the verdict of a jury in such a
to be an be al°
suit on the spot, even to the destruction
of 4 , and, therefore, the Noble Earl having cut down
heat.) In this country if a man fe.-(Hear, case;presented exorbitant claims, had fixed upon a sum which he
officer, he presumed the officer would not his fist to an
intendedthe
to demand as an acknowledgment of the principle
would merely hand him over to the poll touch him, but
°rresponsibility-not as a matter ;of favour, but as a right
of resenting on the spot what might be ce, and the notion
insult,upon which he might insist by the law of nations. In the
as was the code in the Austrian and all
imaginary
service, seemed to him quite incom even in the Prussian
avowed that he was as fully and entirely responsib'e as
they could not blame the officer vat prehensible. However,
his Noble Friend, for not one of the steps which he had
lations-(Hear, hear)-and it a 0 acted under such regu-
t ken was adopted without his full knowledge and consent •
detzky a . ,
thought the officer was jastifiedPpeared Marshal Ea
pursued. and he (Lord Derby) was therefore just as open to censure
Bat even so, that did not dimi • in the course he
inflictedon a if any were deserved, as the Noble Lord himself.-(Hear.;
man admitted to have h !nett the injury en if The fact was, his Noble Friend had insisted throughout
een ins
the officer were justified in innocent Therefore,
ration upon the point which was of the greatest importance,
was due to the injury sun what he had dose, ••-:-
nal After namely, the liability of the Tuscan Government, and had
the declaration of both Prince ined by the inclivid
and Prince resolved to have a tangible acknowledgment of that prin-
Lichtenstein, there was
,demandedScliwarzenberg
on the ciple in the shape of a pecuniary compensation. Upon the
ground of national hon nothing to be dto the maintenance of that principle, he (Lord Derby) was lead
individual remained to r, but the reparation
rh notion of an to stake the reputation and existence of her Majesty's Go-
apology from the officer ha
'Settled.
and therefore some vernment.-(Cheers.) He wished that he could stop here,
other description of compensatewas rected,
to be sought for. and that he was net compelled by a sense of duty to enter,
It therefore became compensation
"5 ount of compensa-
.which he did with very great regret, upon the observations
tion. Into that a quests= of the aro but he should of the Lord Chief Justice. He (Lord Derb )
not enter;
y was care that
have thought that question he would
_ei
It inesbury), instead of Mr. Scarlett had no cause to complain of the • •
the Noble Lord ( . way in which
calling on Mr, Mathersum himself, would have his Noble Friend had spoken of the previous s - aof that
allowed the Queen's to fix
ado so; and then he would gentleman; and if the Noble Earl hadcharacterisedervice
Advocate to Mr.
have been prepared the niin named. Instead Scarlett's conduct as an error of judgment,it bad
of this, he had)e ared to stand by -
make reductions from the been done in any offensive manner. The Noble Lord had
original demato
d .been obliged probable Mr. Scarlett was brought three charges against Mr. Scarlett-first, that
right in sa i II
3 and it was
a very
orts, if appealed to, would he had accepted a less sum than he . authorised;
have grantY4g that the TAs n°
to the question of the indepen- secondly, that he had waived the responsibity of the
deuce f as mach- no doubt compliance with our Tascan Government ; and thirdly,the manner in which he
n Tuscany, there was
but we could not extort from had acted with respect Messrs. Stratford. With
demands
enforced, to the
might be
Tuscany of her independence, so long as the Aus. respect to the last case, that Noble and Learned Lord knew
trian arm an avowal
virg
„ her territory, that army being only that there was great difficulty with regard to the right of
responsii "?°CCur- GovernMent for military offences, in this country to interfere. The Noble Lord must likewise
e to its own
British army in Spain had been. Though know that, although been tried for a very serious
the ass,. . . the
--- w'''Ya- that army was still there for Tuscan offence by aco they hadtnos
have had proper juris-
Virtually indepen den
thereforet' thought that while either power diction, yet
theurt which might
been
reduced to what would
purposes; and be lied to for redress, it would have have h • sentence had. .
beau inflicted by thetribunal. The Grand Duke
civil
Might have been
applied
reasonable to look to Austria; had, not these gentlemen's
been more just --:
right•
felt.. moreover, promised that only , _
ar or wrong, would have an lives should be spared, but that at the expiration of a very
Which, wheth