The Sun.
London, England, 1853-02-18 00:00:00

to their sacred offices. According to the highest authority
on the criminal law in Tuscany, the offence visited on these
persons was n)t an ecclesiastical offence, but a civil offence
—not an offence against religion, but against the outward
system of the community. The hon. member then pro-
ceeded to real the act of accusation, which stated that
these persons had afforded accommodation in their habita-
tions for meetings held for religious exercise and for in-
struction in their religion, and that they belonggd to a so-
ciety which carried on the distribution of books and tracts
for that purpose ; and then it stated the errors which they
had attempted to propagate. The whole gist of the case
now made cm was that they had been punished for read-
ing the Bible; but the fact was, they were accused of im-
piety committed in the course of the last year, and of be-
coming memlers of a propagandist society. This was an
offence against the religion of the State, considered as such.
—not an ecclesiastical offence, but a civil offence, in dis-
turbing the community. Then came the sentence ; and he
thought the house ought to assume that what the court had
found to be proved was proved. The finding showed the
facts set out in the accusation, and went on to show that
the offence was a public offence. The proceeding was insti-
tuted by the Attorney-General, and was in the nature of
a public proceeding. The subject was dealt with as a ques-
tion of the internal law of Tuscany, operating through its
tribunals upon the subjects of that State. He could not help
deprecating the manner in which the question had been agi-
tated in this country. In tracts, pamphlets, newspapers;
speeches at public meetings, the Duke of Tuscany had been
held up as a tyrant who ought to be exterminated. And for
what? For an act of the tribunals of his country—for the in-
ternal administration of justice to his subjects. One of the
dispatches sent out by Lord Malmesbury was so violent that
Sir Henry Bulver declined to act upon it. It imputed the
most malicious objects to the advocates of the Church of
Rome ; and the tone it assumed in lecturing an indepen-
dent sovereign with regard to the administration of justice
in his own country was extremely inconvenient, and cal-
culated to embarrass our foreign relations. In this case
we were not not in possession of the whole of the facts—we
ware ignorant of the peculiar circumstances of the country,
and of habits and customs of the people ; and what ap-
peared in the opinion of the house to be wrong, might,
under the peculiar circumstances of Tuscany, be extremely
just and expedient. He considered one of the dispatches
of the noble lord the member for the city of London still
more objectionable than that of Lord Malmesbury.. The
expressions used by the noble lord imputed a desire to
avoid the spectacle of a public execution on the scaffold,
and an intention to place persons in an unhealthy dungeon,
in order that they might die. A dispatch from Mr. Erskine
showed that many of the notions of athe noble lord had been
conjured up by his imagination, and a statement by an
English gentleman showed that the prison was situated on
the top of a high hill. He strongly deprecated the use of
such language towards foreign States on matters on which we
were imperfectly informed, and believed that the mode in
which the interference had. been carried on had frustrated
the benevolent intentions of those who had used such un-
due means. He would not trouble the house any longer
on this painful subject, but he should rejoice if he had suc-
ceeded in throwing any light upon it by placing the matter
on its true footing. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. H. DRITMMOND said that the hon. and learned
gentleman who had just sat down had endeavoured to make
the house believe that this treatment of the Madiai, whether
it was to be considered as a punishment or as a religious
judgment, was not a religious proceeding at all, but was
to be accounted as a punishment for an offence against
the State. Why, there was not an instance of per-
secution by the Inquisition that the same thing was not
alleged. (Hear, hear.) It was notorious that the massacre
of St. Bartholomew was justified to this day on this very
ground. It used to be a common trick in Spain with the
priests to pretend to intercede for the wicked man, while
the cruel Statetook hold of the unhappy creature and burnt
him; but, unfortunately, here the observation of Macchia-
yell occurred .to one's mind, where he said, " I have known
many instances of priests interfering to aggravate a man's
punishment, but never once to mitigate it." He (Mr. Drum-
mond) perfectly admitted that we were not very wise in
pressing our notions of toleration on foreign States. He was
sure, if what we called toleration were exercised to the full
extent in France, that, under pretence of holding religious
meetings, other meetings would be hold, and the safety of
the State might be compromised. Therefore, he believed
that the interference in this case had been judicious, and
he thought that the Grand Duke, finding himself pressed
upon at once, both from without and from within, might
not have acted in the same way as if a private remon-
strance had been addressed to him, when his own bene-
volence would. have spoken more forcibly in behalf of those
unhappy people. But the honourable and learned gentle-
man who had previously spoken said that the gravamen of
the interference lay in its foreign interference. That
sounded rather strange in his (Mr. Drummond's) ears, be-
cause, when allusion was made to the Ecclesiastical Titles
Bill, the whole ground pretended on any side was that the
act against which that measure was directed had been by
foreign instigation. (Hear, hear.) The truth was, that a
foreign prince, an Englishman by birth, but still a foreign
prince, was sent into this country to effect a material change,
that this prince wrote with his own hand to the Roman Ca-
tholic princes of Europe, and that they replied to him
unknown to the Queen of England. He (Mr. Drummond)
was told that that was quite a common thing, but this was
only an additional reason why it should not 'have been per-
mitted. When Edward 111., who was a good Popish king,
was engaged in a Scotch war, a Romish cardinal arrived at
Dover, but he was stoppedthere by the Queen, who told him
not to dare to advance one step further until he had re-
ceived the King's permission. He (Mr. Drummond) wished
that the same course had been pursued with regard to Car-
dinal Wiseman. (Hear, hear.) Was it said by anybody
that the rich men who went from London had taught the
Madioi to pay a superior allegiance to anybody than to tho
Grand Duke of Tuscany ? These things were questions of
fact, and you had to deal with them, not quite in the sen-
timental way in which some gentlemen were fond of treat-
ing them. He wholly acquitted the Roman Catholic laity
of any intention or liking for persecution more than the
Protestant laity, but there existed what the French called
a pantie pr4tre, and the success of that party depended on
the moral, t,rairitual, and temporal degradation of the people.
(Hoar, hear.) It was no wonder that the Grand Duke looked
with jealousy on this interference, and before they con-
demned too strongly the conduct of the Roman Catholics,
he (Mr. Drummond) would advise them to look a little into
what their own conduct was. They said that these priests
had usurped an authority over the Scriptures, and so they
had ; but had not they (the Protestants) taken the Bible,
and by it destroyed the Church ? If they had not gone
the lengths of persecution which the upholders of the Ro-
man Church had proceeded to, it was simply because they
wanted the power; for the language which had been used
towards the Bishop of Exeter and others who had main-
tained the authority of the Church showed what they
would do if they could.
Mr. J. D. FITZGERALD never could consent to the doc-
trine that the free use of the Scriptures, or the holding of
peculiar religious opinions, should be regarded as a crime.
(Hear.) Such a sentiment would come badly from him, as
a member of the Roman Catholic Church, which had a so-
ciety for the propagation of the faith, a society of which he
was proud—which sent out its missionaries into every
country with the object of proselytising. (Hear, hear.) He
adopted the sentiments expressed by the noble lord the
Secretary of State for the Home Department, but he must
say that he could not understand why the hon. member
for Perth, in introducing the motion, had referred to the
conduct of the Roman Catholic clergy. From what he (Mr.
Fitzgerald) had heard of this Leopoldine law he was con-
vinced that, so far from its being derived from the Roman
Catholic Church, it was derived from a system which had
destroyed the power of ecclesiastical courts, and through
the ecclesiastical courts the power of the church. He ap-
proved to a certain extent of the interference of England
in this question. It was not a question of Protestant and
Roman Catholic, but one in which the great interests of
civil and religious liberty were involved, and he said as a
Roman Catholic—as a member of a religion which had
been persecuted up to a recent period, and was not yet
free from disabilities—that he should ever raise his voice
against persecution of every kind. (Cheers.) He demanded
civil and religious liberty for himself, and he would not be
a party to withholding it from others. But the system
still continued of endeavouring to impose religious-r_maions
upon others by force, whereas we might at the present day
at least recal to mind with advantage the saying of Charles
V., who, after he had retired from the throne, employed
his leisure in making watches—" Fool th,at I am ; I have
expended all my time and labour and all 'the resources of
my state in endeavouring, by force and violence, to make
men think alike on religious subjects, when, by all my
force, I cannot make these watches go together." He (Mr.
Fitzgerald) hoped that the mover of the resolution would
adopt the suggestion of the noble lord the Secretary for
Foreign Affairs. Dealing with this question as one of
strict right, perhaps we had already interfered too far in
the matter, though he trusted that England, which was
now the only country in Europe that possessed true liberty,
would neither now,lnor at any future time, be backward in
endeavouring to relieve those who suffered in the cause of
freedom. (Cheers.)
Lord STANLEY agreed decidedly and cordially with
the language of the hon. member who had introduced this
debate with respect to the general policy of the Tuscan
Government, and, in particular, with regard to the case of
the Madiai. There never could be entertained; on the part
of any government, a doubt or hesitation as to the pro-
priety of England interposing in such a case. The only
, question had been, what the form of that interposition
r should be, whether it should take a formal and official
shape, or be made to assume a non-official character. If
an official remonstrance had been sent in, and no attention
had been paid to it, or a peremptory refusal had been
given, the Government would either have had to submit
to the refusal, and have borne the consequent loss to the
national dignity, or would have had to withdraw our Mi-
nister from Tuscany. But if there was one state in Italy
which stood in danger from its neighbours, that state was
Tuscany, and, therefore, the withdrawal of the British
Minister from the Tuscan Court would be a misfortune
not only to Tuscany herself, but possibly to Europe. It
had, therefore, been determined that the interference of
the British Government should take place only in a non-
official character. But the remonstrance, though it had
not been official, had been extremely strong, and the
Grand Duke had been urged at once to exercise his prero-
gative of mercy in behalf of the Madiai, and for the com-
mon good of all its subjects. There had been every reason
to expect that the remonstrance would have been attended
with success. Under the circumstances, he believed it was
the duty of the Government to do all in their power on be-
half of those unhappy persons. (Hear.)
Sir R. H. INGLIS said that the hon. and learned mem-
ber for Meath had claimed the.sympathy of the house and
of England for all cases of persecution in which persons suf-
fered for their religion. He (Sir R. H. Inglis) would not
consent to that proposition. His noble friend the Secretary
for Foreign Affairs, acting more consistently with his high
positiOn and high principles, and with his duty to the
Queen of this Protestant country, had claimed for Pro-
testants that sympathy which this country feels for them.
He (Sir H. Inglis) would not say that wherever any human
being suffered for his religion, the people of this country
were to offer their Aid, but when those co-religionists
sympathised with us in the highest and most important of
all interests, and when they were condemned to persecu-
tion for fidelity to their principles, then he said it was the
duty of the Government, expressing the sentiments of this
Protestant people, peacefully but firmly to endeavour, if
necessary by the sacrifice of our blood and treasure, and
at all events by the weight of our moral influence, to re-
dress the wrong-.
Mr. KENNEDY could not understand this interference.
He could understand the Grand Duke of Tuscany asking
whether we lived in perfect religious harmony here, and
thought that the Grand Duke of Tuscany would be just as

much warranted in calling for the repeal of the Ecclesias-
tical Titles Bill as we'in interfering in Tuscany. I 1
Lord PALMERSTON—I do not wish that the debate
should terminate before I have the opportunity of making
one or two observations on the pointed allusions which the
honourable member for Meath (Mr. Lucas) has made to
me in the course of his speech. The honourable member

is desirous that I should stand forth as the defender of the

Grand Duke of Tuscany ; and I must own that it appeared

to me that if the hon. member was the only defender the
Grand Duke had, the Grand Duke was still very much in
need of some ally. (Hear, hoar.) However, I defend
myself, not the Grand Duke. The honourable member for
Meath, unable to say one single word in defence of the
Grand Duke, proceeded to impute to me conduct similar
to that which my honourable friend and the house have so
justly condemned ; and he proceeded to:allud.e to certain
transactions in regard to Switzerland and to events which
occurred in the island of Tahiti. With regard to the
Swiss question, the honourable member read such
parts of the papers as suited his purpose ; but I think
he could not have seen enough to inform him of the entire
nature of the transaction he alluded to, for, if he had, he
suppressed the most important part. What was that
transaction ? The hon. member appeared to assert that I
had stood forward as the persecutor of the Jesuits—that I
had urged the Swiss cantons to exterminate the Jesuits.
That " extermination" it remains for him to explain ; I
suppose he meant to expel them. The facts were these.
A civil war had broken out—cantons armed against can-
tons—Protestants against Catholics—a majority against a
minority. We were invited by the French Government to
mediate between the parties, and endeavour to settle the
matter on such terms as we best could, with the speediest
chance of putting an end to that disastrous conflict. The
cause of that conflict was the Jesuits ; it was their pre-
sence, their aggressive proceedings on the Protestant can-
tons, which produced the war with regard to which our
mediation was asked for. The only and the natural mode
of putting an end to that contest was to remove its object
and cause ; in that spirit we proposed that the Jesuits
should be withdrawn ; and I did state the reasons which
induced that conclusion—reasons to which I still adhere—
that the presence of the Jesuits in any country, Catholic
or Protestant, is likely to breed social disturbance. Being
called on to mediate for the purpose of putting an end to a
civil war, I took the only natural course, the removal of
the Jesuits, who were the cause, in the knowledge that so I
should remove the effect. With regard to Tahiti, that re-
mote land to which the hon. member took his extended
flight, in order to draw an argument in favour of a cause
which he has endeavoured to support, but is afraid to avow
—(cheers)— what had happened in Tahiti ? In Tahiti there
was a barbarous and profligate, an ignorant and a heathen
population. The Protestant missionaries, with a courage
and a zeal that did honour to themselves, to their religion,
and to the nation from which they sprung, facing all the
dangers and perils which naturally surrounded men who
planted themselves amid horrid savages, went to Tahiti ;
and, by perseverance and zeal, by good counsel, by Chris-
tian example, and by Christian precept, they converted
those barbarous savages into, what I am not afraid of call-
ing, comparatively civilised Christians. They had then re-
stored peace, and virtue, and order, and morality, to a
land that had been before the scene of profligacy and vice,
when in came the Catholic missionaries. And did they fol-
low the example of the Protestants ? Did they go to a land
where danger and difficulty were to be encountered before
they could triumph in the holy object of converting the
heathen ? No, sir, they went to disturb the tranquillity
of those whom others hal already pacified, instead of going
to places where they might have been exposed to dangers,
and where a religious triumph, worthy of Christ, might
have been accomplished. They proceeded to disturb those
peaceful people of Tahiti--for the purpose of turning Pro-
testants into Catholics, instead of for that of turning hea-
thens into Christians. (Cheers.) They endeavoured to
disturb the social tranquillity of those lands. I admit,
with the honourable member, that the proceedings of
the Government, stimulated by our missionaries, exceeded,
probably—exceeded, certainly—the bounds of propriety
and justice. But did they put those Catholic mission-
aries into " comfortable prisons"—did they treat them
as the Grand Duke had treated the Madiai, and
other persons who have professed Protestantism ? ?Why,
no. What they did was to say—" We are already
Christians—we do not want your instruction—pray go
away." There was a law of the island to compel them
to go away. All that was done was this—they were ex-
pelled, not exterminated. Why, sir, the Madiais would be
only too glad if the Grand Duke would follow the example
set him by the barbarian Queen of Tahiti. If the honour-
able member could only persuade the Grand Duke to follow
that example, I will 'venture to say they will tender him
their most grateful thanks. The honourable member talked
of continued persecution—a Roman Catholic sitting in this
house makes these reproaches, he himself being our exam-
ple. I turn with pleasure to the speech of the honourable
member for Ennis—to sentiments which do honour to that
religion which he professes, and which I designate Chris-
tian, casting aside for the moment all differences between
Catholic and Protestant. The honourable member for
Meath wants us to apply to Governments of the same reli-
gion as ourselves—our advice to him is to take example by
those gentlemen of the same religion as himself. (Cheers.)
Mr. KINNAIRD then withdrew his motion.
Sir J. SHELLEY then moved for the appointment of
he following
SELECT COMMITTEE ON COAL DUTIES.

Sir John Shelley, Mr. Masterman, Sir Benjamin-Hall,
Mr. Miles, Mr. Lowe, Mr. Kor Seymer, Lord Robert Gros-
venor, Sir William Joliffe, Mr. Headlam, Mr. Deedes, Mr.
Blackett, Sir James Duke, Mr. Vernon, Mr. -Ewart, and
Sir Henry'lleux.
Mr. ALCOCK wished the appointment postponed, in
order to examine the names, and, if necessary, to alter
them.
Sir B. HALL did not see how a committee could be
better struck for entering upon this question.
Mr. STUART WORTLEY said he could undertake that
the corporation of London and their officers would be
ready to afford the committee every facility in their power
in the prosecution of their investigation. He hoped that
the committee would be allowed to proceed with their in-
quiry with the least possible delay.
The motion was then agreed to.
SELECT COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION.

Mr. MILNER GIBSON moved that a select committee
be appointed to inquire into the state of education in the
municipal boroughs of Manchester and Salford, and in the
contiguous townships of Broughton, Pendleton, and Pen-
dlebury, and whether it was advisable to make any further
provision, and in what manner, for the education of the
inhabitants within such boroughs and townships.
Mr. PETO hoped that the advocates of the voluntary
principle in education would be adequately represented on
the committee.
Mr. M. GIBSON was quite willing that the wish of the
honourable gentleman should be acceded to. When the
honourable gentleman saw the committee, he would find,
that it was constituted with the view to represent all opi-
nions fairly.
The motion was then agreed to.
DESIGNS ACT EXTBNSION BILL.
This bill went through committee.
GRAND JURY CESS (IRELAND) BILL.
This bill also went through committee.
ARMY ESTIMATES.

Mr. SIDNEY HERBERT laid the army estimates on
the table.
The house then adjourned at half-past eleven o'clock.

PARLIAMENTARY DIVISION.

FOUSE OF COMMONS.-FEB. 17.
HOPS.

Motion made and question put, " That the Excise Duty
on Hops is impolitic and unjust, and ought to be repealed."
The House divided—Ayes, 91; Noes, 175.

AYES.
Adderley, C. B. Freslifteld, J. W. Oakes, J. H. P.
Alcock, Thomas Fuller, A. E. Oliveira, Benjamin
Bailey, C. Gibson, M. Parker, R. T.
Ball, Edward Greene, John Pellet Apsley
Barnes, T. °revile, Colonel F. Percy, J. William
Barrington, Viscount Gwyn, Bowel Potter, R.
Barrow, Wm. H. Hadfield, George Pugh, D.
Bateson, Thomas Raiford, Sir Henry Robertson, P. F.
Bell, James Ilenchy, D. O'Connor Rolt, P.
Bentinck, Geo. P. Hume, Joseph Sanders, G.
Brady, John Hutchins, E. Shee, William
Bright, John Joliffe, Sir W. G. H. Shelley, rir J. V.
Brisco, Musgrave Jones, Darid Smith, John BenJ.
Brown, H. Kendall, N. Stafford, A.
Bruce, C. L. C. Kennedy, Tristram Stanhope, James B
Butt, Isaac Kershaw, James Stanley, Lord
Carter, Samuel Knightley, Heinell Sullivan, M.
Cholmondeley, Ld. H. Knox, Col. Thompson, Mr. Ald
Clinton, Ld. C.Pelham Laslett, William Turner, C.
Clive, Robert Loraine, Lord Tyler, Sir G.
Cobbett, J M. Lowther, Colonel Vance, J.
Cobbold, J. C. Lucas, F. Vansittart, G. H.
Cobden, Richard Nacartney. G. Walmsley, Sir J.
Compton, H. Combs Mackinnon, W. A. Waiter J.
Craufurd, E. Macgregor, James Whitmore, H.
Crook, Joseph M'Mahon, Patrick Wilkinson, W.
Disraeli, Benjamin Martin, John Williams, W.
Drummond, Henry Miall, Edward
Duffy, C. G. Mitchell, W.
Fox, W. J. Miller, T. J.
Fraser. Sir W. A. Mailings J. Randolph Frewen, Charles Hay
French, Fitzstephen Muntz, G. Frederick Bass, M. T.

TLLL7‘I3.

NOES.
Aclan Gladstone, William Mure, Col.
A'Court, C. H. W. Glyn, George Carr Norreys, Lord
Anderson, Sir James Goderich, Viscount Osborne, Ralph
Armstrong, R. b. Goodman, Sir George Otway, A. J.
Baines, M. T. Gower, F. L. Paget, Lord George
Baring, Sir F. Graham, Sir James Palmerston, Viscoun
Baring, T. Gregson, Samuel Patten, J.
Beaumont, W. B. Grenfell, C. Peacocks, G. M. W.
Bellew, Captain Grey, Sir G. Peel Frederick
Berkeley, Admiral Grosvenor, Lord Ti. Phillips, John Henry
Blackett, J. F. Hanbury, Spencer B Phinn, T.
Booker, T. W. Harmer, Sir John Pilkington. James
Bowyer, George Harcourt, Colonel Pinney, William
Boyle, Colonel Hardinge, C. S. Powlett, Lord W.
Brand, H. B. W. Hastie, Archibald Price, Sir R.
Er otherton, Joseph Headlam, T. E. Price, W. P.
Browne, Valentine Heathcoat John Itichardo, 0.
Bruce, Lord Ernest Heathcoto, Sir G. J. Rice, E.
Bruce, H. A. Heathcote, Gilbert H. Robartes, T. J. A.
Burke, Sir T. Herbert, Sidney Russell, Lord J.
Russell. F. C. H.
Bus, ell, F. W.
BBuyntl,rer,,GC.hHar.les S.
Cardwell, IL E. Horsfall, Thomas B. Sawle, C. B. G.
Charles Hervey, Alfred
Chambers, Thomas Howard, W. G. Scobell, Capt.
Charteris, F. Hutt, William Scrope, G. P.
Chelsea, Viscount Ingham, R. Seymour, Lord
Christy, Samuel Inglis Sir It. H. Shelburne Earl of
Clay, James Jermyn, Earl Smith, John Abel
Clay, Sir William Keating, Robert Smith, M. Tucker
Clifford, Henry M. King, P. J. Smith, Rt. lin. R.
Clinton, Lord Robert Kinnaird, Arthur F. Smith,oal, e
taling
Ih W, M,
I C Mcs.
Coffin, Walter Kirk, William Stanley, Tin. W. 0.
Collier, Robert P. Knight, F. W. Stansfield, W. R.
Tc.
Cowper, W. F. Labouchero, H. Stapleton, John
Crossley, F. Langton, 11. G. Strutt, Edward
Cubitt, Alderman Lawley, F. C. Swift, R.
Deedes, W. Layard, A. H. Taylor, H.
Denison, J. E. Legh, G. C. Thornely, T.
Divett, Ed. Locke, J. wnl
Drumlanrig, Viscount Lowe, Robert Townshend, J.
Duncan, G. Luce, T.
erakntmaamn,,HJaemnryes w
Tufnell, H.
Dundas, G. M'Taggart, Sir J. Vernon, G. E. H.
Dundas, Hon. F. Maddock, Sir T. H. Villiers, C. Pelham
Eccles, W. Malin% Richard Vivian, J. Henry
Elliot, John Mangles, R. D. W
Evelyn, W. J. Marshall, William Wells, W.
Ewart William Massey, W. N. Westhead, J.
Fagan, W. Masto. man, John Whalley, G. 11,
Fergus, John Matheson, Sir J.
Ferguson, Sir Robert Meagher, ThomaslNlVrii
Filmer, Sir Edmund Mills, A. Wilson, James
Fitzgerald, J. D. Mills, T. Wise, J. A.
Fitzgerald, W. R. S. Milner, W.M. E. Wortley, J. S.
Fitzroy, Henry Milnes, R. M. Wyvill, M.
Fitzwilllam, G. W. Molesworth, Sir W. Young, Sir job,
Forster, M. Moncreiff, James
Franklyn, G. W. Monsell, W.
Freestun, Colonel Montgomery, Sir G.
Geach, Charles Morris, D.
George, John Mulgrave, Earl

TELLERS.

Ilayter, W. G.
Aerkeley, Granville