§ SIR ROBERT PEELMy hon. Friend, the Member for Finsbury, had occasion 2054 just now to find fault with the noble Lord for his interference in Italian affairs. The question that I have to put to the noble Lord relates rather to what may be regarded as a recommendation of the very policy which the Member for Finsbury condemns, for I have to solicit at his hands the interference of the Government of which he is the Foreign Secretary. The question I have to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs is, Whether any Correspondence has taken place between Her Majesty's Government and that of Spain respecting the imprisonment in Spain of certain persons for religious opinion; and if so what has been the tenor of such Correspondence? Now, the House is probably aware that this evening I had occasion to present petitions from various parts of the country, I may say from the most important towns in England, bearing on this subject; and petitioning Parliament respecting the imprisonment and persecution of these people. I have presented petitions from Carlisle, Cheltenham, Edinburgh, Nottingham, Plymouth, Manchester, and Liverpool. I only mention this fact to show the interest that is taken in the subject, to show that that interest is universally felt—is felt by people generally throughout the country—and by people of different sects and denominations and political feelings. And, therefore, in calling the attention of the House to what I know is a very difficult and delicate question to deal with, I admit that it must be handled with moderation and a sense of justice; and, therefore, I am quite sure I shall not ask in vain when I respectfully ask the indulgence of the House while I offer a few observations. In bringing this subject under the consideration of Parliament, of course I do not for a moment pretend to appear in the character of one suddenly smitten, if I may so say, with religious zeal. Far from it. That is an idea which I wish at the outset to dispel from everybody's mind. But I appear here on principles which every hon. Gentleman must feel. I present myself to the House on this occasion as a man duly sensible of the advantages which this nation derives from the principles of civil and religious liberty, and with a desire to see those principles expanded and extended for the blessing and advantage of other countries. And I may add, that I think it is no inappropriate position that I now hold in discussing this question. It is well known that the name I bear is inti- 2055 mately connected with the removal of the last vestige of penal disability in the case of the Roman Catholics of this country. I contend that when we have so freely relieved the Roman Catholics from disabilities, we surely have a right to expect, and a right to demand, that other countries in friendship with us should equally extend that liberty—at least, in a moderate degree—to those of their subjects who entertain a faith and opinions similar to our own. I may further remark that I am able to bear personal testimony to many of the facts to which I shall allude; and that although on many occasions in this House I have strenuously opposed the interference, the undue interference, of this country, and of any other country, in the internal affairs or concerns of other nations, yet I maintain that the case which I shall now submit to the House is one of a totally different character from those in reference to which I have on more than one occasion had reason to address this assembly. I present myself to you tonight in the name of civil and religious freedom, and in the cause of common humanity, which has been outraged in the persons of a persecuted sect of Bible Protestant Dissenters from the Church of Rome. I appear as the advocate of two poor Christian men, whose only crime—if crime it can be called—is nothing political; but simply consists in the circumstance that they possessed copies of the Holy Scriptures, and used them in connection with others. I say that in the name of the persons for whom I have presented petitions to-day I have a right to protest against the intolerance and against the persecution to which they have been subjected, with every indignity to harass and afflict the body, coupled with every aggravation of moral torture. I know very well that in this free country, and in this assembly, even, if I were not fortified by precedent to justify me in the course I am taking, I need not—indeed I should not be ashamed to—stand up in defence of men suffering such persecution. But, happily for me, the precedents of Parliament relieve me from every responsibility of initiation in the matter and directly sanction the course I pursue. For a period of fifteen years Her Majesty's Government, no matter what party has been in power—for a period of fifteen years have, to my mind, wisely exercised a direct influence; sometimes on political, sometimes on religious grounds, in the 2056 affairs of other countries so as to enable me to look with confidence to this appeal. I recollect well that in 1850—just to show that the Government of this country is justified on certain occasions in exercising a political and moral influence as regards the concerns of other countries, if it does so with the approval of the Parliament and the people—in 1850 I remember that a question arose with respect to the Hungarian refugees which had no intimate connection with us; but such, nevertheless, was the sympathy with those refugees of the English people that it was deemed not inexpedient that Parliament should exercise some interference in the matter. Then, again, in the same year of 1850 in the eases of Italy and Poland—and the name of the latter country it is impossible to mention without calling up to one's mind with pleasure the prospect which once again appears to present itself of liberty being restored to her—the noble Lord at the head of the Government, in answer to a question which was put to him, respecting the Polish and Italian refugees in the territory of the Sultan, informed the House that the Government of England, as representing the public opinion of the country, felt a strong interest in the fate of those people, and that negotiations on the subject had taken place through Her Majesty's Ambassador at Constantinople. These facts must prove to the House that Her Majesty's Government have from time to time directly applied the influences of moral interference in matters of this description. And in referring to Constantinople, and the religous condition of very many of the subjects of the Sultan, it is impossible to allude to the name of Lord Stratford de Redcliffe without acknowledging in this House the ability and zeal with which for a great number of years he has sought to ameliorate the condition of the Christian subjects of the Porte, Well again, in proof of the assertion that I have made that the interference of Parliament is sometimes justifiable, who does not recollect that when that gallant band of patriots, Poerio and his fellows, Italian subjects of an Italian sovereign, were confined—who does not recollect the sympathy of the people in this country of behalf of those men? Then, again, the case of the Cagliari excited the sympathy of the people of this country. Those were political interferences which received the approval of the House. We have also made interference on the ground 2057 of religious sympathy. It was in vindication of the principle of the right of every human being to liberty of conscience that Parliament made allusions of a severe character to the abduction of the boy Mortara in Rome. Then, again, with regard to the Christian subjects of the Porte in Syria, the voice of Parliament and the country has condemned the flagrant violation of sacred rights in the horrible persecution to which the Christians in Syria have been subjected by ruthless and implacable infidels. The case, however, which more particularly bears upon the question which I am now about to bring before the House is that of the Madiai, which occurred in 1851 and 1852. Francis and Rosa Madiai were sentenced and put into prison exactly on the same grounds as those in whose favour I now appeal to Parliament. They were sentenced by the Tuscan authorities in July 1851, to imprisonment with hard labour for the respective terms of fifty-six and forty-five months on the charge "of impiety shown in making proselytes to the so called pure gospel confession," and in possessing and reading the Holy Scriptures, with the express declaration of the Government of Tuscany that the charge was totally unconnected with politics. Her Majesty's Government, not only Members of the present Government but also the Government represented by the Earl of Malmesbury, directly and successfully interfered in that case. Having mentioned these instances of interference beth on political and religious grounds, I am quite sure that now, if I can make out a case of suffering, a case of persecution and of intolerance which I believe to be unequalled in any Christian country in the world since the abolition of the Inquisition, I am quite sure I shall be supported by the House in my desire to obtain the moral influence and the active influence of the Government to relieve the sufferers. Well, Sir, what is the cause of this persecution? The House will remember that I have said that in dealing with this subject I speak of my personal knowledge of the actual facts. There are residing in Spain, especially in Malaga, Granada, and Barcelona a religious sect of Bible dissenters from the Church of Rome. The chiefs of that sect are two men named Alhama and Matamoros. Alhama, at the beginning of last year, was seized and put in prison solely because he happened to be in possession of a copy of the Scriptures, and had read them in conjunction with 2058 others. Having been confined for some time in prison he was brought to trial. And does the House, I would ask, know what the punishment is which, in accordance with the penal code of Spain, awaits the offence which he committed? Why, the sentence according to the 125 article of the Spanish penal code is that he may be condemned for ten or twelve years to the galleys, and be made the associate of the worst of criminals. Such a state of things is, I contend, a disgrace to a Christian country. Matamoros was found guilty on a similar charge, and it was only the other day that a gentleman who visited him in prison said to him—"I wish your offence, instead of being against the Roman Catholic religion, were a political one, a robbery, or any other crime; you would in that case have been long ago set at liberty." Matamoros, I may add, was condemned to prison owing to some papers which were found in the possession of Alhama, and was dragged from Barcelona, his home where he was residing, to Malaga and Granada. It was my lot to travel with him in the same vehicle from Malaga to his destination, and I could not but admire the simple piety with which he bere the suffering to which he was exposed. I afterwards saw him in prison at Granada, and the House will hardly credit it when I tell them that for no other crime than that which I have mentioned this poor man was in this 19th century and in a Christian country thrown into a dungeon only a few feet wide, shut out from the light of the day, and deprived of everything which could tend even in the smallest degree to lighten the weight and cruelty of his punishment. I said to Matamoros, when I visited him in prison, "Have you interfered in politics, or are you in any way connected with men engaged in a conspiracy against your Government?" He replied, "No; I am in prison solely and simply on account of my religious faith." Let me read to the House a letter from one of those men, to show the sufferings they are undergoing. ("Oh! oh!") If the House is not inclined to grant me that liberty I will not read it. (Cheers.) The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bucks seems much amused at my observations. I am extremely sorry that, in dealing with a matter of such great importance, I should say anything calculated to excite his risibility. It seems that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire is highly amused at 2059 my observations. I am extremely sorry. ("Order.")
MR. DISEAELISir, I rise to order. These personal observations of the hon. Baronet are not justified by anything which I have done. They have no foundation, and there is no Motion before the House which would afford me a legitimate opportunity of vindicating myself. I am not aware of any observation of mine, or of any part of my deportment denoting dissent from the remarks of the hon. Baronet, that would in any way justify his observations. In the course of the whole time I have had the honour to sit in Parliament I must say that I never was before subjected to observations of this kind.
§ MR. SPEAKERI am sure the hon. Baronet, without my interposition, will see that his observations require some explanation.
§ SIR ROBERT PEELI must say that I am not aware that my observations require any explanation.
§ MR. SPEAKERThen the hon. Baronet will impose on me the necessity of expressing a more decided opinion.
§ SIR ROBERT PEELI at once apologize for my error in having made allusion to the right hon. Gentleman. The subject is a very difficult one to deal with, and a speaker standing immediately opposite to a Gentleman who is always laughing is not in an agreeable position. ("Order.") However, I beg to apologize for the allusion I made to the right hon. Gentleman, to withdraw anything which I may have said disrespectful to him, and to assure the House that I did not mean to give offence. To resume my statement—I asked the noble Lord the Secretary for Foreign Affairs the other day whether he would interfere in this matter, and he replied he would not. "The Spanish Government," he said in effect, "is so very sensitive and touchy that I won't make anything else but a private remonstrance." I do not think the noble Lord should limit his interference to what he called a private remonstrance to the Government of Spain. The Spanish Government may be exceedingly sensitive. All bad Governments are so, particularly when their acts are criticized; but the noble Lord should have recollected that the fact that the Spanish Government are very sensitive about the slave trade did not prevent the noble Viscount the Member for Tiverton, whose exertions for the abolition of that abominable traffic are so well known and so de- 2060 servedly appreciated, from describing their conduct in that matter in terms which they richly deserved, and with most excellent effect. The observations of the noble Viscount were very severe. He said it was impossible to express the indignation he felt at the profligate, shameless, and disgraceful conduct of the Spanish Government and nation with reference to the treaties concluded with England, and he added—
It is extraordinary that a nation which consists of men who, taken singly, would blush to do anything that was not perfectly honest and straightforward, should, when taken in the aggregate, be guilty of so shameless and abominable a violation of good faith.Talk about the touchiness and sensitiveness of the Spanish Government! The speech of the noble Viscount was canvassed in the Spanish Cortes, and what did the Prime Minister General O'Donnell say? He said that he did not believe that the noble Viscount had made use of the expressions attributed to him, but that if he had he could only have done so in the heat of debate. It is very evident that General O'Donnell does not know the noble Viscount, who is not in the habit of making use of expressions in the heat of debate which in his calmer moments he would condemn. The observations of the noble Viscount had an immediate effect with the Spanish Government, who, without delay, sent out a squadron for the purpose of removing from themselves the odium arising from the encouragement which they were supposed to give to the slave trade. The inference I draw from these circumstances is that if the noble Lord had made vigorous representations to the Spanish Government on the subject of the persecution of Alhama and Matamoros he might have produced a beneficial effect. I may here refer, and I do it with pleasure, to a letter which was written from Spain by a countryman of ours, when the Earl of Clarendon was Minister there. The same persecution was going on in Spain at that time as now; and what was the opinion of the Earl of Clarendon—what countenance did he give to those that were accused. The letter thus refers to the conduct of the Spanish Government and to the conduct of the Earl of Clarendon—The bishop having denounced the Bible, the Ministry have withdrawn the permission which I temporarily obtained (namely, to sell copies of the Testament); but throughout this affair I cannot find words sufficiently strong to do justice to the 2061 zeal and interest which Sir George Villiers displayed in the cause. He has had various interviews with Ofalia (Spanish Minister) on the subject, and in these he expressed to him his sense of the injustice and tyranny which has been practised.Such was the conduct of the Earl of Clarendon when he was our Minister at Madrid with respect to religious persecutions. The letter which I have quoted contains the words "injustice and tyranny." Those were the very words which the noble Lord applied to the Government of Naples in its treatment towards their own Italian subjects when France and England withdrew their Ministers from that Court. I am, therefore, justified in asking the noble Lord to mark his sense of the injustice and tyranny practised by the Spanish Government, not by withdrawing our Ambassador from Madrid. I do not ask for any violent demonstration, but by using his good offices, and the moral influence of the British Government in a matter which concerns us all. I have already alluded to the parallel case of the Madiai. Those hon. Gentlemen who sat in this House in the years 1851 and 1852, and in the early part of 1853, will recollect the great interest which that case excited not only in this House but in the country generally. The Madiai wore condemned, one to fifty-six months' imprisonment and the other to forty-five; but the British Government—the Government of the Earl of Derby as well as the Government of the Earl of Aberdeen—as represented at different periods by the noble Lord the Member for Tiverton (Viscount Palmerston), the noble Lord the Member for London (Lord John Russell), and the Earl of Malmesbury, strongly reprobated the conduct of the Tuscan Government in that transaction, and the words then used in the despatches from our Foreign Office are directly applicable to the present case. They show what the spirit of the British Government was at that period; and, I am sure, that beth the noble Lord and the noble Viscount are too generous and noble to refuse to say to a strong Government what they have already said to a weak one. Writing on the 17th of November, 1851, to Mr. Scarlett, our Minister at Florence, the noble Viscount said—The only offence of the Madiai seems to be that they entertain religious opinions which are shared by the great majority of the people of Great Britain, and by a large portion of the inhabitants of the continent of Europe, and the British Government, as the Government of a 2062 Protestant country, deems itself entitled to ask the Government of Tuscany whether such a system of persecution and punishment on account of religious opinions, sincerely entertained, can tend to promote the diffusion of the doctrines of that Church, at the instigation of whose priesthood it is practised.The noble Viscount continued, in his own eloquent and spirited style—Her Majesty's Government forbear from asking whether such a system of persecution on account of religious belief is in accordance with the enlightenment of the present age, or is reconcile-able with the mild and charitable principles of Christianity.I apply these words to the present persecution in Spain, and I ask whether that persecution can in any way be reconciled with the mild and charitable principles of Christianity or with the enlightenment the present age? The Earl of Malmesbury also wrote a very able despatch on the 27th of October, 1852, in which he said the British Government were anxious to use its good offices on behalf of the Madiai. Finally, the noble Lord the Member for the City of London wrote a despatch to Sir Henry Bulwer on the 13th of January, 1853, which I should like to see copied on the present occasion. The noble Lord said—According to the last accounts received from you, the Duke of Tuscany still hesitates on the subject of the Madiai. Throughout the civilized world this example of religious persecution will excite abhorrence. As this is a matter affecting a Tuscan subject, it may be said that Her Majesty's Government have no right to interfere. If this means that interference by force of arms would not be justifiable, I confess at once that nothing but the most extreme case would justify such interference; but if it is meant that Her Majesty has not the right to point out to a friendly Sovereign the arguments which have prevailed in the most civilized nations against the use of the civil sword to punish religious opinions, I entirely deny the truth of such an allegation.These are the opinions of three Ministers of Foreign Affairs who have, almost between them, held the seals of the Foreign Office for the period of fifteen years. These were their opinions on the case of the Mediai, a parallel one to the present. I ask the noble Lord to endorse that opinion now and to write a despatch in a similar spirit to the Spanish Government, and I am sure the effect will be immediate and beneficial. I have, moreover, authority another which the noble Lord, at all events, will not refuse to accept. It is the authority who was quoted in a memorable despatch recently written by the noble Lord, and I ask his attention to 2063 the opinion of the eminent jurist to -whom I refer. The case of the Protestants in Spain under the severe persecution to which they are exposed comes within the principle laid down by Vattel in his work on the law of nations. Vattel says—It must then be concluded that liberty of conscience is a natural and inviolable right. It is a disgrace to human nature that a truth of this kind should stand in need of proof. When a religion is persecuted in one country the foreign nations who profess it may intercede for their brethren; and when it becomes a case of manifest tyranny all nations are permitted to succour an unhappy people.The authority of Vattel must certainly have a great impression on the conduct of the noble Lord. I would also draw the attention of the noble Lord to the fact that the policy of this country for very many years has always been to assist in the relief of those people who have been suffering from such persecutions. I would only allude to the conduct of Cromwell. What was his course? When he had sown the seeds of regeneration in his own country, he immediately took in hand the case of those who were suffering for their religious opinions abroad. He interfered on behalf of the persecuted Vaudois, the descendants of the Waldenses, who were maintaining their faith and discipline according to the Reformation in the midst of persecutions. And a very remarkable fact occurred at that time to show the interest which Cromwell took in this matter. Cardinal Mazarin wanted to make an alliance with England, but Cromwell declined to treat with him except on the distinct understanding and as an indispensible condition of the alliance that the faith and discipline of the Vaudois should be respected, and that they should enjoy the peaceful exercise of their religion. That, Sir, is, I think, a very decided proof of the interest which this country has taken in those who have been suffering for their religious belief abroad. There is only one other authority I shall quote bearing on this subject; and I am sure the House will listen to it with very great attention, because it is the opinion expressed by one who stands highest of all in the enunciation of his ideas on the great question of religious liberty in his History of England. I allude to Lord Macaulay, and I would desire the attention of the House to an extract from his fourth volume in regard to the conduct of William III. Lord Macaulay says—It must not be supposed that William ever 2064 forgot that his especial, his hereditary mission was to protect the Reformed Faith. His influence with Roman Catholic princes was constantly and strenuously exerted for the benefit of their Protestant subjects. In the spring of 1691 the Waldense shepherds, long and cruelly persecuted, and weary of their lives, were surprised by glad tidings. Those who had been in prison for heresy returned to their homes. Children who had been taken from their parents to be educated by priests were sent back. Congregations which had hitherto met only by stealth, and with extreme peril, now worshipped God without molestation in the face of day. Those simple mountaineers probably never knew that their fate had been, a subject of discussion at the Hague, and that they owed the happiness of their firesides, and the security of their humble temples, to the ascendancy which William exercised.Sir, I trust the House will excuse me for having detained them at so much length, and will admit there are reasons why the Government should now bring the active influence of this country to bear for the relief of those who are suffering in Spain for their religious faith. I could wish that any expression from me as a private Member of Parliament would induce the French Government to join with the British to use their influence—as it has been used for good in Syria—in order to induce the Government of Spain to relax in this case their spirit of persecution. But, if that cannot be, it rests with our Government to take the matter in their own hands. I do not accuse the Government of Spain. It is priestcraft and the bigoted Court that are the real agents in this matter. I believe the Government of Marshal O'Donnell is doing more to develop the resources of that country than any other Government Spain has had for a long series of years. It has made vast progress in the material civilization of the Peninsula, as I have had occasion to witness on my recent visit to that country, after an absence of some years; and there is no longer that system of gaspillage or tampering with and plundering the public revenues which was so notorious under governments presided over by Sartorius and others. If that be the case, it surely rests with Her Majesty's Government to use their influence with the Government of Spain to relieve these poor people from their suffering. I will only ask the noble Lord to be true to the principles he has so long avowed, and be good enough to take an early opportunity, not by private representation, but openly in a public despatch, to remonstrate with the Spanish Government on the sufferings 2065 of these poor people, and the flagrant violation which has taken place in their case of the great principles of religious liberty.