Lords Sitting of 14 December 1847

MINUTES.
Took the Oaths.—Several Lords.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1a Railways.
PETITIONS PRESENTED. From Aberdeen, for Revision of the Currency Laws.—By Lord Brougham, from Chepstow and Goaforth, against the Admission of Jews into Parliament—By Lord Stanley, from Bridgnorth and Chepstow, for the Punishment of all Roman Catholic Priests who shall Denounce Persons from the Altar.

CASE OF H. A. BROWN.
LORD BROUGHAMsaid, he had to present the petition of a gentleman of the name of Anderson, of the city of Dublin, solicitor. He ought to state to their Lordships that he had been informed by those who knew this gentleman that he was of the highest respectability, that the party who was his client was also a person of great respectability, and the head of one of the banks in Dublin. He knew nothing whatever of the parties. The facts were wholly unknown to him, except upon the statement of the petition. In the year 1844, Henry Augustus Brown intermarried with the daughter of a Mr. Copeland, and went abroad with his wife; but some time afterwards the father-in-law, Mr. Copeland, discovered that Brown had been previously married to another person, of the name of Mary Downes, in 1842. Upon Mr. Brown returning to Ireland, therefore, he caused him to be arrested upon a charge of having intermarried with his daughter, as his second wife, his first wife being still alive. Upon this charge Mr. Brown was arrested, committed to prison, brought to trial, and
1046
convicted; his defence upon the trial being twofold—first, that he was a minor at the time of his former marriage; and, secondly, that his former marriage was invalid, inasmuch as he had discovered that the first wife had been herself previously married to a person of the name of Fitzgerald, who was alive at the time of his marriage with her. In support of this he produced no evidence whatever; and to rebut the defence as to his having been an infant at the time of the first marriage, there was produced against him his own affidavit upon obtaining the license under which the marriage was had, in which affidavit he had sworn that he was of full age. According to that statement, there being no evidence whatever of his being under age, the jury, under the direction of the learned Judge who tried the cause, without hesitation found him guilty; and on the 11th of April, 1846, he was convicted, and on the 23rd of that month sentenced to seven years' transportation. He had been originally committed to the county gaol, and continued there, occupying the master debtors' apartments, till the 8th of February, 1847. Now, one complaint of the petitioner was, Brown being allowed to remain so long in the Kilmainham county gaol, and in the master debtors' apartments, the usual course being immediately after conviction to transfer the party to Smithfield, in Dublin, which was a government prison. But his opinion was, that there was an answer to that statement arising from the circumstances, which operated the other way, and against the complainant. Previous to the conviction of Mr. Brown, which took place on the 11th, and pending the proceeding against him, viz., in the month of February, a suit was commenced of nullity of marriage, and that suit being prosecuted, there was afterwards a decree of nullity of marriage on the 23rd of April. It was commenced by Mr. Copeland, to set aside the second marriage, on the ground of his having been convicted of bigamy. Upon sentence of nullity being pronounced, Mr. Brown entered his protest, meaning to take the case before the Court of Delegates. They entered very fully into the subject, and pronounced their judgment, affirming the original sentence of nullity on the 5th of February, 1847. He (Lord Brougham) had stated to their Lordships, that the 8th of February was the day when Brown was taken from Kilmainham gaol to Smithfield prison. He was retained until three days after the sen-

1047
tence of the Court of Delegates; but as there was a possibility that the sentence of nullity would be set aside, he (Lord Brougham) did not think there was a sufficient ground of complaint against the authorities for having kept him in the master debtors' wards. He had then a conviction, a sentence, an imprisonment under that sentence, a suit of nullity of marriage, a sentence pronounced of nullity, an appeal from that sentence, a confirmation of the sentence, and therefore decree of nullity of marriage, finally pronounced; and there was the judgment delivered by the Court of Delegates, most respectable judges, who formed a very strong opinion, not only in respect of Mr. Brown's marriage, but of the defence which he had set up. Mr. Brown himself thought fit to become the prosecutor of the first wife for bigamy, upon the ground that she had deceived him, and made him believe that she was a single woman, and he thought that if this prosecution ended in conviction, it might assist him in obtaining a pardon, for he did not prosecute her for bigamy till after his own conviction. The cause came on for trial, and to the surprise of all present she pleaded guilty, although most satisfactory evidence could have been produced that she was not guilty, and she was sentenced to two months' imprisonment. This was one of the main grounds for the censure passed on Mr. Brown's conduct. The same sentence condemned Mr. Brown in the payment of the whole costs, amounting to somewhere between 2.000 l. and 3,000 l. to Mr. Cope-land, the prosecutor of the suit for nullity, and defendant on the appeal. He was now about to state how Mr. Copeland had been deprived of that sentence, and how another creditor of Mr. Brown had also been deprived of the judgment which he had obtained; for by various pretences Mr. Brown had succeeded in obtaining a loan of 200 l. from a banker, who prosecuted the suit against him through Anderson, his attorney, and obtained judgment and sued out execution on the judgment. Mr. Brown being then in Kilmainham county gaol, Mr. Anderson, as the attorney acting for this gentleman, lodged a detainer with the sheriff of the county of Dublin, to prevent Mr. Brown from escaping, when he should, by the expiration of the sentence or by pardon, be liberated from gaol. It was so lodged; but soon after, Brown was transferred to Smithfield gaol, in the city of Dublin, being the common gaol. Now,
1048
although Kilmainham gaol was under the sheriff of the county of Dublin, Smithfield gaol was not under the sheriff of the city of Dublin, although situate within the bailiwick, and the sheriff could not execute any process whatever in the gaol. Mr. Anderson wrote to the Government, and wished to lodge a detainer; he found that it was useless to lodge a detainer; he then applied to the Secretary's office, there being a report that a pardon was expected for Mr. Brown, and some correspondence took place, the substance of which was, that Mr. Brown's removal from Smithfield to Kilmainham was for the benefit of his health, and that his being brought back to Smithfield was for a reason which had no reference to the fact of execution for debt; that he had been pardoned on certain conditions only, and in consequence of the precarious state of his health, it having been ascertained, after careful investigation, that his life would be endangered by further confinement. The answer of the Secretary's office concluded thus:—
"He has been released upon conditions: when those conditions shall have been complied with, he will at once be discharged from custody."
Mr. Anderson, reasoning upon this, of course took his measures, as the Secretary's office gave no other assistance; these measures being to watch his discharge by a sheriff's officer, and also by again lodging the execution in the county gaol. The first execution having expired by lapse of time, he obtained a second, and lodged a second execution. Immediately after that, Mr. Brown was removed from Kilmainham gaol again to Smithfield. The petitioner stated, that as Mr. Brown, on account of his health, had been removed from Smithfield to Kilmainham for the benefit of the air, Smithfield gaol being unwholesome, they did not well see how it happened that he was removed back again from Kilmainham gaol to the unwholesome gaol of Smithfield. He should give the remainder of the case in the words of the party himself. Now, all the steps were completed, and the whole might have been perfected on Thursday, the 16th of September; but instead of that, the completion of the document was suspended till Saturday, the 18th of September; the patent for the pardon was sealed on that day. In the ordinary course of business it should have been brought to the Rolls Office for enrolment; it could not have been perfected till the following Monday; but by extraordinary exertion the patent was en-

1049
rolled on the same day, the enrolment having been engrossed by anticipation the day before, so that the patent should be sealed, and no delay might intervene; and he added, that after the assurance that the fulfilment of the conditions of Mr. Brown's pardon rested entirely with Mr. Brown, and that it consequently was impossible for the Government to give him notice of Mr. Brown's discharge, he was somewhat surprised to find that the preparation of the patent, the delivery at the Hanaper-office, the directions for sending an enrolment, and every part of the duty in connexion with it, was done by the sanction and by the servant of the Government, and the order for Mr. Brown's discharge was sent direct from the Chief Secretary's office to the governor of the prison in which Mr. Brown was confined. The pardon was received at four o'clock on the Saturday, and the governor kept him in prison till next morning, when he could not be arrested, so that Mr. Copeland and Mr. Anderson were deprived of their costs. The noble Lord said that he would make no observation whatever upon the case, but leave it for his noble Friends to require an investigation of the facts.
The MARQUESS of CLANRICARDEsaid, he had no fault to find with the manner in which his noble and learned Friend had brought this case before the House; but he could assure their Lordships that no unfairness or partiality had been shown by the Government in the transaction, and that no attempt whatever had been made by them to shield Mr. Brown from his creditors. The reason that that individual was left so long in Kilmainham gaol was, because an eminent barrister had given it as his opinion that the" conviction of the first wife amounted to an acquittal of Brown, and that he ought not therefore to be confined in a convict gaol. He remained in Smithfield prison, and was treated in all respects as a convict for some time; but at length the surgeon of the prison reported that his health would suffer mateterially by his continuing there longer. Upon this being reported, he was sent back to Kilmainham; in fact, removed from one convict depot to another convict depot for the benefit of his health. But his health continuing very bad, application was again made to the Lord Lieutenant, who did not act upon the report of the medical officer alone, but directed an inquiry into the state of this gentleman's health; because, on account of his family connexions, his
1050
former position in society, and the extraordinary nature of the case, which had become notorious, the Government were anxious that there should not be the least ground for suspicion that they had exercised any partiality in his favour. Brown was pardoned upon the condition that he should absent himself from Her Majesty's dominions in Europe for the space of seven years, and provide securities for his observance of the conditions to the amount of 5,000 l. Now, these securities he was not able to get until Tuesday the 14th of September; but on that day, the Crown Solicitor reported that satisfactory security had been found, and the conditions complied with. This report went in to the Secretary on Wednesday the 15th, and the Lord Lieuteuant signed a pardon and sent it back that evening. On Thursday the 16th, it was in the Secretary's office again, and was sent by him to the Crown Solicitor. On Friday the 17th, the Crown Solicitor had it enrolled—in other words, had the necessary forms perfected—and it was returned to the Secretary's office in the natural course of business—of course with no delay, because it would have been highly improper if delay had taken place—on Saturday the 18th. And accordingly, in the ordinary hours of business on Saturday afternoon, Sir W. Somerville, having the papers before him, wrote the usual form of order to the governor of the gaol to discharge the prisoner. At what hour that order was received by the governor, he could not say; but he could assure their Lordships that, as far as any Member of the Irish Government was concerned, the proceedings went through the usual course; and the only question was, whether the Government ought to have given the petitioner notice, so that he might have been ready to arrest the man immediately upon his discharge. It was for their Lordships to say whether it would have been right had the Government done so. For his own part, he was of opinion that the proper course would have been for Mr. Anderson to move in the Court of Queen's Bench. He would only say further, that the Government had taken as straightforward a course with reference to this convict as they would have done in the case of any other, and without exhibiting the slightest favour; and there was no ground whatever for attributing partiality to them.
LORD BROUGHAMsaid a few words in explanation, and the petition was ordered to lie upon the table.

MILITARY AND NAVAL MEDALS.
The DUKE of RICHMONDrose, pursuant to notice, to ask when it was probable that the medals intended as rewards "would be given to the Peninsular officers and soldiers? and if it was intended to extend the grant of such medals to other officers, soldiers, and sailors who served in the late war?" Her Majesty had been graciously pleased to order that medals should be struck and given to those who had been engaged in particular actions during the Peninsular war; also that medals should be given on account of other actions by sea and land during the war generally. He had asked whether there was any intention of extending those rewards to persons engaged in other parts of that great contest? The reply which he received was, that the Government could give no pledge, but that the subject was under consideration. Though he felt anxious that medals should be given to the Peninsular army, yet he never contemplated, while the Government was performing that act of justice, that they intended to exclude the officers and men who fought under Abercromby in Egypt, or who achieved the victories under our great naval heroes. Besides, there were officers and men who served in the Peninsula, who, though not present at any great action, yet had performed deeds well deserving the approval of the Crown; their services, he thought, ought not to be put aside. Many of them had lost limbs—many of them had been severely wounded without having been present at a great action—many, in consequence of sickness, were deprived of the gratification of being present in action. He felt most obliged to his noble Friends opposite for giving those medals; but he confessed he should not be satisfied if he did not think that they intended to give those rewards much more extensively than had at first been stated. It was his opinion that they ought to be given freely to the officers and soldiers who fought during the late war; and it would be difficult, he thought, to distinguish the merits of men who fought in general actions from those who displayed equal valour in skirmishes—the one class of men were quite as worthy as the other. He also wished to know whether or not it was the intention to postpone the issue of any medals till all the claims were disposed of—whether the better course would not be adopted of issuing them month by month according to the number of claims which might be investi-
1052
gated and dealt with in those periods. He feared that if the issue of the medals were delayed, their value would be much diminished, and that they would never reach the hands of those who had fairly earned them.
EARL GREYreplied, that with reference to the rewards for particular actions, an order had been issued on the 1st of June, specifying the actions for which medals were to be granted, and stating that they should be limited to officers and soldiers who had fought in actions for which medals had already been given to the officers who commanded in chief on those occasions. With respect to the Army, he was not aware that any further distribution of medals was in contemplation than was specified in the order so issued. As to the Navy, it did not appear to him that the rule applied with equal fairness: medals were not given to commanding officers of ships in the same proportion that they had been awarded to military officers. As many as 2,000 claims had already been allowed, and 400 rejected; he was therefore warranted in saying that the process of investigating those claims was proceeding rapidly, although there were a great number yet to be disposed of. He had further to state, that the designs for both the medals had been approved of; but the artist engaged for the purpose of executing them, had lately had a narrow escape from losing his life. That was the reason the medals were not now ready; but he hoped they would be prepared within two months. There was no objection on the part of the Government that the medals should be issued as rapidly as the claims could be proved.

THE COURT OF ROME—THE EARL OF MINTO.
LORD STANLEYsaid: I rise, pursuant to the notice which I have given, for the purpose of calling your Lordships' attention to the continued absence from this country of the Lord Privy Seal; and I acknowledge that I have no intention of concluding with any Motion, unless the rules of order observed in this House should render it necessary for me to submit to your consideration some distinct proposition or other. In the first place, my Lords, I have to observe, that the mere absence from England of any person holding so high a situation as that now occupied by the Earl of Minto, is of itself a sufficient ground for the observations which I am about to make. But it cannot have es-

1053
caped the notice of every one who hears me, that that necessity is very much increased by the existing condition of this country. The absence of Lord Minto would, I think, call for animadversion, even if the state of the United Kingdom had not been such as to have rendered it necessary to call Parliament together at an unusual season of the year. In the opinion of most men, that occurrence alone would have entitled us to expect that every Member of Parliament would have endeavoured to be at his post during the present Session, and most especially that a Cabinet Minister would have been at hand to give the benefit of his assistance and support. Although under ordinary circumstances the office of Lord Privy Seal is not an onerous office; although the duties appertaining to it are neither numerous nor distressing; although no very great public inconvenience is likely to result from the fact that the noble Earl who holds it does happen, when things are proceeding in their usual course, not to be at home; yet still the office is one of no inconsiderable importance; it is one of high authority, and one, I should say, demanding pretty constant attention—attention which, even under present circumstances, is probably given by some person, though I am not aware that the Government have for that purpose made any arrangement whatever—I do not know that any provision of any kind has been made for discharging the duties of Lord Privy Seal during the absence of Lord Minto. Doubtless some steps have been taken on the subject; and I trust the noble Marquess opposite may be able to inform us what they have been, for I can scarcely suppose that any of your Lordships unconnected with the Government possess any knowledge of any description relating to the matter. I am perfectly ready to admit that, upon an occasion of this kind, I should have been much less anxious regarding the matter under consideration, if it were limited merely to the absence of Lord Minto; but I feel a specific anxiety, not so much about his absence from this country, as about his presence in Italy. Your Lordships are, of course, quite aware, that there exist a general expectation and belief that the Government intend to establish diplomatic relations between the Crown of England and the See of Rome; and the persuasion also that the mission of Lord Minto to Italy is intimately connected with that intention. Now, I request it to be understood that I express no opinion as
1054
to the difficulties which, in point of law, ought to be removed, for the purpose of enabling the Government to establish diplomatic relations between this country and the temporal Sovereign of the Roman States. I repeat, that I express no opinion; but I say this, that I see Parliament assembled, and I find it reported that a noble Lord who has a seat in the other House, and who is entrusted by Her Majesty with the conduct of Foreign Affairs, has stated that the Earl of Minto has not been entrusted with any diplomatic mission to the Court of Rome. What I understand that answer to mean is this, that Lord Minto has not been sent to the Court of Rome as the accredited Minister of England, and that he has not been invested with any diplomatic functions. The belief in this country is—no matter whether the report be true or false—the belief here is, that though Lord Minto may not be engaged in any direct negotiation, yet that one portion of his business in Rome is to ascertain what the feeling of that Court is with respect to the contemplated establishment of diplomatic relations between the Crown of England and the Pope. Although the opinion which I have stated is the prevailing sentiment in England, on the Continent I believe that a very different opinion is generally entertained. I think, looking at the circumstances of the case, I may assume that Lord Minto is not a casual traveller in Italy—that he is not going about the Continent merely for his own amusement. I will not suppose that he is absent on account of pleasure; for that would be to suppose that he is culpably neglecting his duty. It is impossible to doubt that he is at the present moment, in some capacity or other, the representative of the British Government. Now, I ask of that Government—that which Parliament has a right to ask—if a necessary office of high rank is to be allowed for months to continue vacant? If we find that the nominal holder of that office, who does not discharge its duties, be absent from this country at a time like the present, Parliament has a right to ask what are the missions with which he is entrusted, and what are the functions which he is supposed to perform? It appears to me that the aspect of affairs in Italy is at present peculiarly important; and I think it would be satisfactory if we had some statement of the views and intentions with which the Government has sent Lord Minto out. I am not very particularly acquainted with the

1055
existing condition of Italy; I am not prepared to go into any minute details respecting the state of affairs in the north of Italy; but this I believe is pretty generally understood, that, under the auspices of the Sovereign Pontiff and of other important personages in that country a state of extreme disquiet and of extraordinary political movement now prevails; that the consequences of this are exaggerated hopes in some quarters, and exaggerated apprehensions in others. The whole country is therefore considered to be in a state of ferment. It is natural, therefore, that in England we should feel strongly anxious. We all know that under the guidance of the present Pontiff various schemes of political change are afloat, to which some persons in that country give their assent more or less reluctantly—more or less willingly. What may be the objects or ultimate intentions of those parties, it is not for me to say. If the object of these changes be directed to what is called the independence of Italy; and if all the facts could be brought fully under our view, we might be enabled to form some judgment—so far as they have taken place, and so far as they are confined to alterations in the internal administration of affairs in that country—whether by an increase of the sovereign or the popular authority, so far as that movement goes, it seems to me to assume a purely internal aspect, which condition wholly and in every possible respect removes it out of that class of political events with which this country can in the slightest degree interfere. But it is also supposed that for various purposes a general federal union is contemplated amongst the different States of the north of Italy for purposes partly political, partly commercial. If any such project exist as that, or if there be any project afloat which could in any degree affect our commercial interests, there can be no doubt whatever that such a project ought to be most attentively watched by the Government of England—it is their duty; but that that duty is justly performed by such a mission as that of Lord Minto, I utterly deny. If there be a confederation going forward with ulterior political views, that also may demand the serious and anxious attention of the Government; but I should think that the last course which a British Ministry ought to pursue would be to give to such projects any support or encouragement whatever. We hear of the "independence" of Italy—if that means that no
1056
foreign Power at present removed by geographical situation from the confines of Italy should or ought to have any concern in the affairs of that country—I say that that is a principle which ought to be steadily resisted. As far as I know, Lord Minto has not been sent out as an accredited Minister to the Pope, or to any Sovereign Prince in any part of Italy; yet being the representative of the British Government he may compromise this country by his acts, by his words, by his general conduct. I think, therefore, we have a right to inquire what are his functions and what are his instructions. The public journals have supplied me with all the information which on this subject I possess; and I learn from them that upon more than one occasion, and, more especially, that during a procession at Rome, at which great numbers were assembled with flags and banners emblematical of the independence of Italy, the British Minister being called upon by the people who stopped in front of his hotel, did appear in answer to their cries; that he was by them called on on and recognised, not as Lord Minto in his private or personal capacity, but as the re-representative of the British Government; that he did present himself at the balcony; that he took off his hat and waved it, shouting vivas for the "independence of Italy." I trust the noble Marquess will be able to state that there is no foundation for this report. If Lord Minto had been a private person travelling for his own amusement, even then such a course of proceeding in any British subject would have been an imprudent and impertinent intermeddling. But in this case it was quite different; he was ostensibly and avowedly the agent of the British Government, and the proceeding was taken as conveying the sentiments and opinions entertained by his Colleagues, by the Government, and by England. For a man in his circumstances to take any part whatever in the movement that was going on, but above all, to lend the sanction of his name, and still more the sanction of his Government, to a cry for the "independence of Italy," appears to me a matter requiring, on the part of the Government, an unequivocal denial; or, if denial is impossible, I hope we shall hear from the noble Marquess that the proceeding was inconsistent with the instructions that have been given to Lord Minto, and the views Her Majesty's Government entertain of the duty of a person placed in the situation in which Lord Minto now

1057
stands. The questions I wish to put to the noble Marquess are these: in the first instance, if any and what provisions have been made for the discharge of the duties of the Lord Privy Seal during the absence of Lord Minto? next, on the assumption that Lord Minto is in Italy upon a mission from the Government, charged with some important instructions to carry out its views, we ought to be distinctly informed what is the object towards which his instructions point; whether he is accredited—not to the Pontiff, for that would be contrary to the law, and has been denied—but to any of the States of Italy, and what are the precise functions and limits to the authority assigned by the Government Lord Minto? I wish to ask further, Whether the Government is prepared to state, on the part of England, that it has no desire to interfere—I do not mean actively or by force—but by its influence and its emissaries or agents, in the slightest degree, with the internal affairs of Italy, and that form of government which each particular State has thought fit to adopt?
The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNE: I shall be very glad to give to the noble Lord the explanations he has asked for relative to the important subject respecting which he has put some questions, and added some observations. The noble Lord appears anxious to know, in the first place, upon what grounds the noble Earl, occupying the high situation of Lord Privy Seal in the Administration, is absent from this country, and has not attended in his place in Parliament during the present short Session. I might refer the noble Lord, before I answer the question, to other times and other circumstances, in which Cabinet Ministers, holding high official situations, have been sent abroad upon temporary missions, which have been attended with advantageous results. I think, however, the noble Lord must be sufficiently aware of the nature of the duties of the Lord Privy Seal to know that, although undoubtedly it is a high office, yet, in the ordinary and practical administration of affairs, it is not attended with any species of difficulty, requiring the constant presence of the individual nominally entrusted with its duties. Ten or twelve years ago, at the time the noble Lord was connected with the Government, a searching inquiry took place into offices which had no duties annexed to them, and which might, therefore, be dispensed with; many such offices were absolutely abolished, but the office of
1058
Lord Privy Seal was retained upon grounds and considerations entirely alien to its necessity, for the discharge of the particular duties nominally attached to it. It is, undoubtedly, of great importance to have a high officer in the Cabinet unencumbered with duties which occupy the time of the rest of its members. Under these circumstances, if it became important to send a high officer abroad, upon any important mission, no choice for the purpose could be so natural as that of the Lord Privy Seal. This choice, as your Lordships well know, was made at a time when no immediate expectation was entertained of the assembling of Parliament at so early a period. But, my Lords, the objection, if it be an objection, implied by the noble Lord in his questions, does not extend merely to the individual selected, or to the office held by him, but to the nature of the mission which he was selected to fulfil. Why, my Lords, it was the very nature of that mission which made it peculiarly desirable that the noble Lord, entirely possessing the confidence of his Colleagues, and perfectly acquainted with all the recent transactions in Europe, should have been selected for the purpose. And I have no hesitation in saying, after what I have heard the noble Lord state to-night with regard to the affairs of Italy, that in my view the importance of the transactions taking place in that country—leading, as they must, to consequences of the greatest importance, to consequences highly advantageous in themselves and conducive to the prosperity of each Italian State, but possibly also to consequences of an unfortunate nature, such as must involve the relations of Italy with other countries—required some degree of interposition. The circumstance of an agitation and a movement prevailing in that country which could not be condemned, because its professed object in each individual State was to carry into effect reforms and alterations which had not only long been desired in Italy itself, but which had frequently been urged upon the Italian States by some of the great and friendly Powers, as necessary to the welfare of the people, and as tending to preserve the peace of Europe, perhaps required that advice should be offered; but when, after those reforms had long been resisted and avoided, a moment had arrived when a simultaneous spirit of reform—temperate it might be, happily, but liable from its character to become intemperate—had manifested itself in every part of the country, there could not

1059
have been a time when it was more important that the friendly advice of England should be given; not an interference directed to any particular object, but that general interference which was calculated to encourage at once both the Governments and the population of Italy in the course in which they are engaged. So far as that course is limited to one object, namely, the internal improvement of each individual State, there cannot be a state of things in which it is more material that England should be represented in Italy, and in which the state of Italy should be made known to England, through the medium of a person of the highest authority, from the situation he held, as well as of the highest capacity to obtain information which was so desirable. I have therefore, my Lords, no hesitation in telling the noble Lord, if he is still ignorant upon that subject, that the Earl of Minto was not a mere traveller in Italy during the past month, but that the noble Earl left this country accredited to all the States of Italy with the exception of one, to which, undoubtedly, by the law of this country, as that law is understood, he could not be legally accredited. The Earl of Minto, my Lords, was instructed to proceed to Italy, to communicate with each State respectively to which he was accredited, and to offer to them the most friendly advice—to confine that advice to objects connected with the internal improvement of each State, and further to advise a course of prudence which should prevent circumstances advantageous in themselves to those States individually, and to Italy at large, from exciting the apprehensions of other Powers. I hope I have answered this question distinctly. I think the noble Lord will understand that not only the Earl of Minto, but Her Majesty's Government, are deeply sensible of the importance of preserving treaties with other Powers inviolate. Being sensible of the importance of that object, they are most anxious to avert any collision between the States of Italy at this moment, arising out of the excitement now prevailing there, which excitement might possibly be liable in its success to occasion those collisions abroad which the noble Lord deprecates, and which I deprecate as much as he. Under these circumstances, the Earl of Minto has communicated with the Italian Sovereigns; and I am justified in. stating that those Sovereigns have expressed the most cordial satisfaction—amounting almost to gratitude
1060
—at having had the opportunity of hearing from so authentic a source the advice of England, and of making their sentiments known to England. I am persuaded that the presence of the Earl of Minto in Italy has tended to prevent any disposition to excess which may have existed in that country, and, above all, to maintain that which it is so desirable to observe—a good understanding and a concurrent affection between the different Governments and the people whom they govern, directed to one common object, to which it is most essential their views should be limited, and not be led to those which would have been attended with danger at home and difficulty abroad. The noble Lord has adverted to Lord Minto's residence at Rome. On this subject I will say, that although Lord Minto could not be accredited to the Court of Rome, owing to the law to which I have alluded, it would have been a great omission if, being in Italy, and the circumstances occurring which did occur at Rome to connect the State of Rome with the condition of other States to which the noble Lord was accredited, he had not made himself acquainted with the temporal Sovereign of Rome. Undoubtedly the noble Earl has resided at Rome; and I can state to your Lordships that Her Majesty's Government have derived the most useful information from his presence there—information which they could not have obtained through any other source. But the noble Lord goes further, and asks me whether I think it desirable that a communication with the Court of Rome should be established consistently with the law. The noble Lord has his own opinion upon that subject. [Lord STANLEY: The noble Marquess is in error. I did not ask him that question.] I beg the noble Lord's pardon. The noble Lord did incidentally observe that he was not about to give an opinion upon that point; but he did say it was desirable that I should state whether in my opinion it would or would not be advantageous. The noble Lord introduced it into his speech for the purpose of avoiding an opinion. I introduce it now for the purpose of giving an opinion. I think it most desirable that this country should be represented at the Court of Rome. In my opinion it is monstrous that, while this country is represented at, and has the means of procuring the best information through the most authentic channels from, every Court and Government in Europe, in America, and in Asia—in all climes and in all quar-

1061
ters—there is a Court in the very centre of Europe where we have no means of procuring information, where we have no means either of communicating information or giving advice. There is not a Court in the world, I believe, in which it would be more useful to the British Government to be enabled to explain the nature of its own transactions, and to lay open to it the peculiar sort of influence it possesses. That cannot now be done by law; I admit it cannot be done. I think it but fair, however, to be frank, as the noble Lord called upon me to state directly what I think we ought to do. Having said so much, my Lords, there remains but one point in what the noble Lord has said, on which I feel myself called upon to remark. The noble Lord has referred to a statement which has appeared in the newspapers, to the effect that Lord Minto has expressed some sentiment on some occasion denoting sympathy with some popular feeling. I do not know what the circumstances were; I have received no authentic account of them, and I really cannot give any answer. But I am sure that on any occasion, if any such sympathy has been expressed by Lord Minto, it could only have referred to the internal proceedings of that individual State, and not in any way to the establishment of a new system of government of the whole of Italy. From its very nature the report cannot be contradicted. I presume Lord Minto was present on some public occasion when cries of different kinds were uttered. I do not know with what qualification the noble Lord did or did not sympathise with those cries; but of this I am sure, if any authentic statement of the fact can be procured, that any intimation of opinion given by Lord Minto was founded on a desire to promote, by friendly and conciliatory means, the improvement of each State of Italy; and above all, to cement the alliance between the Government and the people, by showing them the importance of acting with due consideration towards each other, in order to prevent any interference from without which might endanger existing treaties, the maintenance of which the great Powers have guaranteed. I hope I have answered distinctly all the questions put by the noble Lord. [Earl GREY here made a communication to the noble Marquess.] I am reminded by my noble Friend that I have omitted one question; the noble Lord appears to feel some apprehensions as to the mode in which the du-
1062
ties of the Lord Privy Seal have been discharged during his absence; I may state that in virtue of a commission the noble Lord left in England, all those duties have been discharged in his absence without detriment to the public service.
LORD BEAUMONTdid not wish to continue the discussion, but he could not avoid expressing his gratification at the manly assertion of the opinion of the Government by the noble Marquess. Were the law altered he had no doubt that many things brought before their Lordships as subjects of complaint would be no more heard of.

THE AFFAIRS OF SWITZERLAND.
LORD BEAUMONTrose to put a question to Her Majesty's Government respecting the proposed mediation of the Five Powers in the affairs of Switzerland. The federal compact of the cantons of Switzerland was agreed to in the year 1815, and it now formed the basis of their government. By it the sovereign independence of each canton was guaranteed; each canton was to be represented in the Central Diet; the Central Diet was to be a legislative body, and its acts carried out by the whole Confederation. Each canton had a great council and a small council, the great acting as a legislative body, and the smaller as the executive. Each of these councils sent a deputy to the General Diet; and by the federal compact all affairs relating to the foreign relations of the country, or anything dangerous to the general peace of the Swiss Confederation, were to be left solely and entirely to the decision of the Central Government. There could be no doubt that for many years a party had existed in Switzerland, called the Radical party, who objected to a portion of the compact, and by whom there had been much agitation, in order to obtain a modification of it. At one time, indeed, the Diet was inclined to adopt some alteration. A league of five cantons was formed, with the avowed intention of opposing the federal compact; but the combination being illegal, it was afterwards dissolved. During the time these struggles were going on between the Radicals on one side, who wished to alter the federal compact, and the Conservatives who wished to maintain it, certain parties, who were no doubt connected with the Jesuits, raised up a kind of religious contest. The Jesuits of Friburg, who had been unmolested by the Diet, thought proper to interfere in poli-

1063
ties, by endeavouring to obtain a majority in the general council of the canton of Valais. In that attempt they succeeded in some degree. The Diet, as well as the general councils of several cantons, thought the general peace of the Confederation was in danger from this interference. Still the ramifications of the agitation extended, and the Diet called upon the general council of one of the cantons to which they had spread to put down the agitation. The Diet proceeded in every point according to the constitution. Lucerne, however, in conjunction with six other cantons, formed a confederation which was called the Sonderbund. This confederation was infinitely more illegal than the last, because it was in direct opposition to the 5th and 6th Articles of the Federal Compact, which stated that if any difference arose between the cantons they should abstain from all acts of violence, above all from the use of arms, and conform to the decision of the Diet; also that the different cantons should not form compacts between themselves, or raise arms for war. Under these circumstances, the Diet proceeded to consider what was to be done with the Sonderbund. They first invited it to abandon the Confederation, and separate from the League; also to banish the Jesuits, as having been the cause of the disturbances. The Diet alleged that the Jesuits had made this commotion among the Swiss Confederation; but they did not declare that the Jesuits should be banished. According to the constitution of Switzerland, the Diet having decreed this, it became the duty of the Vohort to execute the decree. The cantons, however, instead of complying with the request, proceeded to arms. They recalled their deputy from the Diet, and took measures for hostilities. They formed themselves into independent governments, and assumed powers and authorities which, according to the federal compact, had been originally given solely to the Diet. The Vorort, therefore, determined to proceed to arms to put down the illegal combination. They put forth enormous power, so enormous that the Sonderbund, like Falstaff, thought discretion was the better part of valour, for, instead of fighting, as they had professed to do, the campaign was over within a week. The Jesuits had previously gone off with the whole of the revenue, leaving the people of Lucerne to fight the battle as they best could. Under these circumstances, the great Powers thought their authority would be required,
1064
and France and Austria proposed an intervention. Mediation was proposed by the remainder of the Five Powers. A note was consequently delivered, after the dissolution of the Sonderbund, on the part of the Three Powers, proposing a conference; and it appeared that at the conference a representative of the Sonderbund was to appear on exactly the same footing, and to be viewed in the same light, as the representative of the Diet. This was to acknowledge rebellion—to acknowledge the legality of the body that had given rise to these disturbances. Previously to the commencement of hostilities it might have been advisable to have had a communication with the Sonderbund, to see whether that body might send a representative to the conference to negotiate peace; but there was no Sonderbund in existence now, and therefore he wished to know whether it was intended to adhere to the terms of the conference by which a representative of the extinct Sonderbund was to be present at the conference. The question he had therefore to ask was, whether or not this country had joined in the proposal that a conference should now be held at which a representative of the Sonderbund should be present?
The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNEsaid, he would give a very brief answer to the question put by the noble Earl. Undoubtedly, although this country had never proposed to establish a conference of mediation in the affairs of Switzerland, still, when it was proposed by other Powers for this country to be a party to such a conference, his noble Friend at the head of the Foreign Department did consent, under certain limitations—the effect of which limitations would have been to prevent us from being involved in anything like hostility, still more in anything like an armed interference in the affairs of Switzerland—to be a party in a conference for the purpose of tendering to all the parties, in conjunction with the other Powers, our mediation in settling the affairs of that country. When, however, it was found that there were no longer two parties in the field, then mediation, or rather proposals for mediation, terminated altogether. Since then, without any porticipation in the proceedings of other Powers, or any active intervention in the affairs of Switzerland, Sir Stratford Canning, who was well acquainted with the affairs of that country, had been instructed to place himself, when passing through Switzerland, in communication

1065
with the authorities there, and to tender to them that advice which they might be disposed to receive from him.
House adjourned.