HC Deb 18 July 1861 vol 164 cc1093-6
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER:

Sir, I have to ask the favour of the House to grant me their attention for a few moments, while I make an explanation of a statement contained in a speech I delivered some time ago, not so much on my own account as because it concerns the feelings and character of a person of eminent station, and who also has been unfortunate—I mean the late Duke of Modena, now expelled from his dominions. There was a debate in the beginning of the month of March, in which much was stated on the subject of the conduct of the Italian Governments; and it has only been within a few days—the last ten days, I think—that I received a representation from the Marquess of Normanby to the effect that he was prepared to contradict, and wished me to withdraw a certain charge—one of several—and which he regarded as the principal that had been made by me against the administration of the Duke of Modena. Sir, the substance of that charge as I intended to give it, was this—that while the Dake of Modena had refused the benefit of ex post facto mitigations of the criminal law to persons who might have profited by them, he had applied ex post facto aggravations of the penalties awarded by the criminal law to those who had incurred them. The case I quoted in particular was this—that whereas the law of Modena forbade the application of capital punishment to persons under twenty years of age charged with homicide, the Duke of Modena issued an edict altering that law in the case of a certain person named Granaj. Now, in what I said with regard to Granaj I did not intend to convey to the House the meaning that that person was executed. I have no knowledge on the subject. What I intended to convey was that he was brought within the scope of the law awarding capital punishment, but I had no knowledge on the question whether he was executed or not. What I wish to state to the House at present—and that is my explanation—is that I believe that person was not executed, for so far as the evidence in my possession goes, what appears to be the cass that this young person, for so he was described, was sentenced to the galleys for life. I should be extremely sorry if I had said a word that could be construed to mean that the young man was actually executed, because I entirely admit that the most rigorous accuracy ought to be observed in matters of this kind, and in the statement I then made I did no more than quote from evidence in published documents which were accessible to every Member of this House. Sir, the Marquess of Normanby has also expressed a desire that I would withdraw what I regard as the principal part of the charges—namely, that capital punishment was made applicable by the Duke of Modena to young persons charged with homicide through the means of an ex post facto law. I am sorry it is not in my power to withdraw that charge, for although I certainly think that I put on the particular document that I quoted a construction stronger than it necessarily or naturally bore, yet the evidence in support of that charge is abundant, and it is to be found in two pages of the document I quoted. In the month of November, 1857, the Duke of Modena issued a decree establishing in his dominions or capital, I forget which, a state of siege, which, as hon. Gentlemen know, answers the same purpose.

Mr. DISRAELI:

I rise to order with great regret. I understood the right hon. Gentleman rose to make some statement with respect to some previous expression in a speech which he made in this House. There is no question before the House. The right hon. Gentleman is now getting into matters that probably may lead to controversy, and it would be much more convenient for him to take advantage of this opportunity of giving notice for tomorrow, and then he can enter into any statement he likes.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER

I have taken this course after consulting authority. I am not about to enter into any argument whatever, but I am simply stating facts which are explanatory as to what has fallen from me on a previous occasion.

MR. DISRAELI

The explanation of the right hon. Gentleman referred to certain documents which he said were in everybody's possession. They are not in my possession, and I understand that the documents are inaccessible, therefore, it is inconvenient for the right hon. Gentleman to found an argumentative statement on documents that are not in our possession. There were many other facts to which we might refer, as, for instance, the right hon. Gentleman referred to an edict, and that might lead to considerable controversy. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that it is with pain I interpose. At the same time I think the House will feel that when explanations are made it is desirable that the question should be fairly entered into.

Mr. SPEAKER

said, that when the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer spoke to him on the subject, he had stated that if the object was simply a matter of personal explanation the course which he had pursued was the most convenient. If, however, the House objected that it might lead to discussion, it would be more convenient to defer the explanation till the next day.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER

said, that it had occurred to him that it would be highly irregular to raise a discussion on a speech of his own on the Motion for going into Committee of Supply. He bowed, of course, to the authority of the Speaker, though he was afraid that to adopt the suggestion of the right hon. Member for Bucks would tend considerably to widen the field. He would, however, with the permission of the House, complete the statement on going into Committee of Supply the next day.