The Sun.
London, England, 1861-07-23 00:00:00

POLAND.

Lord RAVENSWORTH presented a petition, which
he had not been able to present on the night of Lord Har-
rowby's motion in consequence of illness.

THE DUCHY OF MODENA.
The Marquis of NORMANBY rose to move that anhum-
ble address be presented to her Majesty for copies or ostr.cts
of any despatches relating to the affairs of the duchy of Mo.
dena from her Majesty's Minister accredited to the Courts
of Central Italy during the years 1855, 1856, 1857, and 1858.
He added to his motion a similar motion for papers relat-
ing to the Duchy of Cerrara. He was not in the least pre-
pared, when he gave notice of his intention to make this
motion some time since, for the scene which followed. He
had considered it his duty to contradict the grave accusa-
tions made against the Duke of Modena by Mr. Gladstone,
and to inform the right hon. gentleman's colleagues that
he was prepared with such a contradiction. He had
since been iu correspondence with Mr. Gladstone, and
he believed that gentleman had been made to believe
rthe truth of what he (the Marquis of Normanby) had
said. He would first read to their lordships the
correspondence between himself and Mr. Gladstone.
This he proceeded to do. His first letter consisted of a
distinct denial on evidence which he gave of the statement
adopted by Mr. Gladstone with reference to an alleged
execution in Modena. Mr. Gladstone replied that he could
not admit that he had done wrong. He had not made
a single assertion not authorised by documents which had
:been before the public for two years, and the authenticity
cf which had never been questioned. He added that he
thought the practice of answering in one house statements
leads in another was not desirable. Lord Normanby, in
answering this, said the question was whether a Minister
of the Crown should allow an erroneous statement of his
-which had gone forth to Europe to remain uncontradicted.
He then read the correspondence which had passed between
himself and Mr. Gladstone on the subject, and remarked
that as that gentleman had refused to retract the charge he
hoped the papers would be produced, in order that the case
might be fairly placed before the country.
Lord WODEHOUSE said he thought he was entitled to
ask whether it was convenient, when a member of one house
made a particular statement, a charge affecting his veracity
should be made against him in another house of which he
was not a member. (Hear, hear.) He could conceive that
it was a great deal more convenient to those who brought
the accusation that the party accused should not have the
opportunity of answering it. Every one of these statements
referred to a speech made in the other house some months
ago; and, in point of strict order, it was not open for the
members of one house to comment on the speech of a mem-
ber of the other house. Having said that, he should not
enter into the case, but should leave it in Mr. Gladstone's
hands. What he wanted to hear the noble marquis say was
whether those documents were forgeries or not. Those do-
cuments were published in Modena, and purported to be
copies of documents found in the archives. Some were
published so long ago as 1859, and others in 1860, and they
must be taken as uncontradicted at all events. The noble
marquis spoke of them asbeing stolenprivate letters. They
were letters which the Duke of Modena wrote. His noble
friend said they were not edicts. That was what was com-
dained of—that he constantly interfered with the adminis-
tration of the law, and that he did so, not by edicts, but by
le tiers to his ministers. The particular statement with re-
gar d to the man named Granaij was only one of a great
man/ statements, but the noble marquis said nothing of the
others,. Mr. Gladstone admitted that he was in error in
stating that Granaij was executed,but he still contended that
the law which was made applicable to him was an ex post
facto law, and on examining further documents he found a
confirmation of yvhat he had stated with regard to this par-
ticular instance. It appeared that there was established at
Carrara a state of siege, which came to an end on the 13th
Dec., 1854. There was a military commission established in
1857, which was empowered to judge of a variety of crimes—
one of them being insults by words against the military au-
thorities ; another order said that the law of capital punish-
ment should be applicable to persons under eighteen
years of age ; an& another made the military commission
.applicable to all crimes committed since the state of siege
-was commenced. The order with regard to Granaij was
eliated the 27th August, 1855. It was perfectly possible for
crimes committed between December, 1854, and August,
1855, to be judged by an ex post facto law, and it was im-
possible to draw any other inference from the document
titan that this was so. Then, from these documents it ap-
peared that the Duke of Modena wrote a letter to one of his
minister.; in which he complained of the Tribunal of Ap-
peal, who, he said, made themselves the advocates instead
of the juslges of criminals. There was another point to
which the noble marquis alluded; he said there was a cer-
tain house of detention, a sort of reformatory where pri-
soners were taught useful trades; and in one of these let-
ters the Duke of Modena, alluding to the prisoners who
were under crimival condemnation—about 254 altogether—
said, with regard to one-third of these, in consequence of
the.mildness of the sentence, they should not be restored
to society until they had undergone a further imprisonment
in the reformatory. (Hear.) The noble marquis said only
five prisoners were executed during the reign of the Duke
of Modena. Now he begged their lordships to observe that
the gravamen of Mr. Gladstone's charge against the Duke
of Modena was not cruelty, but that his government was
arbitrary, that there was no fixed law, and that he revised
and increased in severity the sentences of the judges. The
duke said he nauseated, that he was turned quite sick, be-
cause criminals were not punished severely enough, and he
threatened the judges with dismissal if they did not inflict
severer punishments. One judge was cited for having
dismissed three prisoners for what was called "pretended
want of proof." His noble friend was not satisfied
with defending the Duke of Modena, but he called him
(Lord Wodehouse) to task about General Pinelli, and asked
why he had been sent back to Naples. He must decline to
be responsible either for that appointment, or any other
appointment of the Italian Government. (Rear.) Then
his noble friend complained of all reports which were not
in accordance with his own views. and said he was extremely
surprised that Consul Bonhim, writing on the 23d May,
1861, should not have given his Government information
concerning the state of brigandage in Naples. But Mr. Bon-
ham, writing on the 28th June, said, " I have to report
that brigandage has increased to a great and alarming ex-

tent."
The Earl of DERBY thought it unfortunate that at that
period of the session the noble marquis should have felt it
necessary to eall attention to the proceedings and conduct of
the Mike of Modena, but at the same time he did not at-
tach the slightest blame to his noble friend for having come
forward in the manner he bad done to satisfy what appeared
to him to be the claims of public justice as well as of private
friendship for a prince in misfortune, and who had been at-
tacked in an extraordinary manner by a Minister of the
Crown. (Hear.) It might be of little consequence to that
house what was the character of the Duke of Modena, or
what the conduct he pursued at particular times; but it was
of the greatest possible consequence to the character of
Parliament and of the country whether a member of the
Government should be permitted to make charges against a
deposed sovereign which rested upon no sufficient evidence,
and which it was impossible the person accused could he;ve
an opportunity of meeting--(hear)—and when the noble
lord who had just sat down said he thought itmost extraor-
dinary that the noble marquis should not have brought for-
ward his vindication of the Duke of Mcdena in the place in
'which the accusation was made he knew perfectly well that
his noble friend had no opportunity of making his statement
in the Rouse of Commons, or of bringing Mr. Gladstone
face to hen with him in the House of Lords. But in the cor-
respondence which had passed his noble friend had drawn
from Mr. Gladstone from time to time, and in some points
a not very geueromusaiaidmission of the errors' into which the
right hon, gentle
naturally shrink with repugnancehad
fallen. A generous mindadv wouldt
event from taking an
of an opportunity,forced en
_him, of expressing in hispublic opportunity were
triumph
ever the fallen, and putting forth sel:laterts.
against
and
hear.) And the un-
fortunate. (Hear, yet without the slightest
necessity, and without any Provocation to the course, the
right hon. gentleman had volunteered an attack in the
House of Commons, and had volunteered to bring against
all absent sovereign charges of a most 'heinous character,
and :Which he wee subsequently compelled to admit ho
had

not taken the trouble to ascertain the truth of. He (the
Earl of Derby) had seen the letter from the Duke of Mo-

dena to which his noble friend had made reference, and he

was sure that if it could be placed before their lordships
they would find that there was no expression from the be-

ginning to the end that did not show the just and honest
indignation of a man unjustly accused by the Minister

of a friendly Sovereign, who availing himself of any
opportunity of addressing the councils of the na-
tion, and speaking with tho authority of a Moister,

brought forward charges founded upon documents which
were not in the possession of the public, and which the
duke had not seen. And their lordships were called upon
to say whether in their opinion these were authentic docu-
ments and figures. His noble friend had stated that so
far as they were authentic, he knew them to have been
published faithlessly and in a most unjustifiable manner.
Those were papers . which were left by the Duke
of Modena, in the confidence that they contained nothing
that could be injurious to his character. They had been
taken from amongst the archives of Modena ; whether they
were accurately printed from those archives it was impossible
to say. But the extracts quoted did not, even as quoted,
bear out the heavy charges which Mr. Gladstone thought fit
to make in his place in the House of Commons. The noble
lord had entered upon the discussion whether the Govern-
ment of Modena was or was not an arbitrary government,
and appealed to the noble and learned lord on the woolsack
to say what would be his view if the judges here were called
upon to revise a sentence, and to the extent of increasing it.
It was not necessary to tell the house that the Government of
Modena was not a constitutional Government, or that the
duke exercised an arbitrary power—that was not the ques-
tion, and there could be no comparison between the authority
of the Duke of Modena and the authority of the Government
of a constitutional country. But the question was open to the
specific charges which Mr. Gladstone thought fit to volun-
teer, not for the purpose of showing the arbitrary character
of the Government, but the disgraceful manner in which,
according to his statement, the duke had exercised the
power which the law placed in his hands, and in proof of
which he had brought forward that by an ex post facto edict
an order of execution had been issued against a young man
for murder, under circumstances which, by the law of the
country, did not justify capital punishment. It was left
from this statement to be inferred that the yoking man was
executed. But subsequently the right hon. gentleman had
reluctantly admitted that his words conveyed something
more than he was justified in saying, reiterating, however,
the assertion that there was an ex post facto edict which
rendered this young man Granaij liable to bu executed.
This was a very different statement to the first; but even
this had been clearly disproved by the evidence brought
forward by his noble friead. No young man under 21
had ever been executed in Modena during the duke's
reign. That was an indisputable fact which defied con-
tradiction or question. (Hear.) It was true that after
atrocious crimes had been committed in the duchy the
duke, writing to his minister upon the subject of the altera-
tions about to be made in the code of law, did point out the
inadequate sentence passed upon Granaij under the law, and
desired that the law should be so modified as to include
within the offences liable to capital punishment cases of pre-
mediated murder, even though the criminal should be under
21 years of age. Was that a very unjust law ? He wanted
to know whether it would be possible in this country for
any criminal in a case of premeditated murder to plead that
he was under 21, and that therefore he was not liable to
capital punishment for his crime. (Hear.) The Duke of
Modena had, with a view to check the frightful increase in
the crime of murder, given directions for this alteration, and
that was the sole ground upon which Mr. Gladstone's
charge rested of an ex post facto edict having been issued'
by which Granaij was made subject to the penalty of death.
But the duke had distinctly and emphatically stated that
even the recommendation for that alteration of the law was
not an edict, and that it was not intended to apply to the
case of Granaij, or any case that had previously occurred.
The animus of Mr. Gladstone was shown in his statement
that the Duke of Modena directed the edict to be acted upon
by a commission consisting of Austrian officers, and that it
was directed not to refuse the evidence of soldier 9. The
population at the time was notoriously in a state of insur-
rection, the place was in a state of siege, and yet this was
made one of the gravamina of Mr. Gladstone against the
Duke of Modena. With regard to the appointment of this
commission it was proved that there had not been for
eighteen months an Austrian officer in Modena. It was
proved also that only five persons had been executed under
the law referred to, and all for offences visitable with the
punishment of death by the civil law of the country; and
not one under the age of 21 had been executed. These were
the charges, and these the refutations. Charges were made
in the House of Commons against an absent and unfortu-
nate sovereign ; and when the question came to be dis-
cussed, when their lordships felt all the injury that was
done to the character of the country by a Minister of
the crown availing himself of his position to put forth
groundless and unfounded accusations, and when the noble
marquis offered a fair and frank refutation of them, he was
met with the remark that Mr. Gladstone was not there to
defend himself. (Hear.) That was exactly the case with
the Duke of Modena ; when the accusations were made he
was not present to defend himself. The noble kid (Lord
Wodehouse) had, he thought, taken an unusual course in
quoting papers which were not upon the table. He thought
it was a matter of perfect indifference to his noble friend
whether those documents were produced or not, but of this
he was quite sure, that if they would substantiate the
charges of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the right hon.
gentleman's colleagues would hate had no difficulty in pro-
ducing them. (Hear.) He should not recommend his noble
friend to press the Government for the production of papers
which he did not think could be essential to his case, but
trusted that what had passed in that house would be some
reparation to this unfortunate sovereign for the grievous
wrong and injustice to which he had been subjected in the
other house.

Earl GRANVILLE quite agreed with his noble friend
that it was a very disagreeable task, if necessary, to make
any attack, not only upon a deposed sovereign, but upon
any person not present to defend himself. But he saw
nothing in the case of this deposed sovereign, which. made
it a graver or more reprehensible offence to refer to accusa-
tions against him more than to accusations against the
King of Sardinia, his ministers, and his generals, who had
no means of repelling these attacks any more than the
Duke of Modena. Nothing was more intelligible than that
in a discussion upon Modena and the rights of her people
some inquiry should be made as to the character of the
goveinment they had resisted, to show if the sovereign had
pursued the revolutionary course of ruling the country
contrary to the established law of the country. With re-
gard to these charges there was only one point which
had been impugned at all, and on that point the Chan •
cellor of the Exchequer, after correspondence with the
noble marquis, and after an examination of the facts of the
case, had come to the conclusion that with regard to a por-
tion of what he stated he had been mistaken, and had made
a statement in his place in the House of Commons to that
effect. The noble marquis alluded to the character of the
right hon. gentleman's speech from a short abstract in a
weekly paper. He (Earl Granville) had seinetimes seen
abstracts of the noble marquis's speeches which he was sure
his noble friend would not acknowledge as a true represen-
tation of what fell from him. (Hear, and a laugh.) The
objections raised by the noble earl as to the book from which
his noble friend quoted proved a want of argument. The
noble earl's contention was that it wss not the rule to read
letters or despatches that had not been previously laid upon
the table of the house. The documents were published by
the de facto Government of Modena, and they were pub-
lished a year ago. The noble earl said he had not read them,
and that the duke had had no opportunity of seeing them,
which was quite incomprehensible, for the book had been
printed and circulated all over Italy and France, and if
they had been forgeries they would have attached indelible
disgrace to the person circulating them. Nobody, however,
had ventured to say that the documents were forgeries; no j
one had stated that they were not transcripts of the direc-
tions of the Duke of Modena to his Ministers and private
secretaries ; and there was no doubt whatever that they
were extracts from authentic papers, and no doubt they
Wined that the Government of the Duke of Modena had
neot_been carried on in opposition to the law. The noble
daur,l:nsumed that the Government would refuse the pro-
attack upon them.
t of the papers, and upon that he had founded an
could
d object to th
If house. thought it worth the ex-
pense,conceive no disadvantage that would result
to the public service from
He certainly di laying the papers upon the table.
thought it would be more
hseateiehssfeaarctory if they wore carried
personal. discussions, and
thmade, and where
on in the house where t
there were members who enterfaeinwe-ada
had
dra opinions
upon this subject as the noble marquis whoe introduced
the discussion. (Hear.)
Lord BROUGHAM, who spoke from the Government
side of the house, said he regretted he had not been in that
situation whilst his noble friend was speaking, as in that
case he should probably have heard him more perfectly.
Every one probably was favourable to those portiere of a
correspondence which supported his own conclusions; and
if he were called upon to read it, he would probably read
his own letters with greater distinctness and emphasis and
much more audibly than those of the other correspondent.
(La-Lighter.) So it had happened in this case. (Laughter.)
The letters of Mr. Gladstone had been read by the noble
marquis less audibly—not voluntarily, God forbid he should
lay such a charge to the noble marquis—(laughter)=nor
wilfully—bnt though he (Lord Brougham) had knowingly
and wilfully endeavoured to hear both sides, he certainly
had not heard the letters of Mr. Gladstone so distinctly as
he had those of his.v.oble friend. The charge against Mr.
Gladstone was this—that he had accused the Duke of Mo-
dena of issuing a retrospective edict, which went to the
punishment of offenders under legal authority; and Mr.
Gladstone assumed that that retrospective edict had had its
operation, and had caused the execution of Antonio Granaij.
He did not for a moment suppose that execution did not
follow the sentence, because everybody knew, and indeed it
was proved, that the Duke of Modena was very impatient
of punishment for crime being too lenient. It was shown
that very summary justice took place at Modena, and if any
sentence were given, there was very little doubt that execu-
tion would take place upon that sentence summarily.
Again, if this were an edict for the purpose of punishing
persons for offences committed previous to the issuing of
the edict, the very probable presumption was that this per-
Bon had been executed. Mr. Gladstone had indeed received