Lords Sitting of 2 April 1849

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1a Leasehold Tenure of Lands (Ireland).
2a Protection of Justices (Ireland): Recovery of Wages (Ireland).
3a Mutiny; Marine Mutiny; Indemnity.
PETITIONS PRESENTED. From Leitrim, for the Amendment of the Poor Law (Ireland); also to be relieved from the Repayment of any Money advanced for Public Works during the years of Famine—By the Earl of Roseberry and Marquess of Lansdowne, from Linlithgow and Devonport, for the Adoption of such Measures as shall secure to Clergymen seceding from the Church the full benefits
134
of the Acts of Toleration, and for the immediate Liberation of Mr. Shore.—By the Earl of Falmouth, from Truro, against the Repeal of the Navigation Laws.—By the Duke of Beaufort, from Chipping Sodbury and Dudley, against the Present Mode of granting Beer Licences.

THE POLISH EXILES—EXPLANATION.
The EARL of EGLINTONsaid, he wished to trouble the House with a few words of explanation on a personal matter relative to some remarks made a few nights since by a noble Earl (the Earl of Harrowby), in reference to a return moved for by him (the Earl of Eglinton) on a former occasion, respecting the Polish refugees in this country. He had no idea that the noble Earl intended to bring forward the question on Friday evening, did not come to the House; but he report of the proceedings in and had the public journals. It appeared from the statement made by the noble Earl, that be (the Earl of Eglinton) had said that the Polish refugees in this country were so dissolute as to be unworthy of public assistance. Now, what he really did say was, that no doubt there were many individuals belonging to that nation who were deserving of their admiration, and worthy of their sympathy; but it was, nevertheless, true the generality of them were turbulent. He stated he had the highest possible admiration for many of the Polish nation; and nothing could be more at variance with this statement than to assert that he said they were utterly worthless and dissolute. He thought it was a misapplication of the funds of the State to give an allowance to any foreigners—be they Poles, or anybody else—who had no claim on this country. No doubt many of the Poles were deserving of private charity; but he did not think that any foreigners ought to receive allowances from the Imperial Treasury. He did not quite understand the discrepancy that occurred between this return and the miscellaneous estimates. He found in the miscellaneous estimates that the allowance for the Poles was estimated at 8,700 l. during the year from the 31st of March, 1848, to the 3Ist of March, 1849. But in the return he found that, from the 28th of March, 1848, to the 26th of March, 1849, the whole amount was only 6,659 l., leaving a difference of two thousand and odd pounds to be expended during a few days. Either the miscellaneous estimates were not made out correctly, or those returns were not correct, or the Poles had been in very great distress during those few days.
The EARL of HARROWBYsaid, it was rather a petty warfare to be carried on against the unfortunate Poles to institute an investigation into their lives and morals, and believe all the tittle-tattle that was said against them. The information sought to be obtained when the return was moved for was of this character; and he was sorry that the noble Earl, because he disapproved of the allowance to the Poles, should have sought to attack their private character.
The EARL of EGLINTONhad only wished to explain that he did not characterise the whole of the Poles as unworthy and profligate. With reference to the statement which he had made when he moved for the returns, that the medical relief afforded to the Poles had been chiefly for diseases arising from profligacy, he was very glad to find from the statement made by the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Lansdowne) on Friday evening, that no case had been made out to justify that statement; and he regretted having made it.

STATE OF IRELAND.
EARL FITZWILLIAMpresented a petition from the Grand Jury of the county of Tipperary against the rate in aid. The persons who signed would prefer an income tax in Ireland to a rate in aid.
LORD MONTEAGLEthought it was satisfactory to see, on the part of petitioners—north, south, east, and west—that there was manifestly no indisposition to contribute for the relief of existing distress; but their objection was to the proposed mode of taxation. He wished to take the opportunity of making one remark—though, perhaps, it was not regularly connected with the petition—with respect to a proposition that had been thrown out in another place for the improvement of Ireland. For the first time since the Union there was put forward a large and extended measure, which was calculated to improve the condition of that country. He could not but hail it as a matter of great hope for the country with which he was connected, that there should be found somebody who would undertake to bring the case forward, and discuss the question of Ireland, not with a view to prop up a system defective in itself, and which had been found wanting on the occasion when its services were most required, but to discuss the case of Ireland for the purpose of seeing what remedy it would be expedient to apply to that case.
136
He viewed the period at which this proposition was put forward as a very great era, and he considered the proposition itself as an important event in the times in which they lived. He trusted that that proposition would receive due consideration, with a view to meeting the peculiar circumstances of the people of Ireland.
EARL FITZWILLIAMbegged, in consequence of what had fallen from his noble Friend, to say a few words. He entirely concurred in the observations he had made in relation to a proposition of which, though not regularly before them, they had obtained some information. As far as he understood the proposition, the object of the right hon. Baronet who brought the question before the other House of Parliament was, to deal with the population of Ireland in three different modes—that is to say, he would encourage their employment by private employers; he would employ another portion of them in public works; and he would either assist or provide, on the part of the State, for the emigration of others. Those three points had since passed through his (Earl Fitzwilliam's) mind, and he had endeavoured to take them into his consideration. The proposition had come before the public from high authority, and if he had not detailed a very minute plan, he had at least sketched out for the consideration of the public the most useful proposition that ever had been yet made for the improvement of Ireland. He trusted that, coming from that high quarter, it would obtain more consideration than a similar plan had obtained when suggested by an isolated individual like himself (Lord Fitzwilliam). He would not be satisfied in his own mind if he did not express how much he felt to that Gentleman for having made that proposition. He did so with more satisfaction because with that right hon. Gentleman he had not the slightest connexion or communication.

THE AFFAIRS OF NORTHERN ITALY.
The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNEhaving moved the Third Reading of the Mutiny Bill,
LORD BROUGHAMbegged to put a question to the noble Lord with reference to the accuracy of a report that had reached him from Paris. It was alleged that the Polish general who lately distinguished himself—no, who had lately extinguished himself, for that was nearer the fact—who had lately been commander-in-chief

137
of the army of the late King Charles Albert in the late war against Austria, had been recommended to his late Majesty by the Government of this country. Was it true that that Polish general was so recommended? It was said that the Government of this country had before employed him on some foreign mission, and had great confidence in his military tactics. He (Lord Brougham) had received a letter from Paris making that statement, and his answer was that he could not believe it; because nobody could do anything so preposterous as first to recommend a gentleman, and then to feel highly rejoiced, and to felicitate the Austrian Government, at the total defeat of that general. Therefore, he (Lord Brougham) said he did not believe that any such discrepancy could exist between the secret councils and the spoken words of his noble Friend opposite; but it would be more satisfactory if they received an answer from the noble Marquess himself.
The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNE: As to the individual in question, whose name he was not able to pronounce, and who had not yet been named by his noble and learned Friend opposite—[Lord BROUGHAM: I am no more able to pronounce it than you; but you know well who I mean.] Well, then, that individual had in no way been recommended by this country to the King of Sardinia as a fit person to command his armies in chief. He would even go further, and say that no individual, either Pole or other foreigner, had been recommended to any such office by the Ministers of Her Majesty. It was no part of their duty to recommend to the Sovereign of Sardinia, or indeed to the sovereign of any other kingdom, the persons whom they ought to employ in the command of their armies.
The EARL of ABERDEENsaid, that he was not at all surprised that such a notion as that referred to by the noble and learned Lord should be abroad, considering the manifest partiality which had been exhibited by Her Majesty's Ministers to Sardinia, and the no less manifest ill-will which they had exhibited towards Austria. Though every person must have anticipated the answer of the noble Marquess, yet when it was known that the person referred to had formerly been in the employment (confidentially, he believed) of the English Government, the circumstance gave rise to the supposition that was entertained; and the feeling that had been evinced by the Government of this country
138
towards one of the parties in the war might have given a sort of countenance to the notion that this person had been recommended by Her Majesty's Government. Although the feelings which had at one time been entertained by Her Majesty's Government with respect to the Sardinian cause could not have been mistaken, he must say that never in his life had he witnessed more entire unanimity amongst persons of all parties than was displayed at the result which had taken place, or more perfect satisfaction than had been manifested by all men at the party in fault being so promptly and signally punished. He presumed that the armistice lately entered into between the two parties was without any interference on the part of the English and French Ministers, and that the treaty had been entered into by Marshal Radetsky with the King himself, He hoped that their mediation would not be interposed for the purpose of restoring peace, because he was convinced that the effect of that mediation inevitably would be to prolong the state of war. Their mediation in August, which was entirely unasked for, had no other practical effect than to continue the state of war for six months, though active hostilities were suspended. Were it not for their mediation, peace would then have been made, and there was nothing now to prevent it from being made. When the British Government offered their mediation, it seemed to have been forgotten that the late King of Sardinia had committed an outrage against us, as well as against Austria. He broke his treaty with us, and, therefore, what had induced our Government to mediate he could not imagine. When both parties are wrong, which is generally the case among nations who go to war, there is good reason for a friendly Power to mediate between them; but here, where the Sardinian Government had not only committed a violation of all faith with the Austrian General, but had also committed a similar violation of faith with respect to us as he had done by his violation of the Treaty of Vienna, into which Sardinia had entered, not with Austria only, but with Great Britain—he confessed he did not see on what ground they were called upon to mediate in his behalf. In God's name, then, let the French Government have the entire credit of preserving the integrity of the Sardinian territories—there was no occasion for us to interfere to secure its integrity. The integrity of Piedmont had,

139
in fact, never been threatened by Austria; on the contrary, Marshal Radetsky had expressly declared his intentions on this head. But as for the British Government to interfere after the treaty had been so scandalously violated, that, he trusted, would not be done, unless, indeed, the Government were prepared to adopt the strong terms of M. Lamartine, and say that the treaties of 1815 had no longer any existence, for then, of course, the violation of the treaty would be a matter of little consequence to us. But if we were to look at treaties as we should do, and as he presumed the noble Marquess would do, then the violation of that treaty by the Sardinian Government must be considered as an offence towards all the parties who had acceded to them. In conclusion, he would again earnestly express a hope that as an armistice had been made without our intervention, we should not prevent the conclusion of peace by our mediation.
The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNEsaid, that after the observations which had so unexpectedly fallen from the noble Earl who had just resumed his seat, it became necessary for him to offer a few remarks in defence of the Government which he had assailed. The noble Earl had favoured them with one piece of information which did not, however, bear very directly on the present question. He (the Marquess of Lansdowne) believed that it was correct that the Polish officer, whose name was unpronounceable, had some years ago been employed by our Ambassador at Constantinople as an auxiliary in procuring information; and it was very possible that the knowledge of that fact might have assisted him in procuring employment at the Court of Turin. But no recommendation in his favour had gone from this country to Turin; and, until recent events had made his name conspicuous, Her Majesty's Ministers were ignorant that he was in the employment of the late King of Sardinia. The noble Earl had stated, that it was only natural that this rumour should get abroad, in consequence of the partiality which Her Majesty's Ministers had displayed towards Piedmont in its late contest with Austria. The noble Earl had made up his mind on certain private grounds as to the existence of that partiality. What the noble Earl's private information might be was better known to the noble Earl than himself; but he (the Marquess of Lansdowne) had no hesitation in affirming that the noble Earl had no public ground whatever for accusing Ministers of partiality
140
towards the King of Sardinia. All the information on which the noble Earl relied was founded on private and on partial sources; and he (the Marquess of Lansdowne) submitted, that the noble Earl would have shown more fairness, more justice, and even more judgment, if he had not pronounced an opinion that the Ministers of his Sovereign had acted partially, until he had seen a full, fair, and impartial production of the diplomatic papers. The noble Earl had also warned Her Majesty's Ministers not to interpose its mediation between the parties recently at war, but now about to conclude peace. There was no such intention on the part of Her Majesty's Government. Neither now, nor at any former period, had they ever thrust or forced their mediation upon any Power; but he would not say, that if either Austria or Sardinia should now ask, as they asked in the May of last year, for our mediation, Her Majesty's Government would be prepared to withhold it, on the ground that the noble Earl, who said that it ought not to be given, was the best judge of its importance, and not those interested parties who of their own accord sought to obtain it.
The EARL of ABERDEEN: When the noble Marquess stated that he had no public ground for accusing Her Majesty's Government of partiality, he must say that he had, and that he had proved it the other night. He must say, that by publishing an accusation against the supposed conduct of Austria, although they possessed at the time, and kept in their pockets for many months, the answer to that accusation, they did in the most manifest manner put themselves in the situation of persons exhibiting the utmost partiality as between those Powers. Those matters were public, and it was on no other than on public grounds he made that statement. Our mediation was not asked for, but was offered in August last, and accepted at once by Sardinia. The very fact of our offering our mediation on behalf of a Power whose conduct we ought properly to have resented—for, strictly speaking, Sardinia had given us cause of war if we adhered to the strict obligations of treaties—savoured strongly of partiality. Not that he said they should so resent it; but he complained that the conduct of Her Majesty's Government had been marked throughout by a spirit of partiality towards a person who had committed a most flag-rant violation of a treaty to which they were parties.
The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNEreplied, that our mediation had been asked for by Austria in May last. He did not consider that Her Majesty's Government had thrust their mediation on either party; and he was prepared to assure the noble Lord, that Her Majesty's Government did not intend to thrust their mediation upon those Powers at any future time. The noble Earl had thought himself justified in condemning the Government for partiality in its proceedings, founding the charge upon two or three particular papers laid upon the table a year ago; and this at a moment when the papers relating to the whole of the transactions—from a connected examination of which the conduct of Her Majesty's Government could alone fairly be judged—were about to be laid before their Lordships. It was before the whole of these papers were laid before the House that the noble Lord prepared to pass his judgment upon the proceedings of Her Majesty's Government; and the noble Lord had thought himself justified in coming to a decision with only two or three of the papers before him.
LORD BROUGHAMexpressed his great satisfaction at the answer given by his noble Friend the President of the Council to the question which he (Lord Brougham) had asked respecting the recommendation of the Polish general. He had been informed of the rumours to which he had alluded by private letters, received last week from Paris; and in the interval between Saturday and that day those rumours had been confirmed by a higher authority than before. These were the reasons that induced him to put this question to the noble Marquess; but after the full and frank denial of the noble Marquess, who had said that no such recommendation of this general had been given by Her Majesty's Government, there was an end of the matter. As to the question of the partiality shown by Her Majesty's Government towards Sardinia, he would not enter into the subject until the necessary papers were laid upon the table; but he wished to observe, that he expected those promised papers would show anything rather than a partiality towards Sardinia, and ill-will towards Austria, at least during the last few months. He was perfectly certain—as certain as he was of his own existence, or of anything else—that Her Majesty's Government had done all they possibly could, and had been bonâ fide anxious and zealous to prevent the rash and fatal step which Charles Albert had so
142
perfidiously and unaccountably taken, and thereby brought upon himself defeat and ruin. He wished now to speak with reserve and tenderness of that Prince in his misfortunes—he had suffered for his demerits, and fallen from his high estate; and this he would say in justice towards him, that he had shown no lack of courage in sustaining the battle, although he had failed in it. But he must speak with indignation, disgust, and contempt, of the Milanese agitators, who were now employed in libelling this Prince, the only person who had drawn a sword in behalf of the Milanese themselves. The Milanese had never sent one man or drawn one sword for their cause, and not one of them was to be found either among the prisoners, or the dead that were mowed down by Radetsky's cannon. So much he would say in passing of these Milanese agitators; but he firmly believed that Charles Albert had been driven on in his desperate career, in spite of himself, by the agitators of Paris and Turin, and was therefore, perhaps, more to be pitied than blamed for what had recently occurred. And he would say, that he firmly believed Her Majesty's Government had had no hand in it; on the contrary, he believed that they had earnestly, and in good faith, done all they could (and in this they were only pursuing a wise policy) to prevent him from rushing on to his destruction, and thereby endangering the peace of Europe and the world. It would have boon well, however, if Her Majesty's Government had shown the same zeal, prudence, and foresight on the 11th of September, 1847, when they wrote their famous despatch. They had not treated Austria as they had treated Piedmont—they advised Piedmont as a friend, and threatened Austria as an enemy. He (Lord Brougham) would not enter into the subject further, but merely say, that the charge he now repeated had been made against the conduct of the Government months ago—the Government had full notice then—they had, then, on his (Lord Brougham's) Motion, well understood the charge; now the noble Marquess had misunderstood the charge; and it had received no kind of answer either then or now.
The EARL of ELLENBOROUGHdid not rise to give any opinion on the subject of our alleged recommendation of the Polish general, or on the charge of partiality preferred against Her Majesty's Ministers for their conduct in the late warfare in Piedmont. His sole object was to comment on a principle which he thought had been hastily

143
and erroneously propounded by Her Majesty's late Secretary for Foreign Affairs. He had heard with great surprise the declaration of the noble Earl, that we ought to leave to France alone the preservation of the integrity of the Sardinian monarchy. Now, the union of Genoa with Sardinia was our own work, and it was thought to be one of the worst works which we had achieved in the settlement of Europe made in 1815. It was as much for the honour and interest of England as it was for the honour and interest of France to maintain intact the integrity of the Sardinian monarchy. He therefore trusted that Her Majesty's Government would not be found wanting, if the necessity should arise, in declaring their determination, at least as strongly as France expressed hers, not to suffer any infringement whatever of the territorial limits of the Sardinian monarchy.
The EARL of ABERDEENobserved, that he was a Scotchman, and if he had not known to the contrary, he should have imagined that his noble Friend (Lord Ellenborough) was a Scotchman too—for he had often heard it said that there never yet was a Scotchman who understood a joke. What he had said about the sole mediation of France was a joke, or rather an unhappy attempt at a joke; and his noble Friend seemed to think that he was in car-nest. He meant to say that the integrity of Piedmont was in no danger, and that all the magniloquent eloquence in which some parties indulged respecting the necessity of preserving its integrity was mere moonshine, and not worthy of notice. He admitted that, if the integrity of Piedmont should be in danger, we were bound as much as France to protect it.
LORD BROUGHAMremarked, that he earnestly wished it to go forth to the world, so as to he generally understood on the other side of the water, that with reference to the recent transactions in the north of Italy, there never yet was a victory obtained by one foreign force over another foreign force which had so universally excited the admiration and gratified the feelings, as well as satisfied the principles, of all parties in this country.
EARL FITZWILLIAMhad no wish to justify a breach of faith on the part of any monarch, but he thought that some of the remarks which had fallen from the other side of the House had borne rather hard upon the Prince who was now suffering the consequences of a defeat. Jokes, too, had been made; but he must he allowed to say that he thought it not very good taste
144
in this—perhaps the first and gravest assembly in Europe—to indulge in that peculiar species of eloquence. The noble and learned Lord had attacked the Milanese in his own peculiar and sarcastic manner. His noble Friend opposite had talked of "perfidy and ambition 'on the part of the late Sardinian monarch, and seemed to suppose that these things had never been found in the counsels of any other nation. Let him recollect, if the same measure of reprobation and condemnation as had just been visited upon the head of a Sovereign who had failed, had been always dealt out by this country towards monarchs whose "perfidy and ambition" had met with a different fate, and been successful in effecting its designs, what were they to say of a monarch, of whose alliance we were proud, who was united by blood with the Royal Family of England, and who was toasted and feted as the Protestant hero whom England was to caress, and with whom she was bound to sympathise—what, he asked, were they to say of Frederick the Great, who, in the hour of her distress, robbed Austria of Silesia, guaranteed to her by long possession and innumerable treaties? He also called on their Lordships to remark the wide discrepancy which existed between the speech of the noble Earl on Friday last and on the present occasion. Now his Lordship spoke of the perfidy and ambition of Charles Albert; but on the former occasion he asserted that Charles Albert was not his own master, but was driven on to actions which he disapproved by the republicans of Piedmont and of Paris. He believed that Charles Albert had been conscientiously anxious to relieve his country from the domination of Austria, which was novel to Italy. Spanish sovereigns had reigned in that country for some centuries; but Italy had never been subject to Austrian domination until the Peace of Utrecht. Too much had been said of ambition and perfidy on that occasion, considering that in other cases, for instance in Poland, we had been ready enough to congratulate the Powers who displayed it on their good fortune and success.
The Mutiny Bill was then read 3a, and passed.
House adjourned till To-morrow.