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

E SUN, LONDON, FRIDAY EVENING, FEBRUARY 18, 1858.

lord at the Foreign-office did not exactly advise that a re-
ception should not be given to the priests ; of course he
said every Government had the right to refuse to any
foreigner permission to reside within its dominions •if
the presence of such foreigner was considered hurtful
to society. The honourable member then proceeded to
refer to a document from Mr. Pritchard, ad [tossed to
Lord Palmerston, containing a copy of the law then re-
cently passed in the island, forbidding any person to pro-
pagate any religion in the island other than that which
had been "of old propagated in Tahiti" by the missions-
aries of Britain. The reply of the noble Secretary for
Foreign Affairs, instead of being a scathing rebuke to the
rev. consul of London-wall, simply stated that her Majesty
expressed her deep concern for troubles of Queen Pomare,
and promised his good offices in the event of any interfe-
rence by other powers in the affairs of the Government of
Tahiti. That law remained in force, as he understood, for
two or three years ; and it was put an end to, by what and
by whom ? It was 'put an end to by the French admiral,
coming from a Catholic country, with the Popish religion
in his bottom—(laughter)—bringing that sort of a freight
with him, he came with the Popish religion and with the
French cannon, and the established—what ? A strange
thing in the history of the Protestant religion in the South
Seas, and he established that every one should be free to
exercise his own form of worship and religion. (Hear, hear.)
And the strange thing was that, notwithstanding the let-
ter which he had read, and two or three others of the same
nature from Mr. Pritchard, that gentleman continued down
to the present day to be consul in the South Seas and the
Navigator's Islands ; and unless these documents were im-
perfect, he had never received a rebuke nor a single word
of censure for doing that which they censured the Grand
Duke of Tuscany for doing ; he still remained there to
preach those persecuting doctrines which had received no
censure from the noble lord, and which excited no commis-
seration when they told upon their own side, ' but which
excited emotions of holy horror and indignation when they
told against them, and happened to promote the cause
which they endeavoured to oppress and destroy. (Hear,
hear.) If he could believe that this resolution which they
*ere now considering expressed the real facts of the case
with regard to the Madiai, there was only one conside-
ration which would prevent him from adopting it, and if
there was a division from dividing in its favour ; and that
was that he never would recognise the principle that the
exercise of their humanity and philanthropy should be all
on one side. The noble lord spoke excellent truth, sense,
and wisdom when he referred to Russia, but he might
have referred to other countries with which this country
was more immediately connected, and much nearer home.
He held in his hand two volumes which had been laid on
the table by the noble lord the present Foreign Secretary as
inducements for the house to consent to that new persecu-
tion against the Catholic Church which animated him two
years ago, and which he lately told them animated him still.
These documents contained an account of the public legis-
lation of Europe with respect to religion, and upon the
grounds contained in them the noble lord pretended to
base what he called his Ecclesiastical Titles Rill. Ho
turned to the law of Sweden, and he found—what ? Mr.
Gordon sent a series of documents for the information of
the noble lord and the house, showing what was the legis-
lation of that eminently Protestant country. He bespoke
the noble lord's favourable attention to these documents by
telling him that the relation of the two countries—especially
with regard to Rome—were so similar. He (Mr. Lucas)
could hardly grbear commenting upon the terms in which
this document was written. It came from a secretary of
legation—an official who was bound to observe the ordi-
nary terms of decency in speaking of his Catholic follow-
subjects ; and he must remind this Mr. Gordon and the
noble lord, who had insulted the Catholics by laying this
document before the house, that the name by which the
Catholics were designated in acts of Parliament and other
public documents was not Romanists, but Roman Catholics.
(Hear.) The word Romanist was a nickname—it was a
piece of Billingsgate coining from an official, who derived his
salary and his means of living from all classes of the com-
munity; but who sent this trash to be laid upon their table,
to insult those from whose pockets he derived his bread, and
for which he was not reproved either by the noble lord
who was now, or the noble lord who was then, in the
Foreign-office. But he would pass from that to the law
which this Mr. Gordon explained ; and he hardly knew
how to describe it, but there was a cheerfulness which
came over him when he spoke of those laws which lent
vigour and elasticity to his pen. He spoke of the tolera-
tion which had existed in the country ; but what were the
facts of the case ? EVery stranger who settled in the country
and professed a foreign religion was not to be employed in
any public situation ; he was not allowed to open schools—
no missionaries were to be allowed in the country—no
monasteries were allowed. One clause, he was sure, would
excite the sympathy of the noble lord opposite, if nothing
else did—the Jews were not allowed to have synagogues,
except in Stockholm and one or two other large towns. The
processions and ceremonies of foteig,n religions were for-
bidden ; the laws against apostacy were strictly carried
into effect ; the liberty of the press did not extend to books
inculcating the dogmas of a foreign religion • any member
of a foreign religion speaking disrespectfully of the creed
or services of the national Church was to be fined from
10 to 50 dollars ; any person endeavouring to persuade
others to embrace a foreign religion, 10) dollars; any person
tempting others to attend the exercise of a foreign religion,
200 dollars ; and, if they persisted in these crimes,
they were to lose their privilege of residing in
the kingdom. But it might be said this was only
the letter and text of the law, and that they were in-
operative. It would be a sad mistake to make such an
assertion. In the first document which came from Mr.
Gordon theyhad a statement, given with the greatest anima-
tion and delight, of the manner in which these laws worked
in practice. He did not, indeed, tell the whole truth ; but
he told them enough to prove that the laws were not inope-
rative. There was one instance in which the Swedish
Government complained of the over-proselytising zeal of a
Roman Catholic priest at Stockholm. Application was made
to Rome, and the over-active ecclesiastic was recalled from
his post. Was that all ? No ; if it were ho would not have
inflicted upon the house this lip statement. He wished to
show that there were at this moment going ou in Protes-
tant States acts of persecution against Catholics of which
they were studiously and habitually uninformed, and which
as much deserved and required the sympathy of this house
and the Government as the case of the Madiai, unless they
were about to adopt a course which would write them up
throughout Europe as men who said one thing and meant
another—men who had the words toleration, religious
liberty, and the spirit of this enlightened age, upon their
lips, but who did not practise what they preached—who
practised it only in defence of their own system of religion,
but who looked on with unconcern and indifference when
the sufferings of others happened to be in quesaion. He
meant at an early period to submit to the house a motion
with reference to other circumstances, other facts, other
countries, and other acts of persecution, but which equally
deserved the attention of the house with that which the
honourable gentleman had brought before them. Ho would
do this whether the present motion were carried or not,
because the papers which were in all their hands showed
that the Englisa Government had interfered in the case of
the Madiai, and he meant to test the sincerity of the Go-
vernment whether—having done so much for people who
were persecuted by a Catholic Government—they would
as much for people who were persecuted by a Protestant
Government. He would bring them to the test on this
subject, and he would tell them a part of the facts which
he would lay before them. With regard to Swedezi he
would be prepared to show that the laws he had already
referred to were no dead letter; that in 1848 it was pro-
posed by Count Stettin to repeal that part of the la -w
which referred to confiscation and exile, leaving the other.
disabilities remaining, but the Legislature of the country
rejected his proposal. Then, for instances of the way
in which the law was applied, he could show, that,
in 1848, a man was committed for having read a Ca-
tholic Bible, - and said a Pater Noster to a few peo-
ple, for which he was fined 40 rix-dollars. In
1847, a Lutheran minister at Stockholm, sent a policeman
to a woman to know if it was true that she had been re-
ceived within the pale of the Roman Catholic Church, and
she was allowed time to reflect whether or not she would
recant. There were also two brothers, of the name of Nel-
son, painters, and one of them turned Catholic. He was
drivel from 'Sweden' and died in the public hospital at
Copenhagen. For his part, he thought that if the Govern-
ment of this country was to interfere on the ground of hu-
manity—which was the basis of the present motion—the
name of Nelson had as strong a claim to sympathy as that of
Madiai. When he brought his motion touching these cases
before the house, he would not ask any of his honourable
friends near him to second it, he would ask the honourable
gentleman opposite (Mr. Sinnaird) to do him the honour of
seconding the resolution which was to strike out a new course
for the foreign policy of this country—which would bring a
new class of cases within its cognizance, and which would
throw the power and influence of the Foreign-office, and
the faith and name of this great empire on the side of hu-
manity. The Catholic cases he had mentioned occurred in
1845 and 1847, but this very year a Catholic lady, residing
in Stockolm, had been arrested. for making proselytes, and
put upon her trial. She was defended on a technical ground
—he did not know the result, nor did he care, ,what he was
concerned with was to show that in Sweden the system of
law was as persecuting as in Tuscany. When he brought
forward his motion, thereforehe counted upon its receiving
the all but unanimous approbation of the house, or, at least
an assurance that the same course would be pursued by the
Foreign-office towards all cases of persecution. When he
brought forward his motion he would take the noble lord
to the system in Sweden, toMecklenburgh next, and next to
Saxony ; and when the noble lord had rebuked that evil
spirit out of the Protestants—when he had accomplished
that great work—when he had performed that herculean
labour—when he had cleansed that augean stable, then he
might begin with the Catholic States, and attempt to reform
them. As he began by saying he would have supported
this resolution if it had been in accordance with the facts
of the case—as it was he could not support it ; but, when
he brought forward the motion of which ho had given
notice, he looked to be seconded by the honourable gentle-
man. (Hear.)
Lord JOHN RUSSELL : In following the able speech
of the honourable gentleman, I own I should have been
better pleased with that speech if that honourable gentle-
man had indicated somewhat more decidedly than he has
done, whether or not he approves of punishment and per-
secution for the sake of religious conversion—(loud cheers)
—or for endeavouring, by peaceable means, to convert
others to their religion. (Cheers.) • In following that
speech, in listening to all the statements of the honourable
gentleman, I own I am totally at a loss to know whether
he approves or not of religions persecution. (Renewed
cheers.) I wish to refer as little as possible—though one
cannot altogether avoid—reference to the questions between
Protestants and Roman Catholics ; and I shall state at
once that my conviction is, that if Protestant states, Pro-
testant laws, or Protestant judges condemn persons because
they have become Roman Catholics, or because they teach
others to become Roman Catholics, they do that which I
consider to be morally wrong. (Loud cheers.) I care
little what particular profession of faith they hold. It may
be that they hold exactly the doctrines and articles of the
Church of England ; but if they, professing those doctri,les,
endeavour to inculcate them by penal means, by impriso:i-
tnent and punishment—l say that with such persons I have
no sympathy, and I would denounce them as readily as I
would a Roman Catholic Sovereign. Well, sir. what is
the case which my honourable friend the member for Perth
has brought before us? The honourable gentleman oppo •
site stated that there had been misrepresentation and exag-
gerations as to the nature of the crime for which the two
Madiais were condemned—that it was not for the fact of
their being Protestants, but because being Protestants they
endeavoured to convert others to Protestantism, and for
:laving done so under foreign agency. Now, with respect
to this last part of the charge, although that it is so stated
in the general indictment, yet it seems to form no substan-
tive part of the charge, because the foreign agent—what-
ever might have been at first done—had left Tuscany some
time before, and these two persons seemed to act entirely

from their own convictions in all that they subsequently
did. But let the case be as the Tuscan tribunals and the
honourable gentleman states it—though I must say with
respect to those facts that they are contradicted by Captain
Walker in the most explicit terms—but let it be that
Francisco and Rosa Madiai did endeavour to induce several
persons, being Roman Catholics, to read the Bible, and
that they even endeavoured to induce them to believe that
certain doctrines taught in the Roman Catholic Church
were not authorised by the Bible—push their crime to the
utmost, allow that they were caught, as the charge has it,
flagrante delicto—that is, that they were caught reading
the Bible in the Italian language—l still say it was a moral
crime to punish persons for so doing. (Loud and prolonged
cheering.) Well, then, the Government of this country—
in the first place my noble friend the member for Tiverton,
next the Earl of Malmesbury when he was Secretary for
Foreign Affairs, and in the last place since I have been at
the Foreign-office I have taken the same line—we all stated
to our ministers in Tuscany that they ought to use all the
influence they could, or that the name of this country
was capable of producing, to obtain a remission of the
sentence of these persons. Now, with respect to the
different Secretaries of State, I say we were fully justified
in this proceeding, and I think we have shown such
a disposition to press the case as far as it could be
pressed according to the circumstances of the time, that I
feel I am entitled to ask my honourable friend not to press
this motion, but rather to leave it in the hands of the
Government. (Loud cries of " Hear, hear.") The hon.
gentleman, who has not given his opinion, as I maintain, I
on the general subject, says that we are not justified in
considering ourselves the friends of religious liberty, because 1
we concern ourselves only on behalf of Protestants, while,
when oppressions and persecutions are exercised towards
Roman Catholic subjects, we are utterly indifferent, and do
not interfere. That such is our general conduct can hardly
be maintained, because neither in the United Kingdom nor
in any of the dominions of her Majesty with which I am
acquainted can any person be punished for the offence of
endeavouring to induce another to become a Roman
Catholic: The hon. gentleman must be aware that accord-
ing to the general maxims of the laws of this country we
would shrink with abhorence from any proposition to punish
persons because they had endeavoured to induce others
to become Roman Catholics. The hon. gentleman does not
deny this to be the case ; and so far our conduct as a State
is in such contrast with that of Tuscany that we can go
with clean hands and ask the Grand Duke not to exercise
persecution. But then it appears that my noble friend
near me, when he was Secretary of State for Foreign
Affairs, showed indifference to the question of religious
persecution. I should certainly have been surprised if that
had been the case with regard to my noble friend ; because
I know no man who has more frequently or more persever-
ingly shown his attachment to the cause of religious liberty
—(cheers) ; and I well remember in that great struggle in
which I was permitted to take part only by my vote, which
ended in admitting Roman Catholics to seats in this house
and in the Government, one of the most powerful speeches
at the close of that struggle in favour of the Roman
Catholics, was the speech of my noble friend. (Cheers.)
But my noble friend, it appears, took part in the disputes
between the cantons of Switzerland, some of which said
there woald be no peace nor quiet in the land as long as the
Jesuits we _ls allowed to remain. My noble friend said that
might possibly be the case, because he had learned from
history that the Jesuits had everywhere been the disturbers
of the peace of States. (Ironical cheers from the Opposi-
tion.) But was my noble friend, when he said that, in-
dulging in a Protestant prejudice ? That could hardly be
the case, because there were Roman Catholic princes who
had declared the same thing with respect to the Jesuits,
but in much stronger terms. (Cheers.) Among other
places from which they had been expelled was the kingdom
of Spain, and by his most Catholic Majesty the Ring of
Spain, in whose kingdom down to the present day no Pro-
testant was allowed, and in the next place, the Pope him-
self had declared that the order of the Jesuits was alto-
gether inconsistent with the cause of good order. (Cheers
and laughter.) If my noble friend, therefore, was misled,
if he had formed a wrong estimate of the order of the
Jesuits— and there may be many estimable and admirable
persons to be found in that order—if he was misled, he was
misled not by Protestant but by Roman Catholic authori-
ties. Then the hon. gentleman, finding it difficult to find
an example of intolerance either in the United Kingdom or
in any of the possessions of her Majesty, he lights upon an
island in the South Seas, and here he says is an instance of
intolerance which passed without notice or rebuke. It is
not for me—l shall certainly not undertake the task of de-
fending Mr. Pritchard and the laws of Queen Pomaro. For
my part, I do not see that we were obliged to go farther in
the matter than we did, because my noble friend, in his
dispatch, informed Mr. Pritchard that it was impossible
for the Queen of this country to remonstrate with France,
or to take the island under her protection - and therefore
motiessstiaonni in the
missionaries;
he declined the proposition of Mr. Prichard. There is
personse
s,
Seas,ws
ohmo9thiamv ees
sometimeswg iootnhr
origtheinating
no doubt that there have been dissensions betweea the
sawhn i 1 ict hs
ahtt
hh missionsoe hPo Protestant
and I must say that these dissensions are not at all credit-
able to the Christian profession. (Hear, hear.) The hon.
gentleman complains of the laws of Sweden, and he refers
to certain books, which, he says, I procured to support the
Ecclesiastical Titles Bill. I must say I read very little of
those books—my case did not require them ; and as to the
dispatch of Mr. Gordon, I do not know even to what it is
he refers. The question of the ecclesiastical titles was a
question of fact. I held that it was a question of temporal
power. Others maintained, against me, that it was a spi-
ritual question, and that it referred to the exercise of reli-
gion. The question undoultedly touched on the confines
of both. ~ I am not going to resume that dispute now ; but
that was really the question—whether we were right who
maintained that it was a temporal question, or whether
those were right who said it was a spiritual question. But
with respect to Sweden, or any other country, if the hdn.
gentleman, when he brings his motion before the house, or 1
makes his representation to the Secretary of State for Fo-
reign Affairs, will show that religious persecution exists, I
am sure that the Foreign Secretary will have no objection
to state to our minister residing in that particular country,
that it is not consistent with the spirit of the age and with
the maxims of the most civilised countries to adopt perse-
cution on account of religion. That her Majesty at the
head of this Slate—one of the most eminent, one of the
most powerful States in Europe—that her Majesty should
instruct her ministers to take a secular interest in the per-
secutions of Protestants, is surely no unnatural circum-
stance. It arises from the Protestant character of this
country—it has degended to us from the times of
the Vaudois from the Revocation of the Edict of
Nantes, and from other acts when we were called
upon to succour Protestants who were persecuted and
ill-treated by Roman Catholic States. I am not ashamed of
being one of those who inherit those principles—(cheers)—
and I think the Government have done nothing unbecom-
ing themselves if they represent to a Roman Catholic
Sovereign that Protestants are ill-treated, either in Tus-
cany or elsewhere. But the hon. gentleman said—Go to
the sovereigns who hold your own persuasion. But is it
not natural that we should rather go on behalf of those
who are of the same religion with ourselves, and who are
suffering, than that we should go to sovereigns who are of
the same religion ? With respect to the case of the nuns
at Minsk, the facts were obscure, and they were denied on
the part of Russia. The only sovereign, I believe, who
made a remonstrance on that occasion was the Pope.
(Cheers.) Well, that was natural—he naturally felt an
interest in those Roman Catholic nuns who were perse-
cuted, and he showed the interest which I think it was
natural for him to do. And on the same ground, If Pro-
testants are persecuted by the Grand Duke of Tuscany, it
is natural that the Queen of England should take as much
interest as the Pope did in the case of nuns, and interfere
in their behalf. (Loud and prolonged cheering.) But
while I admit this—while I admit that it is natural that
we should feel most interest on behalf of persecuted Pro-
testants—l assert again, what I maintained at an earlier
part of my speech, that the principle is one and universal
—that there ought to be no exception—that persecution
for religion is always odious and detestable, and that the
Government of this country will always do well to lift up
its voice against persecution. If we should be assisted and
applaudedby the voice of the honourable gentleman who
• just spoken, I shall be glad to find that we are all
has
agreed on the subject. I cannot say, for my part, that the
Roman Catholic subjects of her Majesty approve of these
committed against the Madiai. I have seen testimo-
niesacts corn= speeches made by
borne, I have seen reports of
as they
Ro-
man Catholics, which are extremely gratifying,
show that they participate though
in the general feeling,
the first to complain,
I believe
naturally they were not .
that the Roman Catholic in general disapprove of
persecution on account of religious opinions. (Hear.) I am
ht th rinci les of religious
sure it is most desirable t
and should be extended
liberty should spread and flourish,
to those
States in which they do not nowprevail. (Cheers.)
revolution of 1789, the Protestants of Frane
Ever since -the t of their
have not been visited by persecution on accoun
..
antel. I have ofted of Protestant clergymen ine
F g
endeavoruing Coextend their flocks, and to intim
to berotestants, and I do not bo-
Roman Catholics
which would justify any person in
lieve there is any law
in interfering with
France, or any authority in France,
The more civilised parts of Europe,
their opinions.
e Catho, hold those p
whether
Protestant or Roman .
to t•
t coming a tome when they
,trust we are no
ciples ; and
I Holding these opinions, and
will be disputed. (Cheers.),
I have taken with respect
having taken the course which
the Madiai I certainly do think
to this particular case of
't
C mmons may leave
• a and the House o o
that my hon. friend
ent—(cheers)and I think
it in the hands of the Geyer:
ad inemonstrances, not to be con-
it may be, wise, having m
r strances. Our are
tinually repeating those remeena ,
rd and Ido trust opinions,
although
known, our voice has been Buffer that the general opinion
the liadiai and others may
s liberty throughout the world.
will at length secure religion
(Loud cheers.) an unlimited extent,
could not admit, to
Mr. BOWER e° country, it was therefore
that as this was a
Protestant rather on behalf of
reasonable it should interfere
Roman Catholics. He admitted
Protes-
tants, than on behalf of
population were Protestant, and
that as the majority- of the
Protestant,
so far this coin
as the Established Church was
try - but he did hope
Protestant country,
, .
Roman
try might be called a
Act Passed which admitted
when the Emancipation..p
other bodies, that the dis-
tinctionrae privileges as
would have been
Catholics to the same privileges
and Protestant
between Catholic
t forget that one part of the
forgotten. He could no
He believed that in Ire-
kingdom was a Catholic country._
mbered 6,000,000, whilst the
land the Roman Catholics numbs
(Expressions of dissent.)
Protestants did not reach °reecisely right as to the propor-
He perhaps might not be p
difficult at the present mo-
tion, because it was extremely
accurately; but there could
merit to ascertain the numbersoverwhelming
majority of the popula-
be no doubt that an
Catholic. snowing that to be
tion of Ireland was Roman
a, .
ht
to
call
on the noble
the case, he thought he had ri
f Eg land would extend to its
o n 8 • it afforded
lord to say that the Crown
the same protection as
Roman Catholic subjects .
sure there was no class of
to Protestants. H© was
quitequite sure there was no class of
her MajestY's subject more truly attached to the Crown and
her Majesty's subject
any Catholics. He could not
Constitution than
the
ito'rect without declaring that it
• painful subject
flt tisfaction to hear that
approach this
most heart e sa . .
pardon to
would give him the h d extended a p
Duke of Tuscany a
not believe that the
the Grand
did
Persons.
these unfortunate pe
uired the secular arm to sup-
Roman Catholic religion required
t itself by its own truth ; and he
port it. It could supper discussion between the two
was convinced that a free
the advantage of that religion.
churches must redound to
n'oyed in this country they
What tile Roman Catholics
otherej countries ; but whilst ex-
wished
to
see
enjoyedmostin
n sincerely, he must endeavour to
• g this feeling
cter of the case under discussion.
pressing character the house as
show the true legal
had been put before
He did not think the cat)
had
been
placed on thefooting
it ought to have been. lt
nd one hon. member had spoken
of religious persecution, 9:
h hierarchy to regain its powe.r,
of the efforts of the Romis
Iwhich had taken place in
and attributed the procem rugs
th influence of the Holy See.
the case of the Madiai to
t show that this was not the
hould be able o
ution was insti-
He thought he s
which the proses
case. The code under G d Duke Leopold, a Jan-
tuted was that of the ran
-01 follower of
senist
Sovereign,
a disciple
andl) lished the Ecclesiastical
Josephcode which — a aoand clergy of the
the hierarchy
Court, and deprived.civil and temporal power. In
Church of Rome of all their
except that
belonging
d no power
Tuscany, the bishops had

to their sacred offices. According to the highest authority
on the criminal law in Tuscany, the offence visited onthese
persons was not 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 read 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 belonged 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 out 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 members 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 Bulwer declined to act upon it. It imputed the
. I.
a) withua rrantryss regardwasourf
extremelyotor e
ia then a d
relations. m i n i
cn i
0 n s tvr ae nt
ii
eolnnnt , oftah
inj u ssd
etc
aiacsle.
e
most malicious objects to the advocates of the Church of
Rome ; and the tone it assumed in lecturing an indepen-
noeeitmgnenot in possession of the whole of the facts—we
indepen-
dent
ieenahtwtieses sovereign veotewonr
were 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,
in order that they might die. A dispatch from Mr. Erskineand an intention to place Persons in an unhealthy dungeon,
showed that many of the notions of the 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. DRUMMOND 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
to
it was to be considered as a punishment or as a religious
en for an offence
Popish
ish against
ki g
n,
judgment, was not a religious proceeding at all, but was
be accounted
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 clay 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 State took hold of the unhappy creature and burnt
him; but, unfortunately, here the observation of3la,cchia-
velli 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 held, 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.) Thu 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 (MI. Drummond)
was told that that was quite a common thing, but this was
only an additional reason why it should not ave been per-
mitted. Nvhen a
Edwards a
P ill
1 i
lls h I nt
I. , who was a good
was engaged in a Scotch war, a Romish cardinal arrived at
Dover, but he was stoppedthero 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
Madiai to pay a superior allegiance to anybody than to the
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 partie pretre, and the success of that party depended on
the moral, spiritual, and temporal degradation of the people.
(Hear, 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 wag 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 . 2inions
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 that 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 countryin Europe that possessed true liberty,
would neither now,inor 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
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 bad 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, ho 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, Di* of 'rascally would be just as

much warranted in calling for the repeal of the Ecclesias-
tical Titles Bill as we in interfering in Tuscany.
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, hear.) 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,allude 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 prolligata, 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 hordd 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 pur 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 ? liy,
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
rirr.
J. 3.1 IhsNniiiNsEhA
Shelley, Mr.
thena thenr. withdrewmmovedastet.m af
noh s
thesimotion.r appointment
Benjamin
as ourselves—our advice to him is to take example by
r
those gentlemen of the same religion as himself. (Cheers.)
the following
Mr.
m te ,
sAirl r
J. Lowe,am es Duke, Mr . Kme rr
Vernon,e yme , omr dr RobarttGu:ara:lloraf:
..pFlpalitaramMt r
Postponed,D eedes M
SELECT COMMITTEE ON COAL DUTIES.
Sirvenor,
Mr. A L CWOilCi William
m wishedj
Sir Henry Meux.
liffe'thM:
in
order to examine the names, and, if necessary, to cessary, 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 i❑ 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 EXTENSION 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
tho table.
The house then adjourned at half-past eleven o'clock.

PARLIAMENTARY DIVISION.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.-FEB. 17.

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

• AYES.
Add erley, C. B. Freshfleld, J. W. Oakes, J. H. P
Alcoek, Thomas Fuller, A. E. Oliveira, Benjamin
Bailey, C. Gibson, M. Parker, R. T.
Ball. Edward Greene, John Pellat Apsley
Ba 11C3, T. Grey',lle, Colonel F. Percy, J. William
Barrington, Viscount Gwyn, Howel Potter, R.
Barrow, Wm. H. nad fl eld , George Pugh, D.
Bateson, Thomas Ilalford, Sir Benny Robertson, P. F.
Bell, James Henehy, D. O'Connor Rolt, P.
Bentinelt, Geo. P. Hume, Joseph Sandars, G.
Brady, John Hutchins, E. Shee, William
Bright, John Joliffe, Sir W. G. H. Shelley, Sir J. V.
Urisco, Musgrave Jones, David Smith, John Benj.
Brown, H. Kendall, N. Stafford, A.
Biuce, C. L. C. Kennedy, Tristram Stanhope, James B
Butt, Isaac Kershaw, James Stanley, Lord
Carter, Samuel Knightley, Rainaldl Sullivan, M.
Cholmondeley, Ld. H. Knox, Col. Thompson, Mr. Ald
Clinton, Ld. C.Pelham Laslett, William Turner, C.
Clive, Robert Lovaine, Lord Tyler, Sir G.
Cobbett, J M. L(M..her, Colonel Vance, J.
Cobbold, J. C. Lucas, F. Vansittart, G. II
Cobden, Richard Macartney, 0. Walmsley, Sir J.
Compton, H. Combo Maztkinnon, W. A. Wa'ter J.
Craufurd, E. Macgregor, James Whitmore, H.
Crook, Joseph 3.l.`Mahon, Patrick Wilkinson, W.
Disraeli, Benjamin Martin, John Williams, W.
Drummond, Ilenty Mian, Edward
Duffy, C. G. Mitchell, W.
Fox, W. J. Miller, T. J.
Fraser, Sir W. A. Mullings J. Randolph Froven, Charles Hay
French, Fitastephen Muntz, G. Frederick Bass, M. T.

TELLXIS.

Aela n d , Sir T. 1 ) Glad s t 0 nNe O,
EWilliS .am Mp
Wickham,lvaugerele l
Paget,
,B, CLl.vnoooriler..o,,odHrEd.oe
Jan
rer.ol yrogwfe
A'Court, C. H. W. Glyn, George Carr Norreys, Lord
Anderson, Sir James Goderich, Viscount Osborne, Rclph
Armstrong, R. B. Goodman, Sir George Otway, A. J.
Be'nes, M. T. Gower, F. L.
Baring, Sir F. Graham, Sir James Palmerston, Visconti'
Bring, T. Gre,;son, Samuel Patten, J.
Beaumont, W. B. Grenfell, C.
Bellew, Captain Grey, Sir G. Peel Frederick
Berkeley, Admiral Grosvenor, Lord R. Phillips, John Henry
Blackett, J. F. Banbury, Spencer B Phinn, T.
Booker, T. W. Harmer, Sir John Pillcington, James
Bowyer, George Harcourt, Colonel Pinney, William
Boyle, Colonel Hardinge, C. S. Powlett, Lord W.
Brand, H. B. W. Male, Archibald Price, Sir R.
Blotherton, Joseph Headlam, T. E.
Browne,
t ossssss ettliurea:eshueieniblsat
ht,°tba rleehr
ttecii,:yidke:l
s:ec,'ll.aTanmp..t.
j.. 3 M.
.A. W.
O.
BCBR
Cardwell,
~eoCSll.lh,rHarHT.l..eils.g.
Charles Herbert, Sidney
Heathcote,lleahcote, SGiiirbOer.t.TH.
H.
IlllH
oienirsdclefiyi,
:LCToihiroadrmlAlerssfr: d. Price,Ristausuwsleee 1111,W.J,ECE'FoarG..dh..nwP.inwCeE.ar.s.Aa..1H3allb..e..rling
Bruce, Bruce,
H. A.
.Eruest
Chambers, Thomas Howard, W. G.
Charteris, F. Hutt, Wiliam Scrope, G. P.
Chelsea, Viscount Ingham, R. Seymour, Lord
Christy, Samuel Inglis Sir R. H.
Clay, James Jermyn, Earl
Clay, Sir William Keating, Robert Smith, M. Tucker
Clifford, Henry M. King, P. J. Smith, Rt. En. R.
C. Pelham
Collier,Clinton,
Coffin,l v 1
ILoaolbtreedrrtßro b.' a t
KEK3 Laynil
,rnii kl:itagidtgri daFAr
t,
William .., tciw
.ursil Arthur F.
Labouchere, H.
Cowper, W. F. Stapleton, John
Crossley, F. Lanlton, H. G.
Cubitt, Alderman Lawlcy, , F. C.
WVcarini,oenh,
Deedes, W.
Denison, J. E. Lcgh, G. C.
Divett, Ed. Locke, J.
DI umlanrig, Viscount Lowe, Robert
mMaasl iit'ei srm, Richardan, o n
Whalley,
Vivian,h
Duncan, G. Luce, T.
Meagher,
.31
eaaardsgdihioal
~,
T William Shi ro n
iiTas.H H. Dundas, G.
Mangles, R. D.
Elliot,E,Ferguson,Eccles,vDundas,ely n .I.Wol
W.
hi.
nos.
FFFiletzirg:vuellir,ijisaionir:Enirjoad. Edmund
AMioililessv,,
Ewart, Willieni
.RFO.bert Massey, W. N. Westhead, J.
Fagan, W.
Young, Sir Matheson,
Anlyms,eit. S3irr. J.
11 y
lij
Wrhavtimu.an James_.
Fitzgerald, J. D. Mills, T. Wise, 3 A
Fitzgerald, W. R. S. Milner, W. M. E. Wortley,. A.
g
Fitzroy, Henry
A-Orth, Sir W.
Forster, M. Monerelff, James
Franklyn, G. W. Monsell, W.
Freestun, Colonel Montgomery, Sir 0,
Geach, Charles Morris, D. Hay ter, W. G.
George, Jain klulgraye, Ralf Berkeley, °waging
Villiers, STTTTTS twuooha a
fw
nywoin sn rlfntoenf Isireeinheiii elyei
H.
,:dT,,,, W.
T.
C.
J. R. .
a 11y.7, J.
GI
i. e
rin
r.:,