The Sun.
London, England, 1852-05-18 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMEN T

HOUSE OF LORDS, May 17.
THE CASE OF MR. MURRAY AT RO3IE.
The Duke of ARGYLL said it appeared from the
public prints that an English subject, named Murray,
had been confined in prison, at Rome, for two or three
years, for a criminal offence, and had lately been found
guilty and sentenced to death. He wished to ask the
Earl of Malmesbury whether any communication had
taken place on the subject with our Consul at Rome?
The Earl of MALMESBURY said about a week after
he entered office, ho received a dispatch from Mr. Free-
born, our Consul at Rome, stating that a gentleman of the
name of Murray, the son of a meritorious officer in her
Majesty's service, had been confined for thirty months
in the prison of Ancona, on a charge of murder, but
that subsequently, in consequence of representations
made to the Papal authorities, ho was sent to Rome.
Mr. Freeborn immediately communicated with Cardinal
Antonelli, and in reply he was informed that all justice
would be done to the prisoner. He (Lord Malmesbury)
had since received a dispatch from Mr. Freeborn an-
nouncing the arrival of Mr. Murray at Rome. He
(Lord Malmesbury), therefore,wrote to Mr. Freeborn, re-
questing him to watch the proceedings against Mr. Mur-
ray, and to see that he received fair play. Their Lordships
were, however, aware of the very anomalous state of our
relations with Rome. In consequence of not having an
ambassador there, the Government had to proceed in
such matters in a rather roundabout and underhand
manner, which he thought was unworthy a great country
like England.

The Duke of ARGYLL said that the explanation of
the Noble Earl was perfectly satisfactory so far as he
was himself concerned, but as this gentleman had been
in prison for two, or, according to some of the papers,
three years, without any protest on his behalf having
been made by the Government of England, there ap-
peared to be some responsibility resting upon those who
had preceded the Nobee Earl in office.
EXPULSION OF BRITISH MISSIONARIES
FROU THE AUSTRIAN DOMINIONS.
The NOBLE DUKE continued—My Lords, I also rise
to ask my Noble Friend opposite whether ho has any
objection to produce the dispatches which have passed
between him and his predecessors in office and the
Austrian Government with respect to Messrs. Win-
gate, Smith, and Edwards. I confess, my Lords,
that I shall peruie this correspondence with
some curiosity. As far as I have been able
to form an opinion, the reply which has been
given by my Noble Friend opposite to the Aus-
trian Government is far from satisfactory, and
the answer of the Austrian Government I consider still
less satisfactory. At the same time Ido not wish to be
misunderstood by the Noble Eirl as to the spirit in
which I put this question. lam not anxious to express
any opinion at alt upon the home policy of the Govern-
ment, of which no human being knows anything what-
ever, but there is one thing I am anxious to deprecate,
and that is the supposition that it is to be imagined by
any party in this House, that whoever may be at the
head of the Foreign-office, he is not ever to be anxious
to vindicate the rights of British subjects abroad. I
feel perfectly certain, that whatever political party may
be in power, they will always be anxious to vindicate the
rights of British suajms—(H.,ar, hear)—and to main-
tain inviolate those rights which it hi the especial duty
of the Noble Earl and of the Foreign-office to defend. -
After a few words from the Earl of MINT°, which
were inaudible in the gallery,
The Earl of MALMESBURY said—Hy Lords, I am
sorry to say that, in consequence of the correspondence
not being complete, lam unable to produce it. With re-
gard to what the Noble Duke has stated as to the main-
tenance of the rights of British subjects, I beg to give
him my most solemn assurance that there is nothing I
have had so much at heart since I had the honour to fill
my present (Zee as the faithful performance of that duty
which especially devolves upon me—namely, that of
maintaining inviolate the national law bentweeely, nthis and
other countries.—(hear, hear.) If I understand my duty
aright, it is not to argue with other countries as to what
shall be the particular law which they in their wisdom
(or the reverse) may be pleased to establish, but to see
that that law -is carried out fairly with
Ithinkrespectl
.s m
to her
Majesty's suftjects.—(Hear, hear.)
duty, and that duty I have Thatendeavoured to discharge.y
My Lords, when the correspondence in question is com-
plete, I shall be happy to produce it.—(dear, hear.)
The Marquis of BREADALBANE observed that the
predeceesor of the Noble Earl in office had expressed an
opinion that these gentlemen had been most unjustly
treated, and that they were entitled to some pecuniary
compensation. He trust( d the Austrian Government
would not be allowed to escape, or to suppose that they
could deal arbitrary towards British subjects, as they
did to their own. These gentlemen were British sub-
jects, exercising legitimate and legal rights. For four
or five years they had been permitted to exercise those
rights unquestioned; but immediately on Lord Palmer-
ston quitting the Foreign-office they were ordered to
leave the Austrian dominions.
THE CASE OF MR. MATHER.
Earl FITZ WILLIAM inquired whether any addi-
tional information h .d reached the Government with re-
spect to the proceedings of the Tuscan and Austrian
Courts in reference to Mr. Mother?
The Earl of MALMESBURY replied that the case of
this gentleman was not quite settled, although he be-
lieved it was nearly so.
Lord STANLEY of ALDERLEY—I only rise for
the purpose of stating that no communication with re-
gard to the proceedings against Mr. Murray, at Rome,
had been received whilst her Majesty's late Government
were in office. I beg to call the attention of the Hume
to the fact, that the treatment of British subjects by fo-
reign Governments was regulated not so much by any
existing international lave, as by the tenets which they
imagined were held by the Government for the time
being in this country.
Lord CAMPBELL, stated that from personal observa-
tion he knew that great disaster area() in this country'
from our not having a properly accredited Minister at
Rome. There was now at Rome a most honourable
and intelligent man, who had been. appointed by this
country in an underhand way to take care of the inte-
rests of this country. There was also a Mr. Petro, who
filled the situation of attacl d to the mission of Florence,
whose duty it was to take care of the interests of British
y
subjects in that part of Italy, But he (Lord Campbell)
any
yulEnd
(Insturtheattowsaeiy„h thtat those. gentlemen had not by
with the Court of Rome which
would belong to a person who was the organ of the
English Government, ; and, therefore, the Court
of
ff
publicß (p
Rome was
nosu abused
in England,
__with respect to the state
gland, and to that we
might astride Boma of the late disasters which
we had to deplore. Ile believed that the Court
of Borne Was by no means disinclined to hear
the truth. Even in the highest quarter there was
an anatiety to be well informed, and ho believed that if
we had a Minister accredited to the Court of Rome the
happiest consequences might be anticipated. If we had
644 a Minister he wonlcl be able to bay before bie